Is it just me?? 2 2

[MarkFeld]

4 hours ago, RWB said:

Mr. Feld is an experienced numismatist of high repute and wide experience. His excellent observational skills and attention to detail in examining coins is widely recognized by collectors and coin business leaders. He is clearly an important asset to numismatics and to the company for which he works.

 

 

 

He is not an experienced researcher.

 

 

 

RWB

 

Thank you, Roger, and you get no argument from me - I’m not an experienced researcher, while you’re an extraordinary one.

[Moxie15]

that's okay I just have never seen anything that said what made them Special but the TPG seems to know

[VKurtB]

It strikes me (pun intended) odd that this thread seems to circulate (again, pun intended) around the alleged 1964 SMS cents, when the Kennedy halves have gotten most of the numismatic attention. Where is the stinkin’ love for Jefferson, FDR, and George? 
 

I steadfastly refuse (decline?) to take any position until and unless I get to hold an alleged SMS 1964 coin in my own hands, which will pretty much require one to come up for auction during a major national show, and I get the time to go look at it in the lot viewing room.

 

But I caution @RWB to remember that absence of evidence does not imply evidence of absence. It’s a frequently tripped over fallacy.

Edited August 31, 2020 by VKurtB

[MarkFeld]

1 hour ago, VKurtB said:

It strikes me (pun intended) odd that this thread seems to circulate (again, pun intended) around the alleged 1964 SMS cents, when the Kennedy halves have gotten most of the numismatic attention. Where is the stinkin’ love for Jefferson, FDR, and George? 
 

I steadfastly refuse (decline?) to take any position until and unless I get to hold an alleged SMS 1964 coin in my own hands, which will pretty much require one to come up for auction during a major national show, and I get the time to go look at it in the lot viewing room.

 

But I caution @RWB to remember that absence of evidence does not imply evidence of absence. It’s a frequently tripped over fallacy.

That sounds like a perfectly reasonable approach.

[physics-fan3.14]

7 hours ago, RWB said:

Mr. Feld is an experienced numismatist of high repute and wide experience. His excellent observational skills and attention to detail in examining coins is widely recognized by collectors and coin business leaders. He is clearly an important asset to numismatics and to the company for which he works.

 

 

 

He is not an experienced researcher.

 

 

 

RWB

 

 

3 hours ago, MarkFeld said:

Thank you, Roger, and you get no argument from me - I’m not an experienced researcher, while you’re an extraordinary one.

Roger, have you ever written about the 64 SMS coins? Either proving or dis-proving their existence? I can't recall any concrete information from you either way - but I highly respect your research, in spite of traditional numismatic "knowledge." Perhaps start a new thread and make a case for/against their existence? 

I think my general approach is: if there is no evidence to prove it exists, I have to doubt it's existence. Some can claim that "it looks different" or that "it must have been prepared specially" - but without evidence that proves it, its just speculation. This applies, for example, to the so-called specimen 1794 dollar. That same approach applies to things closer to what I collect - the 1949S Franklin dollar in Prooflike was once conjectured to be a special presentation piece prepared for the ANA show. However, the people who claimed that had no knowledge of the PL pieces from the S mint in the 40's. They were unusual, but not unheard of. They weren't special presentation pieces, even though they had a special (prooflike) appearance. It was just a happy accident. 

As for several of the other examples listed in the op (struck on nail, struck on canadian quarter) - those are just absolutely ridiculous and not physically possible without intervention from a mint worker. To me, they are forgeries akin to the 1913 Liberty nickel, and not really worth anything. 

Edited September 1, 2020 by physics-fan3.14

[World Colonial]

1 minute ago, physics-fan3.14 said:

To me, they are forgeries akin to the 1913 Liberty nickel, and not really worth anything. 

I think of the 1913 LHN as a fantasy coin.

I also see it no differently than any number of pattern coins (trial strikes and experimental pieces) that I would put in the same category.  I can't list them all since I don't know the circumstances under which all were made but collectively, I consider these coins as near the top of the most overrated coinage anywhere, often with unique designs but where there is nothing unusual in the scarcity and it sells for (hugely) inflated prices due to an exaggerated distinction.  Among the worst are the 1866 No motto quarter, half and dollar which don't belong in the Red Book as part of the series.

[Henri Charriere]

4 hours ago, MarkFeld said:

Thank you, Roger, and you get no argument from me - I’m not an experienced researcher, while you’re an extraordinary one.

[Unsolicited editorial comment and query]:

Gentlemen, 

Did someone say experienced researcher?   As you both know, tho I may be a prickly itinerant troll at times with credibility questionable if not wholly suspect, at best, I have made no secret of my general  disdain for the practice of cracking coins out of their in perpetuity slumber.

A seemingly forbidden question...  As I lack the necessary security clearance to delve into this matter with specificity, and seeing as how the activity hereinabove described smacks of crude primitivity at best, drawing on your vast knowledge and experience of the hobby, can either of you -- or anyone else reading this for that matter, divulge to me the formal name of the tool used to disinter coins safely from slabs and the source from which such an implement may lawfully be obtained?  My interest, as always, is purely academic.

Postscript:  May I politely point out the term "business strike" did not exist in 1964.  Life was simpler back then. There were Mint sets, comprised of Uncirculated coins which were not graded, and Proof sets which, from 1936 on, were above reproach if presented in their original, flimsy U.S. Mint packaging. Old-timers may fondly recall that Pluto was still being described as a planet.)

[Just Bob]

1 hour ago, Quintus Arrius said:

-- or anyone else reading this for that matter, divulge to me the formal name of the tool used to disinter coins safely from slabs and the source from which such an implement may lawfully be obtained?  

It's called a hammer.

You can buy one at Home Depot.

 

 

 

 

 

[MarkFeld]

6 hours ago, Quintus Arrius said:

[Unsolicited editorial comment and query]:

Gentlemen, 

Did someone say experienced researcher?   As you both know, tho I may be a prickly itinerant troll at times with credibility questionable if not wholly suspect, at best, I have made no secret of my general  disdain for the practice of cracking coins out of their in perpetuity slumber.

A seemingly forbidden question...  As I lack the necessary security clearance to delve into this matter with specificity, and seeing as how the activity hereinabove described smacks of crude primitivity at best, drawing on your vast knowledge and experience of the hobby, can either of you -- or anyone else reading this for that matter, divulge to me the formal name of the tool used to disinter coins safely from slabs and the source from which such an implement may lawfully be obtained?  My interest, as always, is purely academic.

Postscript:  May I politely point out the term "business strike" did not exist in 1964.  Life was simpler back then. There were Mint sets, comprised of Uncirculated coins which were not graded, and Proof sets which, from 1936 on, were above reproach if presented in their original, flimsy U.S. Mint packaging. Old-timers may fondly recall that Pluto was still being described as a planet.)

With respect to the lack of the term “business strike” in 1964, what were non-proof coins/non-mint set coins that were made for commerce, called at that time?

[Moxie15]

13 hours ago, VKurtB said:

 

But I caution @RWB to remember that absence of evidence does not imply evidence of absence. It’s a frequently tripped over fallacy.

@VKurtB You are correct, but you tread on thin ice as this can quickly lead to un-reason 

for instance;

There is no credible or scientific evidence that...

ANY God exist

Aliens exist

Ghost exist

You have to believe they exist for them to exist. It is not logical nor reasonable, it is belief.

[VKurtB]

3 hours ago, Moxie15 said:

@VKurtB You are correct, but you tread on thin ice as this can quickly lead to un-reason 

for instance;

There is no credible or scientific evidence that...

ANY God exist

Aliens exist

Ghost exist

You have to believe they exist for them to exist. It is not logical nor reasonable, it is belief.

But there CAN BE NO empirical evidence that at least God or ghosts exist. It is part of their very nature. Aliens are in a slightly different category. I happen to believe they exist somewhere in the cosmos, but they have never been here, and we will never be there, because we simply are too far apart. We can barely develop the science to visit Mars. 
 

I don’t find the existence of 1964 SMS coins at all implausible given their provenance and the all-too-frequent misdeeds of past Mint management. I do not expect there to be documentary evidence of them. Even stupid people are seldom stupid enough to leave written evidence of their misdeeds. 

I have seen and held in my very own hands the test strikes of a “new heretofore unknown stainless steel alloy” five cent piece, using the Martha Washington effigy and legends similar to the 2006-present nickel. Is there evidence in the documents? I do not know and do not care. They exist, and I’ve held them AND the webbing from which the blanks were punched.

[Henri Charriere]

6 hours ago, MarkFeld said:

With respect to the lack of the term “business strike” in 1964, what were non-proof coins/non-mint set coins that were made for commerce, called at that time?

The millions, then billions of coins?  Ordinary change.  Graded with names, not numbers.  When the common copper cent was predominantly copper; the "silver," so-called, referred to their precious metal content.  When the centennial gold coins were announced with great fanfare in 2016, I was an enthusiastic buyer expecting to receive what had always been my now deceased mother's favorite coin, the "Mercury" dime, exquisitely rendered in excruciating detail. Instead, I got a Ratzie-like replica, poorly executed, in a presentation box not at all worthy of the price exacted. That was the first time I was rudely awakened by the clever construct termed a "business strike." My first and only thought was, and still is, I WUZ ROBBED!  And I don't care if gold skyrockets to $50,000 an ounce, I will sell this atrocity to a Young Numismatist for less than what I paid for it, at the recorded for all posterity, Mint-issued price, and throw in free postage, to boot.  This will constitute my final statement on this most detestable term.

[MarkFeld]

1 hour ago, Quintus Arrius said:

The millions, then billions of coins?  Ordinary change.  Graded with names, not numbers.  When the common copper cent was predominantly copper; the "silver," so-called, referred to their precious metal content.  When the centennial gold coins were announced with great fanfare in 2016, I was an enthusiastic buyer expecting to receive what had always been my now deceased mother's favorite coin, the "Mercury" dime, exquisitely rendered in excruciating detail. Instead, I got a Ratzie-like replica, poorly executed, in a presentation box not at all worthy of the price exacted. That was the first time I was rudely awakened by the clever construct termed a "business strike." My first and only thought was, and still is, I WUZ ROBBED!  And I don't care if gold skyrockets to $50,000 an ounce, I will sell this atrocity to a Young Numismatist for less than what I paid for it, at the recorded for all posterity, Mint-issued price, and throw in free postage, to boot.  This will constitute my final statement on this most detestable term.

I have a hard time believing that there wasn't a more formal way of distinguishing Proof coins from business strikes/circulation strikes, than using the term "change".

[VKurtB]

17 minutes ago, MarkFeld said:

I have a hard time believing that there wasn't a more formal way of distinguishing Proof coins from business strikes/circulation strikes, than using the term "change".

I assure you, I have been an active collector since 1963 and I swear I never heard the term “business strike” until the mid-1980’s, if that early. Maybe later. It’s self-explanatory, but it was never used. The context in which I first heard it used was to distinguish a 1965-67 SMS coin from one off the regular production floor. 

[VKurtB]

2 hours ago, Quintus Arrius said:

The millions, then billions of coins?  Ordinary change.  Graded with names, not numbers.  When the common copper cent was predominantly copper; the "silver," so-called, referred to their precious metal content.  When the centennial gold coins were announced with great fanfare in 2016, I was an enthusiastic buyer expecting to receive what had always been my now deceased mother's favorite coin, the "Mercury" dime, exquisitely rendered in excruciating detail. Instead, I got a Ratzie-like replica, poorly executed, in a presentation box not at all worthy of the price exacted. That was the first time I was rudely awakened by the clever construct termed a "business strike." My first and only thought was, and still is, I WUZ ROBBED!  And I don't care if gold skyrockets to $50,000 an ounce, I will sell this atrocity to a Young Numismatist for less than what I paid for it, at the recorded for all posterity, Mint-issued price, and throw in free postage, to boot.  This will constitute my final statement on this most detestable term.

Mike Nottelmann of the Coin Show Radio podcast once described the centennial gold coins (all three denominations) as “crimes against humanity”, and I’m pretty sure I agree. 

[Moxie15]

3 hours ago, VKurtB said:

I assure you, I have been an active collector since 1963 and I swear I never heard the term “business strike” until the mid-1980’s, if that early. Maybe later. It’s self-explanatory, but it was never used. The context in which I first heard it used was to distinguish a 1965-67 SMS coin from one off the regular production floor. 

Can someone tell me what exactly is different on the 1965-67 SMS coins from a business strike and how it is achieved?

[MarkFeld]

34 minutes ago, Moxie15 said:

Can someone tell me what exactly is different on the 1965-67 SMS coins from a business strike and how it is achieved?

If you look at on-line images of a number of 1965-1967 SMS coins you should be able to see how they differ from business strike examples. 

[Henri Charriere]

5 hours ago, MarkFeld said:

I have a hard time believing that there wasn't a more formal way of distinguishing Proof coins from business strikes/circulation strikes, than using the term "change".

Goaded by your gentle prodding, I dove into the web and discovered the term used was quite simply referred to as a "circulation" strike.

[MarkFeld]

15 minutes ago, Quintus Arrius said:

Goaded by your gentle prodding, I dove into the web and discovered the term used was quite simply referred to as a "circulation" strike.

Excellent! 

[Moxie15]

31 minutes ago, MarkFeld said:

If you look at on-line images of a number of 1965-1967 SMS coins you should be able to see how they differ from business strike examples. 

yes sir, I have seen that, I guess my question is an extension of what I asked you earlier, What was done to make them look different?

[Insider]

On 8/31/2020 at 1:34 PM, RWB said:

That is an emotional reaction. The number of exceptional pieces off new dies is very small - possibly 25 to 50 before mechanical stresses on the dies change the surface. Of course, the change is gradual since it is not a deliberate process as in 1965 et al. The key is not how many Unc 1964 coins one has seen, but how many very early strikes from new dies have been seen, The number is tiny - largely because few were kept. That Ms. Adams had some of that some were given to the Smithsonian, is actually evidence of their normality - the director would have been the first person to receive brand new coins each year simply because they were the very best production pieces.

Where the argument of Insider and others fails is the assumption: "different in appearance" demands a "difference in production" - the two are not linked. As every coin collector with minimal experience knows, dies change during their use, hence early, middle, late, very late, past curfew, etc die states in common use by Morgan dollar and other variety collectors.

As I've stated before, the phony 1964 SMS coins are visually different but produced exactly the same as other coins from the same dies. Therefore, they are not something "new" or "special" but merely part of the normal output, from normal dies, struck on a normal press, by normal people, on a normal day in Philadelphia.

I don't get emotional over coins.  I do get very emotional over the opinions of "ex-perts."   I'll expand on what I posted.  I have NEVER SEEN a business strike coin from brand new dies that looks anything close to even the last strike of a Special Mint Set cent.  Furthermore, I'm sick and tired of the TPGS calling so many coins "specimens," but in this case, I'm with them.   So, IMO, something was done to the dies that made these coins different.  A prototype finish as a test for the proposed (?) future SMS coins makes the most sense.  Mrs. Adams was no dummy.  Apparently, she did the same thing as some of her predecessors and saved some souvenirs.    

Furthermore, I like to suggest members ignore this statement: "...different in appearance" demands a "difference in production" - the two are not linked."  As we all should know (I read From Mine to Mint), the production of a coin involves the settings on a coin press, the preparation of the planchet, and the preparation of a die.  These THREE THINGS are linked because anything done to either of these parts needed to produce a coin will change the appearance of the finished product!   Thus, while we were not around to see something made its appearance will offer clues.

 

[MarkFeld]

57 minutes ago, Moxie15 said:

yes sir, I have seen that, I guess my question is an extension of what I asked you earlier, What was done to make them look different?

I don’t think you’ll get an answer. The coins were produced more than 50 years ago and if (as many believe) they were experimental, there are likely no records of them.

[VKurtB]

1 hour ago, Insider said:

Mrs. Adams was no dummy.  Apparently, she did the same thing as some of her predecessors and saved some souvenirs.

In Pennsylvania law, we call that the conversion of a public asset for private use and it is a criminal offense.

[VKurtB]

1 hour ago, Insider said:

I don't get emotional over coins.  I do get very emotional over the opinions of "ex-perts."   I'll expand on what I posted.  I have NEVER SEEN a business strike coin from brand new dies that looks anything close to even the last strike of a Special Mint Set cent.  Furthermore, I'm sick and tired of the TPGS calling so many coins "specimens," but in this case, I'm with them.   So, IMO, something was done to the dies that made these coins different.  A prototype finish as a test for the proposed (?) future SMS coins makes the most sense.  Mrs. Adams was no dummy.  Apparently, she did the same thing as some of her predecessors and saved some souvenirs.    

Furthermore, I like to suggest members ignore this statement: "...different in appearance" demands a "difference in production" - the two are not linked."  As we all should know (I read From Mine to Mint), the production of a coin involves the settings on a coin press, the preparation of the planchet, and the preparation of a die.  These THREE THINGS are linked because anything done to either of these parts needed to produce a coin will change the appearance of the finished product!   Thus, while we were not around to see something made its appearance will offer clues.

 

What? No omnipresent cell phone cameras? How ever did they survive? /s

[Henri Charriere]

It is probably a bit late to make mention of this now, what with the thread moving along nicely at Mach One speed, but if one were to Google (or Duckduckgo) "sms coin," one will stumble across one question among many entitled:  "How can I identify SMS coins?"  A YouTube video will pop up which may either answer members' questions -- or, in the alternative, re-ignite the fury besetting this thread.  Either way, it's worth a look-see.

(And in case anyone watching may have missed it, no less an authority than MarkFelt -- an expert a viewer once suggested I ought to have on my side -- characterized a casual comment I had made earlier on this thread, as "Excellent!"  Is this Forum the Greatest Of All Time, or what?)

[MarkFeld]

21 minutes ago, Quintus Arrius said:

It is probably a bit late to make mention of this now, what with the thread moving along nicely at Mach One speed, but if one were to Google (or Duckduckgo) "sms coin," one will stumble across one question among many entitled:  "How can I identify SMS coins?"  A YouTube video will pop up which may either answer members' questions -- or, in the alternative, re-ignite the fury besetting this thread.  Either way, it's worth a look-see.

(And in case anyone watching may have missed it, no less an authority than MarkFelt -- an expert a viewer once suggested I ought to have on my side -- characterized a casual comment I had made earlier on this thread, as "Excellent!"  Is this Forum the Greatest Of All Time, or what?)

Mark “Felt“ has not posted here, but I have.

There are a number of YouTube videos that put out incorrect “information”. I receive inquiries about 1964 SMS coins, just about every week.

[VKurtB]

4 hours ago, Moxie15 said:

Can someone tell me what exactly is different on the 1965-67 SMS coins from a business strike and how it is achieved?

I have to go strictly on memory from an article read lonnnng ago, so bear with me. The dies AND the planchets were specially prepared but there was no mirror proof finish applied to the dies, nor were they struck more than once. I do believe they were struck at higher pressure and at a much slower speed than the production version. The existence of PL SMS coins and even a few cameo PL’s, mostly on Kennedy halves, remains a puzzle, other than fresh dies. The 1965 PL’s require more of a trained eye to see them, because of the inferior 1965 packaging. Some people lack the ability to see cameo proofs in original 1955-1964 flat pack proof sets, too.

[VKurtB]

53 minutes ago, MarkFeld said:

Mark “Felt“ has not posted here, but I have.

There are a number of YouTube videos that put out incorrect “information”. I receive inquiries about 1964 SMS coins, just about every week.

You have my sincerest sympathies about that. Everybody thinks they have the Holy Grail. Me? I’d metaphorically bite their heads off. But that’s just me and how I react to people who can’t work with probability.

[Moxie15]

8 hours ago, VKurtB said:

I have to go strictly on memory from an article read lonnnng ago, so bear with me. The dies AND the planchets were specially prepared but there was no mirror proof finish applied to the dies, nor were they struck more than once. I do believe they were struck at higher pressure and at a much slower speed than the production version. The existence of PL SMS coins and even a few cameo PL’s, mostly on Kennedy halves, remains a puzzle, other than fresh dies. The 1965 PL’s require more of a trained eye to see them, because of the inferior 1965 packaging. Some people lack the ability to see cameo proofs in original 1955-1964 flat pack proof sets, too.

Thanks for trying, this is an old gripe of mine. I have collected coins for 50 years and this is one of the things that has always, well, worn me out. I think that no one knows what 'Specially prepared dies' means. Whenever I read it I see the agent in Raiders of the Lost Ark saying 'Top Men' to Indiana and Marcus.

They were specially prepared because some Mint Spokesperson said so, therefore they were specially prepared. I think you are correct in thinking the pressure was greater and the process slower, other than that I think that the only special handling was an extra cleaning, if that much was done.

[VKurtB]

2 minutes ago, Moxie15 said:

Thanks for trying, this is an old gripe of mine. I have collected coins for 50 years and this is one of the things that has always, well, worn me out. I think that no one knows what 'Specially prepared dies' means. Whenever I read it I see the agent in Raiders of the Lost Ark saying 'Top Men' to Indiana and Marcus.

They were specially prepared because some Mint Spokesperson said so, therefore they were specially prepared. I think you are correct in thinking the pressure was greater and the process slower, other than that I think that the only special handling was an extra cleaning, if that much was done.

I do know that both major TPGS firms can tell even high grade ones apart, circulation strikes versus SMS strikes. I have one of each in MS67 from 1965 and 1966. The 1965 non-SMS is far higher value than the SMS. Oops, all are quarters.