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

[cladking]

On 9/2/2023 at 9:21 AM, zadok said:

...i personally just let the coin speak for itself n dont require documented records for support....

Yes.  Same here.  

Virtually every Gem made by the mint since 1964 has been specially produced. They probably make a few million per year for circulation but the odds of these being saved out is exceedingly low.  Even intensive searching in the year of issue would rarely turn up any nice coins and back before 1999 there wasn't really much searching.  People were grading nice Morgans and old coins and no one had time for new coins.  

I have found my share of Gems made for circulation but as nice as these are they usually don't have as crisp of strike or the new dies of coins made for collectors.  Every year I find a small handful of these and sometimes a few rolls.  

[RWB]

On 9/2/2023 at 9:16 AM, cladking said:

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.  

In that period proof coins were struck once on a medal press at exaggerated pressure and from polished dies. There was no multi-strike equipment at the Philadelphia Mint.

All visible characteristics of 1965 SMS coins can be easily produced with the techniques I mentioned. For 1966 and 1967 there were multiple changes at the beginning of each year and during the years. A few 1967 coins are almost proof quality for that period.

[cladking]

On 9/2/2023 at 11:07 AM, RWB said:

In that period proof coins were struck once on a medal press at exaggerated pressure and from polished dies. There was no multi-strike equipment at the Philadelphia Mint.

I was not aware of this.  No doubt the '68 (S-mint) and later proofs were struck twice.  

I had thought they used this exact same equipment as the '64 proof coins to strike all the SMS.
 

On 9/2/2023 at 11:07 AM, RWB said:

All visible characteristics of 1965 SMS coins can be easily produced with the techniques I mentioned.

There were numerous differences between the SMS coins,.  Some were struck on polished planchets, some dies were polished, some were frosted, some were even basined.  There were apparently numerous differences in the execution of the SMS coins.  

There are numerous highly PL and frosted SMS especially for 1967 but there are also coins with a matte appearance.  None of the coins that appear to be true "proofs" that I've seen are cameo.  These "proof" coins are so well struck that I assume they were struck twice.  None of the cameo coins I've seen are so well struck but they are often very highly PL.  

On 9/2/2023 at 11:07 AM, RWB said:

For 1966 and 1967 there were multiple changes at the beginning of each year and during the years. A few 1967 coins are almost proof quality for that period.

The '66 coins are the most variable with '65 a close second.  They apparently had settled on the "look" they wanted for the coins by '67 but a few of these vary as well.  These were a sort of mint set/ proof set hybrid in 1967 leaning toward proof appearance.  Despite the increasing quality production decreased with each issue because they were not popular with collectors.  Mint set collectors tended to consider them to be proof sets and proof sets collectors tended to see them as mint sets.  They pleased almost nobody and represented a dramatic falloff in the aggregate mintages of mint and proof sets.  1968 and later mint sets have far more in common with the SMS's than with earlier mint sets.  Many '68 and later mint set specimens look like SMS.  

 

 

[cladking]

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

When we have CAMEO Kennedy halves from the "real" SMS years???

Just to be clear not every die even in 1967 produced even one cameo  coin.  Dies were prepared in several different ways and, I believe, some dies were sandblasted after they had already run off cameos.  1966 SMS coins have numerous different appearances as do the '65 and to a lesser extent '67 issues.  

[J P M]

I see nothing special just some good looking coins in a cellophane wrapper and two plastic e-z open holders. The 67 does have the nicest fields of all three samples

[RWB]

On 9/2/2023 at 1:46 PM, cladking said:

I had thought they used this exact same equipment as the '64 proof coins to strike all the SMS.

Nope. Ordinary toggle presses.

[RWB]

On 9/2/2023 at 1:46 PM, cladking said:

There were numerous differences between the SMS coins,.  Some were struck on polished planchets, some dies were polished, some were frosted, some were even basined.  There were apparently numerous differences in the execution of the SMS coins.  

There are numerous highly PL and frosted SMS especially for 1967 but there are also coins with a matte appearance.  None of the coins that appear to be true "proofs" that I've seen are cameo.  These "proof" coins are so well struck that I assume they were struck twice.  None of the cameo coins I've seen are so well struck but they are often very highly PL. 

All of what you describe can be done with an ordinary press and polishing dies. Each year the product improved before returning the medal press proofs in 1968 (still struck once). Each year has to be treated as a separate entity -- without mixing with the other two years.

The Mint never considered any of the 1965-1967 pieces as proofs. None were manufactured the same way as proofs. The SMS coins were better than Unc set coins unless someone wanted to hand-select the best 2 or 3 circ coins from each new bag.

[cladking]

On 9/2/2023 at 1:50 PM, J P M said:

I see nothing special just some good looking coins in a cellophane wrapper and two plastic e-z open holders. The 67 does have the nicest fields of all three samples

 

Dependent on the specific date and denomination 90% to 99+% of each of the 15 coins in the SMS's are made with the same processes.  Any variability is the result of die wear or individual strike characteristics.  But some of these coins are not like the others.  There were significant differences in die, planchet, or coining processes.  There is a lot of variation in the appearance of the coins. 

[cladking]

On 9/2/2023 at 2:05 PM, RWB said:

The Mint never considered any of the 1965-1967 pieces as proofs.

A very tiny number of these appear to have been inadvertently or intentionally made as proofs.  I've seen very few from the thousands of sets and dozens of rolls of coins from the sets that I've looked at. I've seen a couple  that others found, one in hand.  I believe these may have accidently been struck twice.  It is possible some other confluence of factors caused their appearance.  

 

On 9/2/2023 at 2:05 PM, RWB said:

The SMS coins were better than Unc set coins unless someone wanted to hand-select the best 2 or 3 circ coins from each new bag.

I don't believe Unc set coins after 1964 ever saw the inside of a bag.  Most bags issued from the mint after 1965 contained no true Gems.  This is because the coins were so poorly made and even if a nice one got into a bag the odds are it was scratched up before and/or after bagging.  Many years there were Gems available but they were very very tough in the SMS years.  Very few coins were saved on whole and those saved tended to be run of the mill rather than hand selected coins.  

Of course this doesn't apply to '64 issues.  Millions were saved.   Quality isn't a lot better but silver is soft enough that there are more fully struck coins.  Cents and nickels are as bad as the later coins but far more numerous.  .  

[RWB]

On 9/2/2023 at 5:15 PM, cladking said:

A very tiny number of these appear to have been inadvertently or intentionally made as proofs.  I've seen very few from the thousands of sets and dozens of rolls of coins from the sets that I've looked at. I've seen a couple  that others found, one in hand.  I believe these may have accidently been struck twice.  It is possible some other confluence of factors caused their appearance.  

No. None were "made as proofs" because that is a method of manufacturing that was not used 1965-1967. They might look a little like a proof -- all shiny and such - but they never were, and never will be proof coins. (This is the old "looks like" approach which fails to consider more than a mere superficiality, rather than a full set of visual and physical indicators.)

[cladking]

On 9/2/2023 at 4:32 PM, RWB said:

No. None were "made as proofs" because that is a method of manufacturing that was not used 1965-1967. They might look a little like a proof -- all shiny and such - but they never were, and never will be proof coins. (This is the old "looks like" approach which fails to consider more than a mere superficiality, rather than a full set of visual and physical indicators.)

I certainly understand and sympathize with your position.  I am hardly suggesting that there is variability in the SMS coins because I say so.  I am merely stating that in my experience there exists vast variability in SMS coins.  The Higgs- Boson existed long before it was found and long before human life even existed.  I believe variability exists in Special Mint Set coins because of mint experimentation and will continue to exist for many thousands of years whether the coins are scientifically studied and records found or not.  If even one of these coins was struck multiple times with specially prepared dies on a  polished planchet intentionally or otherwise it is a proof whether it was intentional or not.  It is a proof whether documentation is ever found or not and it is a proof whether it is recognized or not.  I might well be mistaken about some or any of the explanations I've hypothesized for the variability in the coins.  It's even possible that some of the most distinctly different coins were swapped into the sets in an attempt to deceive buyers on the secondary market.  

Perhaps I should have done more research over the years but there seems very little information available.  Remember the mint even claimed mint set coins were made by the same processes as circulation issues for many years even though I "knew" they were not.  I am aware of no scientific or documentary evidence that contradicts anything I believe.  

It is even possible as some have suggested that the '64 so called special mint sets are wholly unrelated to these later sets.  Perhaps "SMS" was a mere marketing ploy.  As a collector rather than a researcher I intend to bow out of this discussion, at least for the nonce.  

[Henri Charriere]

On 9/3/2023 at 9:31 AM, cladking said:

....The Higgs- Boson existed long before it was found and long before human life even existed.... 

Possibly the most thought-provoking and incendiary reply I have ever read here, or anywhere else, in a super blue moon. When you come out with the heavy artillery, everyone stands down -- including me under all User Names I have chosen to adopt. Talk about a live wire!    

[RWB]

On 9/3/2023 at 9:31 AM, cladking said:

I certainly understand and sympathize with your position.

My comments are based on fact for each year. Every coin issue will vary somewhat over a year, and with SMS coins in 1966 and 1967 it is evident that different things were tired during production. That is just the way it was and we have no meaningful information on the details because we don't have the Engraving Dept records. Speculations are interesting, but they also have to be within common reason to be of much utility. They also have to agree with facts about equipment, processes, and methodologies.

Edited September 3, 2023 by RWB

[J P M]

On 9/2/2023 at 10:21 AM, zadok said:

...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....

In 1964 we had the last of the silver proof coins. Why would we need a 1964 SMS. I can only think it was a trial run for the upcoming clad coin that did not work out. My understanding is SMS coins were not even conceived until late 1966 and only to appease numismatics. So in 66  they were minting 1965, 1966 and possibly at the end of the year 1967 coins.  

[zadok]

On 9/5/2023 at 9:27 AM, J P M said:

In 1964 we had the last of the silver proof coins. Why would we need a 1964 SMS. I can only think it was a trial run for the upcoming clad coin that did not work out. My understanding is SMS coins were not even conceived until late 1966 and only to appease numismatics. So in 66  they were minting 1965, 1966 and possibly at the end of the year 1967 coins.  

...thats probably what is most often published but not everything done was put into print nor in official records then or now...even the repeated explanations of how those sets were produced is not written down anywhere official nor r they consistent nor would anyone expect them to be...the coins speak for themselves, ive seen them n they r not standard mint production items for 1964 nor '65-'67...how, when, why they were produced is of no concern to me, what irks me is those few egotists that keep running around saying they dont exist they cant exist there r no records etc etc...

[VKurtB]

On 9/5/2023 at 8:40 AM, zadok said:

...thats probably what is most often published but not everything done was put into print nor in official records then or now...even the repeated explanations of how those sets were produced is not written down anywhere official nor r they consistent nor would anyone expect them to be...the coins speak for themselves, ive seen them n they r not standard mint production items for 1964 nor '65-'67...how, when, why they were produced is of no concern to me, what irks me is those few egotists that keep running around saying they dont exist they cant exist there r no records etc etc...

Irksome indeed.

[RWB]

On 9/2/2023 at 10:31 AM, cladking said:

  On 9/2/2023 at 10:21 AM, zadok said:

...i personally just let the coin speak for itself n dont require documented records for support....

A typically ignorant approach that never produces a reliable or consistent result. Every observer will "hear" something different when a "coin speaks for itself." We can obtain certain information from examination, but that is only part of the story.

[zadok]

On 9/5/2023 at 10:24 AM, RWB said:

A typically ignorant approach that never produces a reliable or consistent result. Every observer will "hear" something different when a "coin speaks for itself." We can obtain certain information from examination, but that is only part of the story.

...well its much better than trying to deny the coin exists just because one cant find a paper trail for it...here, maybe u can understand this better...if there r brown things in ur toilet u dont need paper to prove that they r there...sort of fits with some of ur opinions....

[VKurtB]

On 9/5/2023 at 9:37 AM, zadok said:

...well its much better than trying to deny the coin exists just because one cant find a paper trail for it...here, maybe u can understand this better...if there r brown things in ur toilet u dont need paper to prove that they r there...sort of fits with some of ur opinions....

Brown things? The little shards of corrugated cardboard from the cats' scratching pads, right? Or something else? 

You are, of course, correct. It's "nice" to have documentary evidence, but it is NEVER a requirement. Absence of evidence is NOT evidence of absence, AND IT NEVER HAS BEEN! Ironically, or perhaps not, depending on your viewpoint, the fallacy into which RWB repeatedly falls is called Argument from Ignorance. Makes me giggle just a little.

Edited September 5, 2023 by VKurtB

[NunyaNumis]

On 8/29/2023 at 7:47 PM, Hoghead515 said:

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.

If I find any like you’re looking for would you like me to let you know? If so shoot me a PM. I have an obsession with SMS set and I have quite a few of each. Some of them are, meh… but others are like, daaaaaang!

[NunyaNumis]

On 8/30/2023 at 10:44 PM, GoldFinger1969 said:

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

San Francisco Mint Set ?

Super money series!!! JK

Special Mint Set