1964 Kennedy SMS could it be? 1 1

[KingofAirs]

Ok a little background 9n the coins. 2 days ago I picked up this little 3 coin set of Kennedy's for the outstanding price of $30. They looked great but I didn't really look at them till I returned home.  Once I got home and took them out I realized these are some of the most beautiful coins I've ever laid my eyes on. All of them are struck in high relief all with the accented hair and all in ultra cameo. I know right know your saying it's not sms because you can't the sms in cameo so I've been told. Well this one looks satin and cameo. Alright enuff of the talking here's some pics let me know what ya'll think of em. The scratches are on the cases I didn't want to take them out. Oh yea 1 last thing I believe that it's 1 of every Kennedy struck with accented hair, the sms, the proof and the regular 64.  not sure how it exist it just does 

[Coinbuf]

Just proof Kennedy half dollar coins, not SMS.

[KingofAirs]

did I mention all the die markers are present on that 1 coin

[MarkFeld]

No, they don’t resemble SMS examples in any way. 

[Mohawk]

All three of those coins are proofs.  I'll let someone else wade into the controversy of "1964 SMS" coinage..........

[KingofAirs]

ok thanks. one question then why would they use the same die to strick this coin then?

[KingofAirs]

I believe you that's why I asked so  how much do u think a proof 69 deep cameo would go for at auction right now. because I'm going to sell the best one 

[RWB]

There are no 1964 SMS coins of any denomination. What you've read is a lie. SMS sets wer5e issued only in 1965, 1966 and 1967.

[Woods020]

You should post some close and well focused full coins pictures of what you are calling the best one outside of the capsule. I’m going to go out on a limb and say that it is unlikely a 69 UCAM. 

[robec1347]

The proof Kennedy on the left in the OP’s photo could be an Accented Hair variety.

The I in LIBERTY of the AH variety is truncated on the left side at the bottom.

Take a close look at yours and see if it is truncated. 
Could you get a photo of the I of that coin and post it?

The I should look like the I in the photo on the right below if it is an Accented Hair. .

Edited September 20, 2021 by robec1347

[Mohawk]

On 9/19/2021 at 7:48 PM, Woods020 said:

You should post some close and well focused full coins pictures of what you are calling the best one outside of the capsule. I’m going to go out on a limb and say that it is unlikely a 69 UCAM. 

Yeah...a 69 UCAM on a 1964 Kennedy is tough to get.....that packaging hairlined the coins like nobody's business.

[MarkFeld]

On 9/19/2021 at 6:37 PM, RWB said:

There are no 1964 SMS coins of any denomination. What you've read is a lie. SMS sets wer5e issued only in 1965, 1966 and 1967.

What you’ve read above is an opinion and numerous people disagree. 

Edited September 20, 2021 by MarkFeld

[zadok]

On 9/19/2021 at 8:24 PM, MarkFeld said:

What you’ve above is an opinion and numerous people disagree. 

and with good reason......

[Mohawk]

On 9/19/2021 at 8:24 PM, MarkFeld said:

What you’ve read above is an opinion and numerous people disagree. 

And this is why I won't touch the topic of "1964 SMS" coinage anymore......too controversial.  I wonder if the issue will ever reach a widely held and accepted consensus. 

Edited September 20, 2021 by Mohawk

[MarkFeld]

On 9/19/2021 at 7:45 PM, Mohawk said:

And this is why I won't touch the topic of "1964 SMS" coinage anymore......too controversial.  I wonder if the issue will ever reach a widely held and accepted consensus. 

Whatever the current extent of a consensus, I don’t see it changing much in either direction.

[Mohawk]

On 9/19/2021 at 9:08 PM, MarkFeld said:

Whatever the current extent of a consensus, I don’t see it changing much in either direction.

And you would know, I'd say.  The damned things make my head spin with all of the conflicting views out there.....makes me glad that I don't collect any series that they belong to!!!!

[Just Bob]

On 9/19/2021 at 5:40 PM, KingofAirs said:

did I mention all the die markers are present on that 1 coin

 

On 9/19/2021 at 6:31 PM, KingofAirs said:

ok thanks. one question then why would they use the same die to strick this coin then?

I assume you are referring to the "teardrop" on the crossbar of the numeral "4" in the date, and other markers. Yes, these are present on the coins that have been labeled "Specimen" or "Special Mint Set." Here is the issue, though. These coins were labeled as being special, without any known documentation to back up the claim. They are all believed to have come from the same source, but there is nothing to prove that they were struck in a different manner than a normal coin. Numismatic author Roger Burdette (RWB who posted above) believes that these coins are nothing more than the first coins minted from new dies, and this is what gives them their sharply struck, satiny appearance, often with numerous die polishing lines evident.  This is also the explanation given by NGC. 

If, in fact, these "Specimen" coins are actually  normal business strikes, it is entirely possible for there to be coins found in circulation, or in mint sets, with these markers. It is unlikely, however that the same markers would be present on a proof coin. Since all three of your coins appear to be proof coins, I would be interested in seeing closer pictures of these markers that you see.

[Woods020]

On 9/19/2021 at 8:22 PM, Just Bob said:

 

I assume you are referring to the "teardrop" on the crossbar of the numeral "4" in the date, and other markers. Yes, these are present on the coins that have been labeled "Specimen" or "Special Mint Set." Here is the issue, though. These coins were labeled as being special, without any known documentation to back up the claim. They are all believed to have come from the same source, but there is nothing to prove that they were struck in a different manner than a normal coin. Numismatic author Roger Burdette (RWB who posted above) believes that these coins are nothing more than the first coins minted from new dies, and this is what gives them their sharply struck, satiny appearance, often with numerous die polishing lines evident.  This is also the explanation given by NGC. 

If, in fact, these "Specimen" coins are actually  normal business strikes, it is entirely possible for there to be coins found in circulation, or in mint sets, with these markers. It is unlikely, however that the same markers would be present on a proof coin. Since all three of your coins appear to be proof coins, I would be interested in seeing closer pictures of these markers that you see.

I had the same thought about the accented hair comment. I’d love to see that on a non-proof. If it is in fact accented hair since nothing can be gleaned from these photos. I don’t believe the OP realizes that only one (proof) of “all 3” coin strikes has this. 

[Coinbuf]

On 9/19/2021 at 5:45 PM, Mohawk said:

And this is why I won't touch the topic of "1964 SMS" coinage anymore......too controversial.  I wonder if the issue will ever reach a widely held and accepted consensus. 

Well there is one truth that is for sure with regards to any 1964 SMS coin, nobody is going to just find one laying around.   No matter what side of the fence you are on concerning the validity of the term SMS for the handful of coins in question it is clear that those coins came from only one source, the mint director who was given the coins after they were minted.   So anyone that claims to find a 1964 SMS coin in the wild is simply wishing and dreaming.

[Mohawk]

On 9/20/2021 at 12:22 AM, Coinbuf said:

Well there is one truth that is for sure with regards to any 1964 SMS coin, nobody is going to just find one laying around.   No matter what side of the fence you are on concerning the validity of the term SMS for the handful of coins in question it is clear that those coins came from only one source, the mint director who was given the coins after they were minted.   So anyone that claims to find a 1964 SMS coin in the wild is simply wishing and dreaming.

Agreed 100% on this point for sure, Coinbuf.....which arguably is the single most valid and only important point for pretty much any alleged "1964 SMS" coin that pops up here.

Edited September 20, 2021 by Mohawk
Typo

[RWB]

On 9/19/2021 at 8:24 PM, MarkFeld said:

What you’ve read above is an opinion and numerous people disagree. 

It is a fact. It is another extraordinary claim that is not supported by facts. No amount of "looks like" authentication will change the fact that there is no documentation . There is no evidence whatever of so-called 1964 SMS coins. None. Zero.

It is a lie built on ignorance and perpetuated by greed.

[MarkFeld]

On 9/20/2021 at 5:05 AM, RWB said:

It is a fact. It is another extraordinary claim that is not supported by facts. No amount of "looks like" authentication will change the fact that there is no documentation . There is no evidence whatever of so-called 1964 SMS coins. None. Zero.

It is a lie built on ignorance and perpetuated by greed.

You don’t seem able or willing to distinguish many of your opinions from facts. It is a fact that no documentation has been found. The distinctive appearance of the coins, themselves, serves as good evidence, however. The same goes for some early (pre 1858) Proof coins, for which there is no official documentation. Sometimes, the coins speak for themselves.
 

In the event that you’d like to stop hearing back from me and some others, all you need to do is express your opinions as opinions and not facts, which you often mix in with unfair unfounded and unfair accusations. 

Edited September 20, 2021 by MarkFeld

[RWB]

 

On 9/20/2021 at 6:33 AM, MarkFeld said:

You don’t seem able or willing to distinguish many of your opinions from facts.

Oh, you don't seem to grasp the difference. An opinion based on facts and documents is called "truth" - at least until someone comes up with contrary facts. That is the scientific method applied to numismatics. Hypothesis, research, data, analysis, correlation, conclusions -- whether that conclusion supports or disproves the hypothesis is the final result. None of that was done with the phone "1964 SMS" tall-tale. All of what I write and publish is, to the best of my feeble abilities, as accurate, complete and truthful as possible. The contemporary documents, letters, tables, reports  are the basis - they tell the story, not my personal opinion.

You and other make extraordinary claims for this and "specimen" coins and other off-the-wall nonsense -- prove them. Publish the "expert" analysis with data. Pretend you and other understand research science, not the rotten from Breen and his other acolytes.

Post the documents..... Where are they? Where is the authentication research and analysis for these so-called "1964 SMS" coins? Data? Publish it -- not guesses or "Geeee, it looks like...uh...well...kinda...1965-ish," drivel. Come on. Show us the facts and someone claiming "It looks like...." is opinion, not fact.

There are none. No research analysis has ever been published. No original documentation. Nothing. The whole thing is an ignorant and greed-base lie.

[RWB]

Come on, Mark. Let's see the documents that support "1964 SMS" claims. I'd love to change my opinion -- just prove those extraordinary claims. I'd love to support new discoveries - but they have to be real, not inventions of greedy wallets and ignorant guesses.

[zadok]

On 9/20/2021 at 4:05 PM, RWB said:

Come on, Mark. Let's see the documents that support "1964 SMS" claims. I'd love to change my opinion -- just prove those extraordinary claims. I'd love to support new discoveries - but they have to be real, not inventions of greedy wallets and ignorant guesses.

well id like to see ur documents that support ur opinions that they dont exist...just because u didnt find any documents that affirm their existence doesnt mean that they werent made...just one persons biased opinion, nothing more...same as ur opinions on there not being any branch mint proofs...more biased opinions, that dont stand up to scrutiny, many more numismatically knowledgeable people that dont support ur opinions on these subjects than those that do n of course there r the actual coins that do exist...im not aware of anyone appointing u or any one else to actually define what is n what isnt in these undocumented areas of our coinage....every one is entitled to their own opinions, none of which become facts just because we want them to be....the hobby doesnt have or need an empirical emperor...

[VKurtB]

On 9/19/2021 at 6:37 PM, RWB said:

There are no 1964 SMS coins of any denomination. What you've read is a lie. SMS sets wer5e issued only in 1965, 1966 and 1967.

Pay attention here. @RWB and I disagree on a great deal. But on this, we are 100% in agreement. The 1964 so-called SMS coins don’t exist any more OR LESS than for any other year’s initial strikes from brand new dies. The only difference in 1964 is that the Mint director appears to have squirreled away for herself maybe about 20 such sets. They are no different from any other squirreled away sets. The British coins you get while touring the Royal Mint at Llansitrant Wales are far more special than any 1964 coins. At least the British ones are quadruple struck.

Edited September 20, 2021 by VKurtB

[Alex in PA.]

One question if I may.  Is it true that no US Mint records exist showing the production of these coins?  Just curious.

Edited September 20, 2021 by Alex in PA.
Spelling

[VKurtB]

On 9/20/2021 at 3:50 PM, Alex in PA. said:

One question if I may.  Is it true that no US Mint records exist showing the production of these coins?  Just curious.

I have no firsthand knowledge of the existence, or lack thereof, of such documents, but Roger is not the only one to report a lack thereof. That militates to two possible conclusions. 1) they are merely unremarkable initial strikes squirreled away, or 2) making them was a quasi-criminal act. Pick your poison. One additional problem, however. @RWB ALSO claims that SMS coins from 1965-1967 cannot be determined once removed from the original holders, but literally the ENTIRE HOBBY disagrees with him on that.

Edited September 20, 2021 by VKurtB

[Alex in PA.]

On 9/20/2021 at 4:56 PM, VKurtB said:

1) they are merely unremarkable initial strikes squirreled away, or 2) making them was a quasi-criminal act. Pick your poison. 

I don't collect Modern coins but I believe PCGS slabbed some 1964 SMS coins.  Am I wrong?

[VKurtB]

On 9/20/2021 at 4:00 PM, Alex in PA. said:

I don't collect Modern coins but I believe PCGS slabbed some 1964 SMS coins.  Am I wrong?

They did. But they are far from an impartial source. Were they impartial, British tour-struck coins would be recognized as SP coins, but nooooooo. So what do the TPGS firms do? They recognize as special things that are probably not, and fail to recognize as special things that are. With a record like that, they could be SEC football officials. 

Edited September 20, 2021 by VKurtB