Meaningful research into "1964 SMS" coin claims. 1 1

[RWB]

Member FlyingAl has opened a thread on the PCGS message board where he begins a discussion of really useful research into the so-called "1964 SMS" coins. It's certainly worth a detour to read.

https://forums.collectors.com/discussion/1094235/origins-of-the-1964-sms-coins

[RWB]

Any thoughts from members?

[The Neophyte Numismatist]

I think Flying Al is one of the most thoughtful people on the boards.  I enjoy everything he writes.  He is super humble and knowledgeable.   This is a great example of his work.  He loves to study numismatics, and it shows! 

Thanks for sharing Roger!

[zadok]

On 8/11/2023 at 11:59 AM, RWB said:

Any thoughts from members?

...yes, thoughts abound...very well presented n thorough , lots of probables which this subject mandates due to incomplete documentation, but nature of the beast...n also the fact that there is more info out there that wont be divulged for several different reasons, as mentioned many of people involved already dead but a few around that still aware of the ins n outs of those coins, i personally know of three sets in private hands that will never be on the open market...as with these coins n others, there r just certain things that shouldnt be out there...im a firm believer in my friend Abe Kosoff's approach, burn everything before u die....

[Henri Charriere]

On 8/11/2023 at 1:43 PM, zadok said:

.... also the fact that there is more info out there that wont be divulged for several different reasons,....

many of people involved already dead but a few around that still aware of the ins n outs of those coins....

will never be on the open market...

there r just certain things that shouldnt be out there...

im a firm believer in my friend Abe Kosoff's approach, burn everything before u die....

WHAT ARE YOU SO AFRAID OF?  SPEAK UP!  BE SPECIFIC. PROVIDE DETAILS! ENQUIRING MINDS WANT TO KNOW!  🤣

[Hoghead515]

You know, Its been a while since Ive seen a thread from a new collector asking if their 64 Kennedy was a SMS. I remember Ratzie 33 was finding them at least once a week. . Im suprised we havent seen any of those in a while. i would love to read about some real 64 SMS sets sometime in the near future. Ill never own any in my lifetime but still interesting learning a little about them. I do plan on putting together some cameo sets in 65 66 67.  Ive done close to having the 67 done in MS67 cameo. Only got the dreaded cent left to get. Its gonna be a tough one in ms67 cameo. Ive seen a few out there but they get a little pricey. Ill get the ole girl eventually.

[zadok]

On 8/29/2023 at 10:31 PM, Henri Charriere said:

WHAT ARE YOU SO AFRAID OF?  SPEAK UP!  BE SPECIFIC. PROVIDE DETAILS! ENQUIRING MINDS WANT TO KNOW!  🤣

...inquiring minds can go to ----, no one elses' business, strictly on a need to know basis, ur either privy or ur not, end of story...i have no fears nor obligations to share anything i dont choose to share...i observe many things on this forum that i choose to not respond to..."do u have any of this or that, i want to write a book on it" or "this is what happened because i read it n its gospel n i said so" or "these other people r all wrong n have no clue bout what they r the professionals of" or "ive decided this is the standards n everyone should agree because its me"...bull s--- like that, that doesnt warrant the effort to respond, if i wanted that specific info in a book id write it myself or give it to someone invested in the hobby to write, if i wanted to discuss unpublished numismatic info i certainly wouldnt do so with a cynic, a couple years ago there was a survey bout the most influential persons in the hobby it was ludicrous some of those persons have never influenced any collectors into the hobby, why would anyone share anything with those persons...my orig intention for my comment on this thread is basically dont listen to most of what u hear because those talking the loudest dont know what is n what isnt, especially those that ignore coins in front of them because its not in the correspondence files...does anyone actually believe that a mint official, branch or otherwise would put into their official records or correspondence..."oh yes i struck a few special coins the other day for a couple of friends but they paid for them..."....

[RWB]

I think FlyingAl is on the right flight vector!

[GoldFinger1969]

On 8/11/2023 at 11:59 AM, RWB said:

Any thoughts from members?

Well, for starters, SMS stands for..... ?  

San Francisco Mint Set ?

[GoldFinger1969]

On 8/11/2023 at 1:43 PM, zadok said:

Im a firm believer in my friend Abe Kosoff's approach, burn everything before u die....

Wow, you knew him ?  Impressive....most impressive, as Darth Vader (noted coin collector !! ) once said.

I think he was based in NY and then moved out West ?

[zadok]

On 8/31/2023 at 1:47 AM, GoldFinger1969 said:

Wow, you knew him ?  Impressive....most impressive, as Darth Vader (noted coin collector !! ) once said.

I think he was based in NY and then moved out West ?

...yes he was involved with many famous coins n collectors n dealers, most interesting to talk with...even ur beloved saints....

[zadok]

On 8/31/2023 at 1:44 AM, GoldFinger1969 said:

Well, for starters, SMS stands for..... ?  

San Francisco Mint Set ?

...no....

[Sandon]

On 8/31/2023 at 1:44 AM, GoldFinger1969 said:

Well, for starters, SMS stands for..... ?  

San Francisco Mint Set ?

  No, it stands for Special Mint Set. As I understand it, a dealer named Lester Merkin had sets of supposedly specially struck 1964 Philadelphia mint coins in all denominations that he had apparently obtained from Eva Adams, the then Director of the Mint, or some other mint employee. See 1964 50C SMS (Special Strike) Kennedy Half Dollar - PCGS CoinFacts. Although grading services have certified a number of these supposedly special strikes, and they have sold for high prices, some such as @RWB maintain that they are just regular strikes from new production dies and that there is nothing "special" about them at all. 

[zadok]

On 8/31/2023 at 11:48 AM, Sandon said:

  No, it stands for Special Mint Set. As I understand it, a dealer named Lester Merkin had sets of supposedly specially struck 1964 Philadelphia mint coins in all denominations that he had apparently obtained from Eva Adams, the then Director of the Mint, or some other mint employee. See 1964 50C SMS (Special Strike) Kennedy Half Dollar - PCGS CoinFacts. Although grading services have certified a number of these supposedly special strikes, and they have sold for high prices, some such as @RWB maintain that they are just regular strikes from new production dies and that there is nothing "special" about them at all. 

...well, r the certified "special" struck coins from the same dies as other known circulation struck coins?...seems like an easy question to answer...of course they could have been "specimen" struck coins from dies later used for circulation struck coins?....

[RWB]

No TPG has ever published their research to confirm/refute the designations they use on these coins. Yet, they declare them "special" in some way and people pay high prices based entirely on that paper label declaration. Like all the other such label, they MUST be backed by objective research and facts!

[cladking]

On 8/31/2023 at 5:23 PM, zadok said:

...well, r the certified "special" struck coins from the same dies as other known circulation struck coins?...seems like an easy question to answer...of course they could have been "specimen" struck coins from dies later used for circulation struck coins?....

This is hardly an easy question.  Not only are most dies far more uniform than older ones but they are also far more numerous and barely studied at all.  It's difficult to even trace the same die over the course of a very long life because it changes far more than the tiny differences with other dies.  Tracing hundreds of dies sometimes with few or no specimens surviving in Unc is quite impossible.  There is a small handful of identifiable 1964 quarter dies but none would necessarily be very likely to have been used on the particular group of coins that are called "SMS".  

They did a lot of experimenting with different techniques to make the '65 and '66 Special Mint Sets and the '64 coins "look" like some of these. Perhaps it is largely this, their matte appearance, and their unique source as much as anything that led to them receiving a "SMS" designation. 

[VKurtB]

On 9/1/2023 at 8:14 AM, cladking said:

This is hardly an easy question.  Not only are most dies far more uniform than older ones but they are also far more numerous and barely studied at all.  It's difficult to even trace the same die over the course of a very long life because it changes far more than the tiny differences with other dies.  Tracing hundreds of dies sometimes with few or no specimens surviving in Unc is quite impossible.  There is a small handful of identifiable 1964 quarter dies but none would necessarily be very likely to have been used on the particular group of coins that are called "SMS".  

They did a lot of experimenting with different techniques to make the '65 and '66 Special Mint Sets and the '64 coins "look" like some of these. Perhaps it is largely this, their matte appearance, and their unique source as much as anything that led to them receiving a "SMS" designation. 

Wait. Their MATTE appearance???? When we have CAMEO Kennedy halves from the "real" SMS years??? What kinda doublespeak is THAT??? There is one die marker for the so-called SMS 1964 halves. There is some funky deal at the 4. But yes, that has been found on other non-SMS halves. Not many, but a few.

Edited September 1, 2023 by VKurtB

[RWB]

On 9/1/2023 at 9:14 AM, cladking said:

They did a lot of experimenting with different techniques to make the '65 and '66 Special Mint Sets

I'm not sure this is a verifiable statement. I've not specifically searched the NARA files for SMS info, but what has been stated in mint public documents is that the dies were simply new pairs, and coins were stuck at a slower rate with less handling than for circulation coins. Further, the 1965 SMS sets were not made until the date change -- a full year and a half after 1964 production began. It is very unlikely that there was any planning that far in advance. After all, the 1965 SMS pieces were made to allow former proof coins production employees to be diverted to circulation coinage.

[Henri Charriere]

[I am going to withhold comment on this rigamarolesque rowdy dowdy.  This will allow the otherwise uninformed to leave having a much better opinion of me, all things considered. Also, burning is the last resort of a scoundrel.]

[zadok]

On 9/1/2023 at 10:50 AM, VKurtB said:

Wait. Their MATTE appearance???? When we have CAMEO Kennedy halves from the "real" SMS years??? What kinda doublespeak is THAT??? There is one die marker for the so-called SMS 1964 halves. There is some funky deal at the 4. But yes, that has been found on other non-SMS halves. Not many, but a few.

...ur last three sentences could be determinants in this discussion if examples exist, i also have heard that one of the SMS examples did not have that marker, which if true would cloud the same discussion....

[zadok]

On 9/1/2023 at 11:38 AM, RWB said:

I'm not sure this is a verifiable statement. I've not specifically searched the NARA files for SMS info, but what has been stated in mint public documents is that the dies were simply new pairs, and coins were stuck at a slower rate with less handling than for circulation coins. Further, the 1965 SMS sets were not made until the date change -- a full year and a half after 1964 production began. It is very unlikely that there was any planning that far in advance. After all, the 1965 SMS pieces were made to allow former proof coins production employees to be diverted to circulation coinage.

...once again, statements versus actual coins...were these statements issued in 1964 saying this is what we r doing now or were they issued in later years trying to offer an explanation of what we probably did at that time...the general consensus has been that the '65-'67 sms sets were made to appease date collectors for their collections, of course words to that effect mite not be found in mint statements but their absence wouldnt negate the end result.... 

[cladking]

On 9/1/2023 at 10:38 AM, RWB said:

I'm not sure this is a verifiable statement. I've not specifically searched the NARA files for SMS info, but what has been stated in mint public documents is that the dies were simply new pairs, and coins were stuck at a slower rate with less handling than for circulation coins. Further, the 1965 SMS sets were not made until the date change -- a full year and a half after 1964 production began. It is very unlikely that there was any planning that far in advance. After all, the 1965 SMS pieces were made to allow former proof coins production employees to be diverted to circulation coinage.

This is from observation and experience.  Based on the characteristics of the coins in the SMS's they obviously used numerous different techniques and processes to produce the coins.  Coins range from what are probably technically proof specimens (struck multiple times on polished planchets) to virtual garbage.  The most dramatic example is a 1966 quarter that shows up in ~.4% of sets that is well struck by very low relief dies and usually appears virtually flawless.  Even the '67 sets show some variation but the '65 and '66 are far more extreme.  

[J P M]

 1964,65,66 and 67 were strange years for the mint . Well actually for everyone everywhere Lol... I think there was someone in the cellar going through bags of coins saying this one looks good enough for a SMS set.  

[zadok]

On 9/1/2023 at 7:06 PM, Henri Charriere said:

[I am going to withhold comment on this rigamarolesque rowdy dowdy.  This will allow the otherwise uninformed to leave having a much better opinion of me, all things considered. Also, burning is the last resort of a scoundrel.]

...laissez les bons temps rouler....

[cladking]

On 9/2/2023 at 8:15 AM, zadok said:

...once again, statements versus actual coins...were these statements issued in 1964 saying this is what we r doing now or were they issued in later years trying to offer an explanation of what we probably did at that time...the general consensus has been that the '65-'67 sms sets were made to appease date collectors for their collections, of course words to that effect mite not be found in mint statements but their absence wouldnt negate the end result.... 

The coin shortage was much more easily ameliorated than had been predicted.  Not only was the mint churning out vast numbers of coins but silver prices had been in a gradually decreasing trajectory for years dampening the demand of hoarders.  Some of the moves made to recirculate coins might have helped a little and the silver hoarders finally got arounds to taking their pennies and nickels back to the bank.  The mint was working overtime and their job by this time was more to replace all the silver in circulation rather than solving a coin shortage.  So, yes, they used some capacity to invent and make SMS's which were sold at a significant profit to the mint.  I had sent in cash for a 1965 proof sets and they had to return it with an apology.  No doubt my order wasn't the only one.  

[zadok]

On 9/2/2023 at 9:22 AM, J P M said:

 1964,65,66 and 67 were strange years for the mint . Well actually for everyone everywhere Lol... I think there was someone in the cellar going through bags of coins saying this one looks good enough for a SMS set.  

...yea thats when i found that small bag of 24 '33 saints over in the corner....

[cladking]

On 9/2/2023 at 8:22 AM, J P M said:

 1964,65,66 and 67 were strange years for the mint . Well actually for everyone everywhere Lol... I think there was someone in the cellar going through bags of coins saying this one looks good enough for a SMS set.  

I love finding these sets with swapped out coins.  A nice 1967 non-SMS quarter is quite valuable today.  It was worth 25c in 1966 and the SMS at least a dollar but today you can't get more than 50c for the SMS and even an MS-60 is worth $5.  Gems get quite pricey.  Be this as it may I've seen only a handful of SMS's with any coins at all swapped out.  There are far more rumors of cheating than there are instances.  

As far as the low relief '66 quarters are concerned it's very difficult to believe they are examples of this chiefly because the worst I've ever seen is virtually mark free.  Circulation issues of that time were not only poorly made by worn out dies but they always had marking and usually excessive marking.  

[cladking]

On 9/2/2023 at 8:15 AM, zadok said:

...once again, statements versus actual coins...were these statements issued in 1964 saying this is what we r doing now or were they issued in later years trying to offer an explanation of what we probably did at that time...the general consensus has been that the '65-'67 sms sets were made to appease date collectors for their collections, of course words to that effect mite not be found in mint statements but their absence wouldnt negate the end result.... 

I think most mint set collectors knew this way back in the '70's or even earlier but the first time I remember it in print was a a story in Coins magazine back in the '90's.  I don't recall the mint admitting these coins were specially made until it appeared in an advertisement for 1996 mint sets in Coin World.   I've read only about half of the mint reports since 1964 so may have missed it.  I should have suspected the coins were produced at lower speeds but didn't know this until the mint finally came clean.  

 

The mint is set up to produce and release Gems but the reality is that things go wrong at every single stage of production. so virtually no coins at all come out of the mint as well struck coins by good dies and minimum marking.  This has been even more true in the clad era and for most practical purposes 1964 really included in the clad era.  There is even a 1964 coin struck on a clad planchet.  Any Gem 1964 coin is highly suspect of being specially made and merely using new dies is quite insufficient to assuring the production of a Gem.  With some coins everything goes wrong so a coin can just be a piece of junk struck by a brand new die.  

[cladking]

On 9/1/2023 at 9:50 AM, VKurtB said:

There is one die marker for the so-called SMS 1964 halves. There is some funky deal at the 4. But yes, that has been found on other non-SMS halves. Not many, but a few.

Thank you.  I was not aware of this.  

It was not at all uncommon in those days to reuse either obverse or reverse dies to strike circulation issues.  Dies were at a premium especially during the coin shortage.  

Edited September 2, 2023 by cladking

[zadok]

On 9/2/2023 at 9:50 AM, cladking said:

I think most mint set collectors knew this way back in the '70's or even earlier but the first time I remember it in print was a a story in Coins magazine back in the '90's.  I don't recall the mint admitting these coins were specially made until it appeared in an advertisement for 1996 mint sets in Coin World.   I've read only about half of the mint reports since 1964 so may have missed it.  I should have suspected the coins were produced at lower speeds but didn't know this until the mint finally came clean.  

 

The mint is set up to produce and release Gems but the reality is that things go wrong at every single stage of production. so virtually no coins at all come out of the mint as well struck coins by good dies and minimum marking.  This has been even more true in the clad era and for most practical purposes 1964 really included in the clad era.  There is even a 1964 coin struck on a clad planchet.  Any Gem 1964 coin is highly suspect of being specially made and merely using new dies is quite insufficient to assuring the production of a Gem.  With some coins everything goes wrong so a coin can just be a piece of junk struck by a brand new die.  

...my comments n those of vkurt's in this thread r referring to the '64 SMS existence n not really addressing routine circulation strikes of the mid-60s...basicly r there bona fide SMS produced sets for '64 or not...lots of diff opinions...the actual coins exist there r no known supporting documents n why would there be considering the circumstances of their production...many such instances in US numismatics, branch mint proofs/specimens etc...i personally just let the coin speak for itself n dont require documented records for support....