Comprehensive Research on the So Called 1964 "SMS" Coins Is In the Works - What Questions Do Members Here Have About these Coins? 0

[FlyingAl]

Thanks guys!

[RWB]

Great!

Let's hope that honest, truthful research will push the TPGs to perform detailed, public examination before adding opinions and unsubstantiated titles to slab labels. (Once a TPG makes such an error, and someone pays a large premium for a coin with such a label, the mistake is extremely difficult and expensive to correct.)

This whole special title on slab labels needs to revert to the pre-1990 process where multiple people contributed to public discussion before a consensus was reached.

[zadok]

...fortunately there isnt enuf space on cert labels for footnotes....

[RWB]

On 5/20/2024 at 6:18 PM, zadok said:

...fortunately there isnt enuf space on cert labels for footnotes....

"Truth" is not a footnote; it's the story.

[zadok]

On 5/20/2024 at 7:33 PM, RWB said:

"Truth" is not a footnote; it's the story.

...ill just wait for the movie...n see who stays for the credits....

[Henri Charriere]

Relying solely on my certified negative three (-3) I.Q. and wary of the OP releasing a daisy cutter over my already rublle-strewn neighborhood, I should like to put this matter to rest as the Attica Commission noted 50+ years ago, "firmly and with finality."

I say more evidence has been produced in support of the case of the existence of an "SMS" set than has been produced for the Loch Ness fella.

What don't we know about them other than some members violently disagree with the usage of the designation? Nothing. Now if you commit the ultimate sacrilege and break up a set formerly in its OGH, sorry, but all bets are off. (I do not know if Sandon has ever engaged in such conduct personally, but speaking with authority that discourages debate, I would be inclined to accept his word unchallenged.)

This topic has been bandied about long enough. That decision, ultimately, however, is Flying Al's to make.

[VKurtB]

On 5/20/2024 at 6:33 PM, RWB said:

"Truth" is not a footnote; it's the story.

The alleged ones will always be considered something different, something apart, regardless of what Al’s research shows. Having opened Pandora’s box (actually a jar), the lid can never close again. The misdeeds of entitled government officials tell their own story. 

Edited May 23 by VKurtB

[RWB]

Don't presume "misdeeds" by government officials, or anyone originally involved.

[bstrauss3]

On 5/20/2024 at 5:18 PM, zadok said:

...fortunately there isnt enuf space on cert labels for footnotes....

There certainly is space on the web page for a given certification #.

[J P M]

On 5/23/2024 at 4:09 PM, RWB said:

Don't presume "misdeeds" by government officials, or anyone originally involved.

So, it was ok for the mint director Adams to have position of the sample's years later?

[RWB]

On 5/24/2024 at 7:27 AM, J P M said:

So, it was ok for the mint director Adams to have position of the sample's years later?

First, it is an assumption.

Second, the director handled and approved most pattern and experimental pieces, plus initial annual circulation coins. (This goes back to at least 1905 and is documented. At least two of these exist with documents. There are many other routine examples as part of the director's job.)

Third, if the director had some coins from earlier years were they legitimately held - as in being ordinary coins? The only prohibition was for special coins or experiments.

Fourth, the designation "1964 SMS" has never been objectively established.

Hopefully, Alex' research answers all these questions and more. We'll have to await the November Numismatist to find out.

[J P M]

On 5/24/2024 at 1:31 PM, RWB said:

First, it is an assumption.

Second, the director handled and approved most pattern and experimental pieces, plus initial annual circulation coins. (This goes back to at least 1905 and is documented. At least two of these exist with documents. There are many other routine examples as part of the director's job.)

Third, if the director had some coins from earlier years were they legitimately held - as in being ordinary coins? The only prohibition was for special coins or experiments.

Fourth, the designation "1964 SMS" has never been objectively established.

Hopefully, Alex' research answers all these questions and more. We'll have to await the November Numismatist to find out.

Ok, I agree there is no proof, only someone's say-so. Yes, it is the director's job to check the new stuff and show it to other higher ups, and why can't the boss have their own coin collection. I also will stand that there are no 1964 SMS (Special Mint Set) coins

Edited May 25 by J P M

[RWB]

We'll have to await Alex's article.... I'm glad someone took up the challenge on this subject. 

PS: HR Linderman had a nice US collection acquired while he was mint director. The records show he paid for everything, and the same coins and patterns were available to others at the same price. James Pollock and family also collected US coins.

Historical note: During the 18th and 19th centuries, middle and upper class families were expected to have "cabinets of curios and antiquities" for the amusement and information of visitors. These nearly always included ancient and modern coins, medals, fossils, mineral specimens, and almost anything odd and curious. The master or mistress of the house was expected to explain these items to guests, and enter into interesting conversations. Children also had their own curio cabinets including rocks, insects, an so forth. This was also the heyday of private museums open to the public and traveling exhibitions. Peale, Ripley and PT Barnum are the names now best known, but there were thousands of these.

Edited May 25 by RWB

[FlyingAl]

Directors are welcome to maintain their own collections, but they too are bound by the law and the balance sheets. 

They're also bound by their own rules. 

[leeg]

Great stuff. I'm glad to be an ANA member and look forward to reading this article!