What grade is this SMS cent? 0

[RWB]

On 8/13/2021 at 3:31 PM, gmarguli said:

Here is what the Director of the Mint said on the insert that went with all 1965 SMS sets. Special Mint Sets are made from specially prepared and polished blanks and struck on high tonnage presses with polished dies. This statement directly contradicts what you are stating. Special Planchets + Special Dies + Special Press = Special Mint Sets.

 

You are free to argue that the Mint Director was lying, but anyone who has ever seen a 1965 SMS can easily tell that the coins are better struck and more prooflike than business strikes. The look of the coins match exactly what the Director wrote, not what you have been stating. 

I've seen that little blurb. It is what was told the pubic, not what was done. The director's note was an expression of the PLAN. It did not happen until CY1966, due to the urgency of making enough clad coinage for circulation. Archival documents reveal this. Further, look at the 1965 coins. Polished "blanks"? Nope, Polished dies? Nope. High tonnage presses. Depends on what that was supposed to mean. The presses in use in 1965 could handle 150 to 175/180 tons (especially the converted Bliss presses) - but the dies would not stand that.

There is more to the story than blindly accepting a US Mint/Treasury publicity statement as completely factual. If one looks back on most of the Mint Press Releases, it is easy to see that they are built on generalities and copying from prior releases. Good examples are  -- almost anything - but include 1955 cents, the coin shortage, GSA dollars, removal of silver from coins, Saudi gold discs, on and, on and, on and....

[J P M]

They did not start putting the 1965 sets together until 1966 it is said. So did they restart the 1965 presses and make new coins of all denominations in 1966 or did they go in the back room and grab the better looking coins sitting in storage and start making poly wrap sets up??? 

[gmarguli]

On 8/13/2021 at 1:57 PM, RWB said:

I've seen that little blurb. It is what was told the pubic, not what was done. The director's note was an expression of the PLAN. It did not happen until CY1966, due to the urgency of making enough clad coinage for circulation. Archival documents reveal this. Further, look at the 1965 coins. Polished "blanks"? Nope, Polished dies? Nope. High tonnage presses. Depends on what that was supposed to mean. The presses in use in 1965 could handle 150 to 175/180 tons (especially the converted Bliss presses) - but the dies would not stand that.

I'm perfectly happy letting you think there is no difference between the SMS coins and the business strikes of 1965.

Despite the fact they don't look anything alike, they are 100% the same as business strikes.

Despite the fact that the Director of the Mint says they were prepared differently, they are 100% the same as business strikes.

Despite the fact that they look inline with how the Director of the Mint described them, they're 100% the same as business strikes.

Despite the Mint calling them SPECIAL Mint Sets, they aren't special, they're 100% the same as business strikes.

Despite the fact that I've never heard anyone other than you say they are the same, they're 100% the same as business strikes.

[Insert giant thumbs up here]

Edited August 13, 2021 by gmarguli

[VKurtB]

On 8/9/2021 at 3:36 PM, J P Mashoke said:

I think it would only be a SMS if it was still in the 1965 SMS mint set ? 

Nope. 

[VKurtB]

On 8/9/2021 at 8:36 PM, RWB said:

There appears to be a spot or nick on the lapel; other marks. It might be gradable, assuming the two light spots are on the 2x2, but no TPG could certify it came from a 1965 SMS.

Not true. 

[VKurtB]

On 8/10/2021 at 11:20 AM, RWB said:

1965 SMS coins are not reliably distinguishable from circulation pieces. Hence, if not in the original packaging, they could not be certified. '66 and '67 and proofs are distinguishable.

Again, not true in the least. Not even close. 

[VKurtB]

Regarding information in the NARA’s, and this applies THROUGHOUT, absence of evidence is NOT EQUAL to evidence of absence, much as we might wish otherwise.