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

[RWB]

On 8/31/2024 at 7:43 AM, MarkFeld said:

That’s incorrect about no 1964 SMS coins having been auctioned during the past 5 years. Heritage auctioned 7 pieces from 2020-2023.

No, Heritage sold 7 labels from 2020-2023. No SMS coins were made in 1964 thus, none exist except in the failed and false attribution awarded by TPGs.

[Henri Charriere]

Solely on the strength of the following three statements made in connection with the auction of the cent at Heritage Auctions, as hereinabove described, I am going to absent myself from any further discussion of this issue:

1).  "There is no way to explain the existence of 1964 SMS coins."

2).  "A reference made to an "Enigmatic Experimental Mint Issue."

3).   "It is thought no more than (fifty) 50 1964 [Special Mint] sets were produced..."

With a reputation lying in tatters and not a scintilla of measurable credibility left to support any conjecture I may choose to engage in, I have slowly come to the conclusion that I have nothing of substance to add to the conversation and nothing to gain.  What we seen to be talking about, if my analogy is not too abstract, is basically ONE ROLL OF CENTS nobody, thus far, has come up with an explanation active, informed members of the coin collecting community-at-large can agree to with any semblance of unanimity.

[RWB]

On 8/31/2024 at 6:31 PM, Henri Charriere said:

1).  "There is no way to explain the existence of 1964 SMS coins."

2).  "A reference made to an "Enigmatic Experimental Mint Issue."

3).   "It is thought no more than (fifty) 50 1964 [Special Mint] sets were produced..."

All three of these statements are false.

[Henri Charriere]

On 8/31/2024 at 7:17 PM, RWB said:

All three of these statements are false.

Puh-leeze Roger.  Not I/f/o my army of followers!  

[MarkFeld]

On 8/31/2024 at 6:17 PM, RWB said:

All three of these statements are false.

Your statement is false, because 1) the linked auction lot description included the term “Enigmatic Experimental Mint Issue."  And even if you think the term isn’t accurate, a reference was made to it. And 2) no matter what you think of the coins, it’s true that those who believe in them think  “..no more than (fifty) 50 1964 [Special Mint] sets were produced..”

 

[powermad5000]

On 8/29/2024 at 2:09 PM, VKurtB said:

“ape poopy”

   

[powermad5000]

On 8/30/2024 at 6:26 PM, Henri Charriere said:

Let's say, for example, it was you who doled out $11,400. in Sept.2019 for a Mint State 65 SMS.  Flying Al is the messenger bearing bad or good news depending on which side you're on, and then what? Restitution involving thousands of people who bought those sets at exorbitant prices?  WHAT A MESS!

This kind of situation can happen with any coin "thought" to have a limited number of surviving specimens, only to have a hoard of the same "found" and the previous prices instantly drop because some coins were "found" that were thought to be gone forever, in essence making those original specimens less rare. In this case, this known limited number of specimens which are stated to be easily identifiable by their surface conditions, I believe irregardless of the determination of the research these pieces will still hold value due to their "lore" meaning if the determination is there was no such piece, the bearer of the then purported specimen will be able to still sell the coin at its same premium advertising it as the "once controversial SMS". This is where I agree with @VKurtB. There are only a small number of said such pieces and as such, having the backstory attached to them, will still retain value for their place in numismatic history.

[FriendlyEagle79]

I'd like to know:

do they weigh the same as normal coins? Has anyone XRF tested them? Were they struck on the machines used for circulation half dollars or proof half dollars or something else, and was there increased striking pressure? Is the relief the same? I know the fields are satiny, but is that just because of the harsh die polish lines or was some chemical treatment done or sandblasting? Do the devices have the same surface appearance as proofs or business strikes or are they also unique? Do the reeded edges resemble circulation strikes or proofs, anything special about the edges?

This article mentions SMS half dollars struck for the National Numismatic Collection up to 1979. We have lots of pictures of the 64 SMS coins. I want to know what the 68-79 coins look like. Were they all denominations or just the half dollars? On the Ike group message boards some think the 1971 Ike prototypes, which also have a unique finish somewhere between circulation and proof, have a lot in common with the 64SMS coins.

 

https://www.thesprucecrafts.com/kennedy-half-dollar-mintages-4075997

 

https://forum2.ikegroup.info/viewtopic.php?p=10124#p10124

 

Here's my theory on how the finish came to exist: They were making 1964 Peace Dollars, and since the original proof peace dollars were satin and matte proofs, they started experimenting with finishes for the other denominations for the sake of selling a set to collectors besides just circulation strike mint sets. I'd also bet whoever bought/found the 64SMS sets in mint director Adam's estate found peace dollars with them, but wisely kept those secret. Its absurd there are still coins that are illegal to own. For the sake of preserving history the law should change so that if they're out there they can be examined by the TPGs, conserved if necessary, and slabbed.

 

 

Edited September 1 by FriendlyEagle79

[Henri Charriere]

On 9/1/2024 at 1:54 AM, FriendlyEagle79 said:

..... Its absurd there are still coins that are illegal to own. For the sake of preserving history the law should change so that if they're out there they can be examined by the TPGs, conserved if necessary, and slabbed.

Now here is a position I agree with completely.  Imagine if long ago, investigators were content only with obtaining blood samples for the purposes of determining blood type and jettioned the rest.  Today, we examine trace DNA evidence and the flight  characteristics and staining patterns of human blood.  Once the evidence is destroyed, it is gone forever. I exaggerate, but they fall within the realm of something akin to the Seven Wonnders of the World.

Same with coins. They must be made available for study. Only then can we get to the crux of the matter as to whether they are indeed identifiable genetic aberrations or mutations.

 In some way they are different and not like any other.  The responsible thing to do is keep them for safekeeping until we have attained the necessary razor's edge in advancements of science sufficient to making a definitive determination as to how that came to be.

Edited September 2 by Henri Charriere
Die polishing

[RWB]

On 8/31/2024 at 8:58 PM, MarkFeld said:

Your statement is false, because 1) the linked auction lot description included the term “Enigmatic Experimental Mint Issue."  And even if you think the term isn’t accurate, a reference was made to it. And 2) no matter what you think of the coins, it’s true that those who believe in them think  “..no more than (fifty) 50 1964 [Special Mint] sets were produced..”

 

Reference to a lie doesn't make the lie into truth. The TPGs presented NO EVIDENCE of their assertion. None. They did no meaningful research before printing false labels. That "$18,000" cent price was merely another example of "ignorance in numismatics," which in this situation begins with the major TPGs.

Heritage simply repeated the TPG's false assertions.

And you are wrong - all three of the statements are false. Read Flying Al's article in November. (I doubt Numismatist will include all the source notes, but the draft includes everything.)

[RWB]

On 9/1/2024 at 1:54 AM, FriendlyEagle79 said:

I'd like to know:

do they weigh the same as normal coins? Has anyone XRF tested them? Were they struck on the machines used for circulation half dollars or proof half dollars or something else, and was there increased striking pressure? Is the relief the same? I know the fields are satiny, but is that just because of the harsh die polish lines or was some chemical treatment done or sandblasting? Do the devices have the same surface appearance as proofs or business strikes or are they also unique? Do the reeded edges resemble circulation strikes or proofs, anything special about the edges?

This article mentions SMS half dollars struck for the National Numismatic Collection up to 1979. We have lots of pictures of the 64 SMS coins. I want to know what the 68-79 coins look like. Were they all denominations or just the half dollars? On the Ike group message boards some think the 1971 Ike prototypes, which also have a unique finish somewhere between circulation and proof, have a lot in common with the 64SMS coins.

 

https://www.thesprucecrafts.com/kennedy-half-dollar-mintages-4075997

 

https://forum2.ikegroup.info/viewtopic.php?p=10124#p10124

 

Here's my theory on how the finish came to exist: They were making 1964 Peace Dollars, and since the original proof peace dollars were satin and matte proofs, they started experimenting with finishes for the other denominations for the sake of selling a set to collectors besides just circulation strike mint sets. I'd also bet whoever bought/found the 64SMS sets in mint director Adam's estate found peace dollars with them, but wisely kept those secret. Its absurd there are still coins that are illegal to own. For the sake of preserving history the law should change so that if they're out there they can be examined by the TPGs, conserved if necessary, and slabbed.

 

 

This entire mess (above) is nonsense. Hardly a fact in sight. This is the kind of uninformed speculation that diverts attention from the truth, and impedes meaningful research. I realize that FriendlyEagle79 means well, and that we all make routine speculations for unusual situations. Yet we have to begin with facts, if our hypothesizing is to be of value.

[VKurtB]

On 8/31/2024 at 6:37 AM, MarkFeld said:

I’m not going to look through the population reports to confirm, but at least with respect to classic coinage, I’ve seen noticeably more “SP” designations from NGC than PCGS. 

Nope. Sorry Mark. This was a hot topic at ANA Summer Seminar in 2023. ABSOLUTELY EVERY MEDAL is a SP designee at PCGS - every blessed one. The coin you linked to is even WORSE, though. It does not have the SP designation, but it carries the even “stoopider” SMS. The SP would be far easier to justify. 

Edited September 1 by VKurtB

[VKurtB]

On 8/31/2024 at 7:58 PM, MarkFeld said:

Your statement is false, because 1) the linked auction lot description included the term “Enigmatic Experimental Mint Issue."  And even if you think the term isn’t accurate, a reference was made to it. And 2) no matter what you think of the coins, it’s true that those who believe in them think  “..no more than (fifty) 50 1964 [Special Mint] sets were produced..”

 

I’m really glad we were able to drag Mark Feld into this discussion. Short of having Jeff Garrett on the board, it’s hard to do better. I know what Roger Burdette and his minions believe. He asks an impossible standard. I believe all these “things” were purloined and converted/ stolen by Ms. Adams or her minions. And yes, I mean ‘minions’ in the Despicable Me sense of the word.

You see, I’m not like the majority on this board. I’m not willing to genuflect to everything Roger believes. I believe that Roger is “PROBABLY right” about what 1964 SMS coins are, but that as far as I’m willing to go. I also believe we will never know with certainty. So my fallback rule, as always, is “let the coins speak for themselves”. I have never held a so-called 1964 SMS coin in my hand, and I may never, so I have to claim agnosticism. Maybe one will be in the lot viewing room at Orlando or Atlanta early in 2025. 

Edited September 1 by VKurtB

[VKurtB]

On 9/1/2024 at 10:32 AM, RWB said:

Reference to a lie doesn't make the lie into truth. The TPGs presented NO EVIDENCE of their assertion. None. They did no meaningful research before printing false labels. That "$18,000" cent price was merely another example of "ignorance in numismatics," which in this situation begins with the major TPGs.

Heritage simply repeated the TPG's false assertions.

And you are wrong - all three of the statements are false. Read Flying Al's article in November. (I doubt Numismatist will include all the source notes, but the draft includes everything.)

The article is not in print yet, and the editor answers phone calls. Ask him for the source notes to be included. 

[Sandon]

    I wanted to wait to read the article to comment further, but I think that @RWB has identified the problem regarding this and other "legendary" coins: speculation.       

On 9/1/2024 at 1:54 AM, FriendlyEagle79 said:

Here's my theory on how the finish came to exist:

    A theory is supposed to be based upon facts that have been established by evidence or experimentation. In this case, evidence would be applicable and would be established by witness testimony or documentation. None was offered to support this member's "theory" that these pieces had anything to do with 1964 Peace dollars. Nor had any such evidence been offered for the conjecture that these pieces were some sort of test strikes or prototypes for 1965 Special Mint Set coins, leading to the now discredited "SMS" label.   

On 9/1/2024 at 1:29 PM, VKurtB said:

I believe all these “things” were purloined and converted/ stolen by Ms. Adams or her minions.

    Beliefs aren't facts either, and one should be particularly careful about having them before accusing others, living or dead of wrongdoing. There is no established explanation how these pieces left the Mint or came to be consigned to, as I recall, a Stack's auction in 1993, having been unknown to the collecting public before that time.

   The only real evidence we currently have are the coins themselves. I vaguely recall seeing a set at a coin show or ANA Convention I attended and being unimpressed. Both my recollection and the images I have examined show otherwise ordinary 1964 coins with heavy die polish marks that were carefully handled. Many lower mintage coins such as classic commemoratives are known to have examples with a similar appearance, being early strikes from new dies. I even have a 1941 Lincoln cent that NGC graded MS 66 RD with a strong strike and heavy die polish marks, especially on the obverse. Perhaps I should come up with a "theory" that it was some sort of "special strike" and worth a fortune as such!   

Edited September 1 by Sandon

[MarkFeld]

On 9/1/2024 at 10:32 AM, RWB said:

Reference to a lie doesn't make the lie into truth. The TPGs presented NO EVIDENCE of their assertion. None. They did no meaningful research before printing false labels. That "$18,000" cent price was merely another example of "ignorance in numismatics," which in this situation begins with the major TPGs.

Heritage simply repeated the TPG's false assertions.

And you are wrong - all three of the statements are false. Read Flying Al's article in November. (I doubt Numismatist will include all the source notes, but the draft includes everything.)

None of what you wrote above negates the fact that what you labeled false, was true. You’re so blinded that you can’t or won’t read and comprehend what you’re so intent on disputing.

1) "A reference made to an "Enigmatic Experimental Mint Issue."

 The reference, itself, was indeed made and is there for anyone to see. And that’s even if the coins aren’t enigmatic or experimental or Mint issues. So your saying that the above quoted statement was false, was wrong.

2) “It is thought no more than (fifty) 50 1964 [Special Mint] sets were produced..."

Some people think that, even if you don’t and even if you think they’re dead-wrong. Even if no such coins/sets were ever made, because some people believe they were and that it was no more than 50 sets, the above statement is true.

If you want to say that the coins weren’t specially made, that’s fine. But when person #1 says “I believe that the coins were specially made” and person #2 says “person #1 said he believes the coins were specially made”, person #2 is being accurate/truthful. His statement that person #1 said so and so is true, even of what person #1 believes is wrong.

Why is that so difficult for you to understand?

I’ve read the draft of the upcoming article and have spoken to/corresponded with two dealers who handled several of the sets and know as much as or more about them than anyone else.

Edited September 1 by MarkFeld

[VKurtB]

On 9/1/2024 at 3:03 PM, MarkFeld said:

None of what you wrote above negates the fact that what you labeled false, was true. You’re so blinded that you can’t or won’t read and comprehend what you’re so intent on disputing.

1) "A reference made to an "Enigmatic Experimental Mint Issue."

 The reference, itself, was indeed made and is there for anyone to see. And that’s even if the coins aren’t enigmatic or experimental or Mint issues. So your saying that the above quoted statement was false, was wrong.

2) “It is thought no more than (fifty) 50 1964 [Special Mint] sets were produced..."

Some people think that, even if you don’t and even if you think they’re dead-wrong. Even if no such coins/sets were ever made, because some people believe they were and that it was no more than 50 sets, the above statement is true.

If you want to say that the coins weren’t specially made, that’s fine. But when person #1 says “I believe that the coins were specially made” and person #2 says “person #1 said he believes the coins were specially made”, person #2 is being accurate/truthful. His statement that person #1 said so and so is true, even of what person #1 believes is wrong.

Why is that so difficult for you to understand?

.

Because Roger is “logically challenged”. It shows repeatedly every time he attempts to read statute law. He does NOT SUBSCRIBE TO A SIMPLE TRUTH - that absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, nor is it a disproof. Many things are true even though evidence is absent. 

[MarkFeld]

On 9/1/2024 at 12:21 PM, VKurtB said:

Nope. Sorry Mark. This was a hot topic at ANA Summer Seminar in 2023. ABSOLUTELY EVERY MEDAL is a SP designee at PCGS - every blessed one. The coin you linked to is even WORSE, though. It does not have the SP designation, but it carries the even “stoopider” SMS. The SP would be far easier to justify. 

I was talking about coins (which is my area of expertise), not medals (which is far from it😉).

[VKurtB]

On 9/1/2024 at 3:08 PM, MarkFeld said:

I was talking about coins (which is my area of expertise), not medals (which is far from it😉).

The outrage, coming from Europeans in particular, over PCGS designating all medals as SP, was quite palpable. 

[RWB]

On 9/1/2024 at 4:03 PM, MarkFeld said:

None of what you wrote above negates the fact that what you labeled false, was true. You’re so blinded that you can’t or won’t read and comprehend what you’re so intent on disputing.

1) "A reference made to an "Enigmatic Experimental Mint Issue."

 The reference, itself, was indeed made and is there for anyone to see. And that’s even if the coins aren’t enigmatic or experimental or Mint issues. So your saying that the above quoted statement was false, was wrong.

2) “It is thought no more than (fifty) 50 1964 [Special Mint] sets were produced..."

Some people think that, even if you don’t and even if you think they’re dead-wrong. Even if no such coins/sets were ever made, because some people believe they were and that it was no more than 50 sets, the above statement is true.

If you want to say that the coins weren’t specially made, that’s fine. But when person #1 says “I believe that the coins were specially made” and person #2 says “person #1 said he believes the coins were specially made”, person #2 is being accurate/truthful. His statement that person #1 said so and so is true, even of what person #1 believes is wrong.

Why is that so difficult for you to understand?

I’ve read the draft of the upcoming article and have spoken to/corresponded with two dealers who handled several of the sets and know as much as or more about them than anyone else.

Again, Mark, you show how blinded to truth you are by the legends and lies you've absorbed; and that you refuse to learn and correct.

1) "Enigmatic Experimental Mint Issue."  This is false. There was and is no evidence of any "experimental issue." Complete fabrication.

2) “It is thought no more than (fifty) 50 1964 [Special Mint] sets were produced..." Thought by whom? A slime mold under a rock? There was and is no evidence of any  quantity produced except ZERO; nor of the existence of any "Special Mint Sets dated 1964." Complete fabrication.

These are examples of the false material bandied about by many in the coin business who have never bothered to research, examine, understand or verify what they claim. That is like saying "there were a lot more people at my meeting than yours" without revealing an actual head count.

[MarkFeld]

On 9/1/2024 at 5:10 PM, RWB said:

Again, Mark, you show how blinded to truth you are by the legends and lies you've absorbed; and that you refuse to learn and correct.

1) "Enigmatic Experimental Mint Issue."  This is false. There was and is no evidence of any "experimental issue." Complete fabrication.

2) “It is thought no more than (fifty) 50 1964 [Special Mint] sets were produced..." Thought by whom? A slime mold under a rock? There was and is no evidence of any  quantity produced except ZERO; nor of the existence of any "Special Mint Sets dated 1964." Complete fabrication.

These are examples of the false material bandied about by many in the coin business who have never bothered to research, examine, understand or verify what they claim. That is like saying "there were a lot more people at my meeting than yours" without revealing an actual head count.

No, Roger, you’re mistaken, yet again. I’m wide open to the possibility that the coins weren’t specially made. Now, I’m going to repeat that, so hopefully, you’ll absorb it - I’m wide open to the possibility that the coins weren’t specially made.

In our recent exchanges, I haven’t once made any argument in their favor. Yet, you’ve repeatedly replied as if I have. Your bias is apparently so strong that you can’t read and understand what I’ve actually written and the points I was making, even though it was in plain English.

[VKurtB]

On 9/1/2024 at 5:59 PM, MarkFeld said:

Your bias is apparently so strong that you can’t read and understand what I’ve actually written and the points I was making, even though it was in plain English.

There it is, folks. Roger is driven by one thing - bias. Makes him unable to read and comprehend. Hafta say I agree. But in the end, on THIS PARTICULAR ISSUE, he’s PROBABLY correct. Roger is contrarian for its own sake.

Serious question: IF these coins are first strikes off EITHER a master die made from a master hub, or the first working dies made from a working hub, is that “Special” enough? I’m just trying to understand how you’re defining your terms here. The term ‘SMS’ is what is tripping up everyone. Put that away. What would make these special?

Edited September 2 by VKurtB

[Henri Charriere]

🐓  :  Why did you write that?  Look at all the troble you caused!

Q.A.:  The uncomfortable truth is ever since @Sandonappeared on the Forum, he exercises propriety which includes references to who photographed what, attributing statements made by others with the use of quotation marks, etc.  Have you noticed he is so proper, he indents the first line in every paragraph he writes.  Well, I tried to follow his example but I guess @RWB will not tolerate my quoting sources where the facts are is doubt. So in his way of looking at things, I am wrong because in doing so I am reinforcing the perception that no equivocation exists.

🐓  :  He tells Mark to read the article which hasn't even been published yet!  I'm going to take the easy way out. I'm going to wait for the movie version to make the rounds.

[VKurtB]

@FlyingAl deserves massive kudos for taking on this topic. That does not mean that ANYTHING will be solved by his article. It is just as likely that the controversy will be deepened and sharpened. What we have here is a doctrinaire advocate that has been dominating the conversation for far too long. He has a bizarre standard for acceptable evidence. He only deviates from it, seemingly, when he testifies, for cash money, in court. At THAT event, speculation is just fine, because it’s HIS speculation.

It is a PERFECTLY FINE outcome if we never get irrefutable documentary evidence, proving anything. 

Edited September 2 by VKurtB

[FriendlyEagle79]

On 2/11/2024 at 9:38 AM, RWB said:

"Ignorance + Greed = 1964 SMS"

The falsely called "1964 SMS" coins are merely early strikes from ordinary dies. The identical situation occurs every time new dies are put into service. Those dies go on to make hundreds of thousands of coins before they deteriorate and are fulled from service. The entire story AND certification is a lie and a fraud.

[Please give FlyingAl the space to complete his research and article. This kind of thing is not accomplished on a deadline.]

In my post above (the one you chose to insult rather than address the point I was making) I posed a number of questions I am personally curious about which could falsify this hypothesis. It boils down to this: is there anything about the coins that is actually different besides the surface of the fields? Could they be explained by something as simple as lightly sanding normal business strike dies and omitting the final polishing, hence the pronounced die polish lines. I don't have access to any TPG certified '64 SMS coins, or the coins in the NNC, but I presume some members of this community have access to both and could potentially answer my questions.

Obviously it would be preferable to have primary sources documenting their creation, but we don't have that and thus we have a mystery to solve. There is room for disagreement without insult or dismissiveness. I did cite a few facts in my post I believe may be relevant, and linked to an article on Sprucecraft, the author of which I seem to recall has handled coins in the NNC, and a discussion on the Ikegroup forum, which references the August 2013 Coin World, in which the following interesting observation was made: coins in the NNC have finishes unlike circulation strikes and unlike proof strikes. We don't have primary sources re:64SMS, but do we have any re:71 proto Ikes that might prove relevant? Could it be that the die polish heavy finish is an anti-counterfeighting measure, and a relatively easy way to authenticate the special strikes for the NNC / VIP presentation / mint leadership etc?

Below is the 1968-D 50c pictured in the thread on the Ikegroup. I presume it is from the 8/13 Coin World. Does anyone know if/where that issue is available online? If not does anyone have a physical copy and would you do us a favor and scan that article, even if just with your phone's camera?

 

Edited September 2 by FriendlyEagle79

[FriendlyEagle79]

Has anyone ever found a 1964 business strike coin where the obverse or reverse dies or both matched the 64 "SMS"? Would such a coin be valuable, or would examination potentially aid this research?

What do you make of the fact the 64 50c "SMS" is a DDO?

Also, I remember reading that the Royal mint sometimes produces coins with special finishes solely for the purpose of photographing new designs for print media. The release of the Kennedy half dollar probably got more media attention than any other coin in US history. Might this explain its existence?

I'm really most curious to hear from those who've seen them in person how obvious the difference is. I do coin photography and know how choice of lighting technique can drastically alter a coins appearance.

If I had the $$$, or had any pull at a big auction house, or was attending any big shows I'd do this experiment: take photos and adjust the lights such that none of the well known diagnostics are readily apparent. Auction the coin but with a fake label that says its a high grade, but not top pop, MS coin, and see if it fetches drastically more than comps. Alternatively, get it in an MS holder and find a dealer attending a coin show to mix it into their inventory and keep track of how many people notice it / try to buy it / point out its an "SMS".

Edited September 2 by FriendlyEagle79

[VKurtB]

On 9/2/2024 at 1:34 AM, FriendlyEagle79 said:

Has anyone ever found a 1964 business strike coin where the obverse or reverse dies or both matched the 64 "SMS"? Would such a coin be valuable, or would examination potentially aid this research?

What do you make of the fact the 64 50c "SMS" is a DDO?

Also, I remember reading that the Royal mint sometimes produces coins with special finishes solely for the purpose of photographing new designs for print media. The release of the Kennedy half dollar probably got more media attention than any other coin in US history. Might this explain its existence?

I'm really most curious to hear from those who've seen them in person how obvious the difference is. I do coin photography and know how choice of lighting technique can drastically alter a coins appearance.

If I had the $$$, or had any pull at a big auction house, or was attending any big shows I'd do this experiment: take photos and adjust the lights such that none of the well known diagnostics are readily apparent. Auction the coin but with a fake label that says its a high grade, but not top pop, MS coin, and see if it fetches drastically more than comps. Alternatively, get it in an MS holder and find a dealer attending a coin show to mix it into their inventory and keep track of how many people notice it / try to buy it / point out its an "SMS".

The true experts will have NO difficulty in noticing the so-called SMS coins, particularly the half and cent. Two things make the other three denominations problematic. 1) small fields that might hide the “SMS effect”, and 2) so many 1964 proofs have VERY subdued mirrors, and can be quickly dismissed as just another crummy proof, at least for those of us that know.

[FlyingAl]

On 9/1/2024 at 9:22 PM, VKurtB said:

@FlyingAl deserves massive kudos for taking on this topic. That does not mean that ANYTHING will be solved by his article. It is just as likely that the controversy will be deepened and sharpened. What we have here is a doctrinaire advocate that has been dominating the conversation for far too long. He has a bizarre standard for acceptable evidence. He only deviates from it, seemingly, when he testifies, for cash money, in court. At THAT event, speculation is just fine, because it’s HIS speculation.

It is a PERFECTLY FINE outcome if we never get irrefutable documentary evidence, proving anything. 

Thank you Kurt. The point of the article is for collectors to decide for themselves what they believe, aided by all the evidence at hand. I'm not out to change minds, just present the facts. 

[RWB]

On this subject, almost no facts have ever been presented by any person or authentication company until FlyingAl's article.

It's unfortunate that VKurtBS feels compelled to make false insinuations about others, rather than simply sticking to his meaningful comment. "That does not mean that ANYTHING will be solved by his article. It is just as likely that the controversy will be deepened and sharpened."

[VKurtB]

On 9/3/2024 at 7:57 AM, FlyingAl said:

Thank you Kurt. The point of the article is for collectors to decide for themselves what they believe, aided by all the evidence at hand. I'm not out to change minds, just present the facts. 

I’d be utterly amazed if there IS as much evidence at hand as one might wish there were. It seems likely that reasonable inferences can be made NEARLY AS MUCH by the absence of evidence, speaking to motives of those who might have, and probably should have, provided lavish documentation. And yes, I mean that EVEN by the contemporary standards of 1964 federal government service. I MAY BE biased, given my STATE government experience being employed by “the other side of the aisle”. That gang never ceases to amaze me with their chronic self-aggrandizement and self-dealing.

Edited September 4 by VKurtB