1964 Kennedy SMS could it be? 1 1

[VKurtB]

To the extent that we have decided to defer to at least the two top TPGS firms as arbiters of undeniable truth, there you are. Obviously, Roger is not encumbered at all with such a belief. 

[MarkFeld]

On 9/20/2021 at 3:05 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.

Do you read replies? I already stated “It is a fact that no documentation has been found. The distinctive appearance of thecoins, 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.”

Edited September 20, 2021 by MarkFeld

[VKurtB]

On 9/20/2021 at 4:08 PM, MarkFeld said:

Do you read replies? I already stated “It is a fact that no documentation has been found. The distinctive appearance of thecoins, 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.”

Not if you’re addicted to NARA documents, Mark. Nothing other than carbon copies of typewriter, or photos of quill pen prose counts for those who have drunk the NARA Kool-Aid. 

Edited September 20, 2021 by VKurtB

[VKurtB]

On 9/20/2021 at 4:08 PM, MarkFeld said:

Sometimes, the coins speak for themselves.

B-b-b-but that would require actual observational skills and the ability to think. That skill set typically does not exist in over-glorified dumpster divers. 

[VKurtB]

On 9/20/2021 at 4:08 PM, MarkFeld said:

Do you read replies? I already stated “It is a fact that no documentation has been found. The distinctive appearance of thecoins, 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.”

If I am not mistaken, proof large cents do exist, or am l mistaken?

[MarkFeld]

On 9/20/2021 at 5:02 PM, VKurtB said:

B-b-b-but that would require actual observational skills and the ability to think. That skill set typically does not exist in over-glorified dumpster divers. 

I was speaking of knowledgeable collectors and dealers. And so there’s no confusion, I do distinguish them from dumpster divers.😉

[Alex in PA.]

On 9/20/2021 at 5:06 PM, VKurtB said:

to defer to at least the two top TPGS firms as arbiters of undeniable truth

I read the PCGS article by Mr. Hernandez.  A lot of "could have been" and "it is believed: and "somehow" in it.  

[Woods020]

On 9/20/2021 at 5:09 PM, VKurtB said:

If I am not mistaken, proof large cents do exist, or am l mistaken?

According to the book I am currently reading, The Cent Book 1816-1839 by John Wright, there are some proof large cents. He also states some are controversial on whether they are truly proof or not which isn’t surprising, but several are without question proofs. 

[zadok]

On 9/20/2021 at 5:01 PM, VKurtB said:

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. 

dont forget u r now in 'bama country...verging on heresy.....

[VKurtB]

On 9/20/2021 at 5:33 PM, zadok said:

dont forget u r now in 'bama country...verging on heresy.....

Once a PSU fan, always a PSU fan. Especially when your new home state team is the Tide, and not “War Beagle”.

[Woods020]

On 9/20/2021 at 5:33 PM, zadok said:

dont forget u r now in 'bama country...verging on heresy.....

Refs are fair game in SEC country. In fact we encourage criticizing their every move and potentially making claims the outcome would have been different had it not been for their screw ups. 

Edited September 20, 2021 by Woods020

[zadok]

On 9/20/2021 at 6:37 PM, VKurtB said:

Once a PSU fan, always a PSU fan. Especially when your new home state team is the Tide, and not “War Beagle”.

thin ice territory...i do like that eagle though, but nick from my home territory....but ur clouder (pride) did themselves proud this week, just hope they can devour some buckeyes a bit later on....

[MarkFeld]

On 9/20/2021 at 5:09 PM, VKurtB said:

If I am not mistaken, proof large cents do exist, or am l mistaken?

 

There are quite a few Proof Large Cents, as well as Proof Half Cents. And many of them are obvious as such to anyone who is knowledgeable.

Edited September 20, 2021 by MarkFeld

[VKurtB]

On 9/20/2021 at 5:18 PM, Alex in PA. said:

I read the PCGS article by Mr. Hernandez.  A lot of "could have been" and "it is believed: and "somehow" in it.  

Mealy mouth speak. 

[zadok]

On 9/20/2021 at 5:08 PM, MarkFeld said:

Do you read replies? I already stated “It is a fact that no documentation has been found. The distinctive appearance of thecoins, 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.”

this coin speaks pretty loud for itself.....hint, its not in a mint state holder....

[VKurtB]

On 9/20/2021 at 7:15 PM, zadok said:

this coin speaks pretty loud for itself.....hint, its not in a mint state holder....

So you’re saying there is no documentation in the NARA supporting that there are 1844 proof quarters?!?!? But how can that be!?!?!? /sarcasm. Roger regularly makes the same critical error in his analysis. Absence of evidence is NOT  evidence of absence, yet he repeatedly makes the same logical error. Absence of evidence is evidence of literally nothing. 

Edited September 21, 2021 by VKurtB

[zadok]

On 9/20/2021 at 9:24 PM, VKurtB said:

So you’re saying there is no documentation in the NARA supporting that there are 1844 proof quarters?!?!? But how can that be!?!?!? /sarcasm. Roger regularly makes the same critical error in his analysis. Absence of evidence is NOT  evidence of absence, yet he repeatedly makes the same logical error.

...its a branch mint, new orleans issue, n no during my years of doing research on correspondence tween the mint officials at new orleans , philadelphia n d.c. i did not discover any discussion on presentation strikes for 1844 from the new orleans mint, which means nothing...as u stated "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence" contrary to what some here would have u believe...there is sufficient evidence of philadelphia proofs for that year...1844 is not the only year that there r known presentation strikes from the mint at new orleans...coins that have been examined by several numismatic specialists that actually r informed n knowledgeable on branch mint issues n concur on their presentation status....

[VKurtB]

On 9/20/2021 at 8:42 PM, zadok said:

...its a branch mint, new orleans issue, n no during my years of doing research on correspondence tween the mint officials at new orleans , philadelphia n d.c. i did not discover any discussion on presentation strikes for 1844 from the new orleans mint, which means nothing...as u stated "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence" contrary to what some here would have u believe...there is sufficient evidence of philadelphia proofs for that year...1844 is not the only year that there r known presentation strikes from the mint at new orleans...coins that have been examined by several numismatic specialists that actually r informed n knowledgeable on branch mint issues n concur on their presentation status....

B-b-b-but Lord Burdette hath spoken on the matter, no? “So let it be written, so let it be done. All hail The Roger!”

[Henri Charriere]

After reading, and re-reading, every comment made in this thread -- many using language as strong as the Guidelines will allow, I cannot help but be reminded of the reply the Director of the Mint sent a young boy inquiring as to whether the 1943 penny he had in his possession was the real deal.

If you substitute that one penny for the coins under discussion here, I believe many of members here, staunch advovates of one view or the other, would echo the the dismissive content and unsympathetic sentiment as expressed in that letter.  Unfortunately, there is only one way to settle this debate, but I don't know whether it would be cost-effective or even definitive.  There will always be someone who challenges the determination as being just another opinion.   🤔 

[RWB]

It is all very, very simple: An extraordinary claim MUST ALWAYS be accompanied by documentary evidence. That is: those making the claim must publish their complete evidence and proof.

That was what happened in the "old days." There was no TPG dictating. One specialist identified something he/she thought new or unusual. An article was written and published. Others added their ideas. Eventually, the claim was accepted or rejected on the evidence presented in public. The conclusions might or might not have actually been correct, but at least everyone interested had the opportunity to examine the evidence and offer comments.

Now, with so many praying to the Golden God TPG, some of the Golden God Angels merely reach a secret conclusion, print some labels, and possibly publish a superficial promotional article. There is no public disclosure of all the information; no open and wide debate; no opportunity for specialists to inform the Golden God TPG.

[Alex in PA.]

On 9/20/2021 at 11:47 PM, Quintus Arrius said:

many using language as strong as the Guidelines will allow,

Would you please direct me to the comment(s) where this language was used.  I have read this thread three times over and find no signs of 'poor' language or this 'bashing'.  What I did see was some people who have passionate views of a subject.  Maybe I missed something?  Show me the way.

[VKurtB]

On 9/21/2021 at 8:45 AM, RWB said:

It is all very, very simple: An extraordinary claim MUST ALWAYS be accompanied by documentary evidence. That is: those making the claim must publish their complete evidence and proof.

That was what happened in the "old days." There was no TPG dictating. One specialist identified something he/she thought new or unusual. An article was written and published. Others added their ideas. Eventually, the claim was accepted or rejected on the evidence presented in public. The conclusions might or might not have actually been correct, but at least everyone interested had the opportunity to examine the evidence and offer comments.

Now, with so many praying to the Golden God TPG, some of the Golden God Angels merely reach a secret conclusion, print some labels, and possibly publish a superficial promotional article. There is no public disclosure of all the information; no open and wide debate; no opportunity for specialists to inform the Golden God TPG.

It is not possible to have an open discussion with one who continually speaks and writes in absolutist terms, as you do. You clearly have an attitude problem with any system in which the arbiter of truth is anyone but you. We’ve seen that here and in court.

You are correct that extraordinary claims must be backed by “evidence”, but it is MASSIVELY INCORRECT to attach the adjective “documentary” onto the front of it. Documentary is second hand evidence, not first hand. It’s gussied up dumpster diving. Evidence of VERY MANY types exist, not the least of which CAN BE (or might not be) the items in question themselves. At the Trial of the Pyx in England, there are no documents, just the coins themselves, the ultimate evidence. 

Edited September 21, 2021 by VKurtB

[Henri Charriere]

On 9/21/2021 at 9:45 AM, RWB said:

It is all very, very simple: An extraordinary claim MUST ALWAYS be accompanied by documentary evidence. That is: those making the claim must publish their complete evidence and proof.

That was what happened in the "old days." There was no TPG dictating. One specialist identified something he/she thought new or unusual. An article was written and published. Others added their ideas. Eventually, the claim was accepted or rejected on the evidence presented in public. The conclusions might or might not have actually been correct, but at least everyone interested had the opportunity to examine the evidence and offer comments.

Now, with so many praying to the Golden God TPG, some of the Golden God Angels merely reach a secret conclusion, print some labels, and possibly publish a superficial promotional article. There is no public disclosure of all the information; no open and wide debate; no opportunity for specialists to inform the Golden God TPG.

This is as pure an example of heresy I happen to agree with as can be found anywhere. But you have an unfair advantage: unconditional immunity.  

[Henri Charriere]

On 9/21/2021 at 9:55 AM, Alex in PA. said:

Would you please direct me to the comment(s) where this language was used.  I have read this thread three times over and find no signs of 'poor' language or this 'bashing'.  What I did see was some people who have passionate views of a subject.  Maybe I missed something?  Show me the way.

You are asking me to take you by the hand and help you read between the lines, and that, I refuse to do.  🐓 

[Alex in PA.]

On 9/21/2021 at 11:45 AM, Quintus Arrius said:

You are asking me to take you by the hand

Q.A. - you're a funny guy.  Always coming up with these funny statements and, like some, you never seem to have any substance to back up your claims.

So, once more you get away with not having to produce.   

Newton’s Third Law of Motion states that “Every action creates an opposite and equal reaction “.

Alex First Law of the Forum states that:  For every action there is an opposite and unequal over reaction.

Edited September 21, 2021 by Alex in PA.
Add information

[Moxie15]

I am nobody. I am not a great numismatist, grader, dealer, or authenticater. Therefor what I say may be ignored by everyone. So be it. I have collected for my enjoyment for 50 years and have no iron in any fire. I collect for my enjoyment and only my enjoyment. 

I do have some serious issues with the whole 1964 SMS discussion...

FACT:

1. The mint did not make Special Mint Sets dated 1964 

2. The mint did not market sell or provide to the public anything called a 1964 special mint set

3. No one purchased a special mint set  

 

Therefore calling any coin dated 1964 a Special Mint Set coin is a purposeful untruth. By definition a LIE.

 

I once asked @MarkFeld to describe what proved to him a coin was a 1964 SMS coin. His answer was (I paraphrase) when you have seen thousands of 1964 coins you can see the difference. For me this answer is akin to 'God works in mysterious ways', 'I am the mommy, that's why.', and the one the town clerk gave me a couple months ago, 'Because I say so'. They all get filed in the same pile I put what my bull leaves on the barn floor.

@RWB is probably seen more mint records and archives than the rest of us combined and has found no record or document mentioning the manufacture of special mint coins dated 1964. He like any trained historian, scientist ,or scholar thinks that if there is no evidence to support a conclusion than the conclusion must be considered wrong.

Several have mentioned the argument of 'Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence'.  I have seen the argument used for the miracles of Jesus, the existence of ghosts, and alien abductions. I do not think that this argument could be used in a court of law, a scientific laboratory, or a hall of academia. It is a foolish argument. For those who think otherwise try this

 

     In 1615 the Flying Spaghetti Monster instructed the King of Dragons to poop out special planchets  Then in 1702 He had the Queen of Unicorns  use the Magical Press of the Elf Prince to mint the 1964 SMS coins Then had the stork deliver them to the Philadelphia Mint in 1964 where the Troll King presented them to Director of the Mint.

And that is where 1964 SMS coins come from.

What? There is no evidence? Does not mean it did not happen.

 

 

 

 

Edited September 21, 2021 by Moxie15

[Woods020]

I have no idea if 64 SMS coins are a myth or reality, and honestly don’t care that much. Not something I would target anyway. Ironically gun to my head I would say it is unlikely they exist, but I have no backing for that and have never seen a coin considered SMS from 64. 
 

What I take issue with is the approach of this and other threads. @RWB is hypocritical in two distinct ways and I don’t think they are logical. 
 

1. I agree with your recollection of public debate and numismatic community research in the past. 

On 9/21/2021 at 8:45 AM, RWB said:

That was what happened in the "old days." There was no TPG dictating. One specialist identified something he/she thought new or unusual. An article was written and published. Others added their ideas. Eventually, the claim was accepted or rejected on the evidence presented in public. The conclusions might or might not have actually been correct, but at least everyone interested had the opportunity to examine the evidence and offer comments.

 

However, when the numismatic community, with some I would consider experts, give opinions you dismiss them by factually stating it is incorrect. Shouldn’t we take your own advice and look at all evidence, including both your stance no documentation exists and evaluating coins deemed SMS? Why are you unilaterally stating no one else’s opinion, and let’s be honest these are all opinions on both sides, is of any merit? I think peer review is a great thing, and is a major tenant in academia which you like to emulate. Here you are dismissing peer review and would be heckled out of academia.  If your declaration is correct it should stand easily on its own merits and not be concerned with criticisms. 
 

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.

2. Dismissing lack of documentary evidence as proving the point, as well as claiming others were doing things for monetary gain, is the epitome of hypocrisy. While I am in now way going to slander you, and I do have a ton of respect for your work, I think there is a well documented occurrence of you doing exactly what you are bemoaning. Here is a citation of interest from the Coin World article analyzing the Langboard 1933 Double Eagle trial. My entire point here is to say that opinions and debate should be encouraged and not quashed immediately as lies lead by greed. Please accept diverse opinions, debate them, and stipulate your opinions as such which ironically is what you say you want as was done in the past. 

” Perhaps more problematic was a Feb. 10, 2009, posting that has since become inaccessible where Burdette wrote to the effect of mustering all the hearsay and innuendo required to obfuscate the facts; adding, “I’ll do it at $300 an hour.” Rue wasted no time in asking Burdette, “Isn’t that what you’ve done here today?” attacking the credibility of his findings. Burdette replied that his comments on the message board were sarcastic and didn’t reflect his research, frequently asking to be shown the statements as he didn’t remember them individually.” 
 

A link to my source:

https://www.coinworld.com/news/precious-metals/1933-double-eagle-trial-roger-burdette-takes-.html

 

[MarkFeld]

On 9/21/2021 at 1:04 PM, Moxie15 said:

I am nobody. I am not a great numismatist, grader, dealer, or authenticater. Therefor what I say may be ignored by everyone. So be it. I have collected for my enjoyment for 50 years and have no iron in any fire. I collect for my enjoyment and only my enjoyment. 

I do have some serious issues with the whole 1964 SMS discussion...

FACT:

1. The mint did not make Special Mint Sets dated 1964 

2. The mint did not market sell or provide to the public anything called a 1964 special mint set

3. No one purchased a special mint set  

 

Therefore calling any coin dated 1964 a Special Mint Set coin is a purposeful untruth. By definition a LIE.

 

I once asked @MarkFeld to describe what proved to him a coin was a 1964 SMS coin. His answer was (I paraphrase) when you have seen thousands of 1964 coins you can see the difference. For me this answer is akin to 'God works in mysterious ways', 'I am the mommy, that's why.', and the one the town clerk gave me a couple months ago, 'Because I say so'. They all get filed in the same pile I put what my bull leaves on the barn floor.

@RWB is probably seen more mint records and archives than the rest of us combined and has found no record or document mentioning the manufacture of special mint coins dated 1964. He like any trained historian, scientist ,or scholar thinks that if there is no evidence to support a conclusion than the conclusion must be considered wrong.

Several have mentioned the argument of 'Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence'.  I have seen the argument used for the miracles of Jesus, the existence of ghosts, and alien abductions. I do not think that this argument could be used in a court of law, a scientific laboratory, or a hall of academia. It is a foolish argument. For those who think otherwise try this

 

     In 1615 the Flying Spaghetti Monster instructed the King of Dragons to poop out special planchets  Then in 1702 He had the Queen of Unicorns  use the Magical Press of the Elf Prince to mint the 1964 SMS coins Then had the stork deliver them to the Philadelphia Mint in 1964 where the Troll King presented them to Director of the Mint.

And that is where 1964 SMS coins come from.

What? There is no evidence? Does not mean it did not happen.

 

 

 

 

There are many unusual and/or special coins for which there is no official documentation, among them, 1804 dollars, 1913 nickels, some Proof (classic) commemoratives and a number of patterns. 

I don't recall our conversation, but if my answer was along the lines of what you posted, I apologize for not providing a much better one. I could and would have described the differences in detail, were we siting face to face with some of those coins in hand. In lieu of that, my best option would have been to refer you to some of what has been written in auction lot descriptions of the coins and/or that provided by grading companies. However, if like RWB, you don't believe in the coins unless there's official documentation, there's no point in reading. 

Edited September 21, 2021 by MarkFeld

[zadok]

On 9/21/2021 at 2:04 PM, Moxie15 said:

I am nobody. I am not a great numismatist, grader, dealer, or authenticater. Therefor what I say may be ignored by everyone. So be it. I have collected for my enjoyment for 50 years and have no iron in any fire. I collect for my enjoyment and only my enjoyment. 

I do have some serious issues with the whole 1964 SMS discussion...

FACT:

1. The mint did not make Special Mint Sets dated 1964 

2. The mint did not market sell or provide to the public anything called a 1964 special mint set

3. No one purchased a special mint set  

 

Therefore calling any coin dated 1964 a Special Mint Set coin is a purposeful untruth. By definition a LIE.

 

I once asked @MarkFeld to describe what proved to him a coin was a 1964 SMS coin. His answer was (I paraphrase) when you have seen thousands of 1964 coins you can see the difference. For me this answer is akin to 'God works in mysterious ways', 'I am the mommy, that's why.', and the one the town clerk gave me a couple months ago, 'Because I say so'. They all get filed in the same pile I put what my bull leaves on the barn floor.

@RWB is probably seen more mint records and archives than the rest of us combined and has found no record or document mentioning the manufacture of special mint coins dated 1964. He like any trained historian, scientist ,or scholar thinks that if there is no evidence to support a conclusion than the conclusion must be considered wrong.

Several have mentioned the argument of 'Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence'.  I have seen the argument used for the miracles of Jesus, the existence of ghosts, and alien abductions. I do not think that this argument could be used in a court of law, a scientific laboratory, or a hall of academia. It is a foolish argument. For those who think otherwise try this

 

     In 1615 the Flying Spaghetti Monster instructed the King of Dragons to poop out special planchets  Then in 1702 He had the Queen of Unicorns  use the Magical Press of the Elf Prince to mint the 1964 SMS coins Then had the stork deliver them to the Philadelphia Mint in 1964 where the Troll King presented them to Director of the Mint.

And that is where 1964 SMS coins come from.

What? There is no evidence? Does not mean it did not happen.

 

 

 

 

...moxie u have been drinking too much koolaid from the rwb fountain again.....

[VKurtB]

On 9/21/2021 at 4:01 PM, zadok said:

...moxie u have been drinking too much koolaid from the rwb fountain again.....

When I drink the Kool-Aid, I prefer red raspberry, not the Jim Jones/Guyana/RWB grape.