Skeptical SMS set. 1964? I don't think so. 1 1

[ThePhiladelphiaPenny]

I saw this purported 1964 Special Mint Set today 1964 SMS. However I am aware that this set doesn't exist. So how in the world did these people create this SMS set? Did they just take a real SMS set, sell the coins separate, then replace it with proof 64's? Must be. 

[The Neophyte Numismatist]

Without pictures, I would guess that's exactly what happened - a 1964 proof set placed in SMS packaging.  Pictures are needed for anyone to make a meaningful conclusion.

[Just Bob]

[Coinbuf]

 The seller has 3 available 39 sold, not even all proofs just a made up set of random MS and proof coins, total ripoff.

[The Neophyte Numismatist]

I sincerely hope that the three that have it in their cart now are just lures, and not really people trying to buy them.  But, the will get a ~$40 lesson depending on spot.

 

 

[Sandon]

   Some unusual looking 1964 coins of all denominations with a special though uncertain provenance were called "SMS" based upon conjecture that they were prototypes for the coins placed in Special Mint Sets beginning in 1965, but this conjecture has now been largely debunked. It now appears that these coins, which have satiny luster and many die polish marks, were simply carefully handled early strikes from regular dies for circulation coinage. Some collectors have paid very high prices for these coins (tens to hundreds of thousands of dollars), which both NGC and PCGS have certified. I understand that an article by @FlyingAl that will shed more light on these pieces is scheduled to appear in The Numismatist this fall. The pieces previously referred to as "SMS" are now referred to by NGC as "Specimens" and PCGS as "Special Strikes". See, for example, 1964 50C SP | Coin Explorer | NGC (ngccoin.com), https://www.pcgs.com/coinfacts/coin/1964-50c-sms/6844.

   The linked eBay listing shows a 1964 proof set with the usual mirror finish placed in the holder used for 1966-67 Special Mint Sets, not so-called 1964 "SMS" coins.

   See also the following forum topic:

   

[RWB]

A fraud using old 1965 plastic holders. Should be operating from prison -- just like the Colorado Counterfeiter.

[RWB]

On 8/27/2024 at 6:37 PM, Sandon said:

The pieces previously referred to as "SMS" are now referred to by NGC as "Specimens" and PCGS as "Special Strikes". See, for example, 1964 50C SP | Coin Explorer | NGC (ngccoin.com), https://www.pcgs.com/coinfacts/coin/1964-50c-sms/6844.

Both these nomenclatures are highly misleading and deceptive -- and without published factual basis. Just another way of continuing a lie.

[J P M]

On 8/27/2024 at 6:37 PM, Sandon said:

   Some unusual looking 1964 coins of all denominations with a special though uncertain provenance were called "SMS" based upon conjecture that they were prototypes for the coins placed in Special Mint Sets beginning in 1965, but this conjecture has now been largely debunked. It now appears that these coins, which have satiny luster and many die polish marks, were simply carefully handled early strikes from regular dies for circulation coinage. Some collectors have paid very high prices for these coins (tens to hundreds of thousands of dollars), which both NGC and PCGS have certified. I understand that an article by @FlyingAl that will shed more light on these pieces is scheduled to appear in The Numismatist this fall. The pieces previously referred to as "SMS" are now referred to by NGC as "Specimens" and PCGS as "Special Strikes". See, for example, 1964 50C SP | Coin Explorer | NGC (ngccoin.com), https://www.pcgs.com/coinfacts/coin/1964-50c-sms/6844.

   The linked eBay listing shows a 1964 proof set with the usual mirror finish placed in the holder used for 1966-67 Special Mint Sets, not so-called 1964 "SMS" coins.

   See also the following forum topic:

   

I have a coin set just like that 1966 one, oh it is my set.....  LoL

Edited August 27 by J P M

[Sandon]

On 8/27/2024 at 7:23 PM, RWB said:

A fraud using old 1965 plastic holders.

   Actually, the 1965 Special Mint Sets were packaged similarly to 1959-64 uncirculated coin ("mint") sets in a soft plastic sheet with a plastic token, which was placed in a white envelope. The 1966 and 1967 sets were packaged in the hard plastic holders, which are easily opened and reclosed, enabling those such as the eBay seller to place different coins in them. These were the first hard plastic holders used by the U.S. Mint.

Edited August 28 by Sandon
changed "1958" to "1959"

[Henri Charriere]

On 8/27/2024 at 6:28 PM, The Neophyte Numismatist said:

 

Maybe it's just me, but would you buy coins from anyone who would uses "Evicter's Coins" as their handle?

For all the good it would do, everyone reading this should report this to eBay.  I plan on doing so right now.

[RWB]

On 8/27/2024 at 8:00 PM, Sandon said:

   Actually, the 1965 Special Mint Sets were packaged similarly to 1959-64 uncirculated coin ("mint") sets in a soft plastic sheet with a plastic token, which was placed in a white envelope. The 1966 and 1967 sets were packaged in the hard plastic holders, which are easily opened and reclosed, enabling those such as the eBay seller to place different coins in them. These were the first hard plastic holders used by the U.S. Mint.

Thanks for the correction! How do we get this crook into a nice cold jail cell?

[powermad5000]

On 8/27/2024 at 9:15 PM, RWB said:

How do we get this crook into a nice cold jail cell?

There are so many bogus coin listings on eBay you would have to put over half the sellers in a cold jail cell.

[Sandon]

On 8/27/2024 at 10:15 PM, RWB said:

How do we get this crook into a nice cold jail cell?

    Who is really the worst?

   1. The eBay seller offering a 1964 proof set, worth $35 or so in its original packaging, in a 1966-67 SMS holder for $69?

   2. The top tier grading services and major dealers and auction houses who touted the actual 1964 pieces deemed "SMS", "Specimen", or "Special Strike" as legitimate extremely rare coins without determining how they were made, for what purpose, and how they were distributed?

   3. The wealthy collectors who were willing to buy the so-called 1964 "SMS", etc. pieces for five or six figure prices without investigating the claims that these otherwise abundantly common coins were legitimate rarities just because of a somewhat satiny appearance and heavy die polish marks?

   I wouldn't be surprised if, after the publication of Al's article, litigation ensues regarding the so-called 1964 "SMS", etc. coins.

[J P M]

I think the seller is being deceitful and unethical but in reality, he is not advertising a SMS set. Only 1964 proofs in a plastic case. I do not like it but what can you do it is eBay  

[Henri Charriere]

I reported the seller of fine, quality SMS sets, but as one who was not a buyer and, hence, suffered no harm, what can I reasonably expect to happen?  Not being a complainant, my role is relegated to raising the hue and cry, and little else.

Recently, in following an unrelated thread to its conclusion, I discovered two excellent responses were volunteered, which did not elicit a comment from the OP because he evidently did not see them having departed the premises a few month's earlier. I personally had no stake in the matter, but was curious as to its resolution, whether favorable or unfavorable.

I found his writing to be lucid and exemplary in every aspect and was curious, above all, about the fact the dealer was "reputable" and the buyer knew him having enjoyed a prior relationship with him.  Upshot: the seller accepted the return of the presumed counterfeit months after the transaction had been concluded.  I was gratified, and the OP responded to the two helpful members who endeavors to help him.

In the instant matter, suppose everything the buyer said was not only true but the seller accepted the return of the questioned goods.  The question now becomes what does he do with it?  He's effectively out $600 +.

Human nature being what it is I would expect that if one were to fail, he would try, try again. So the buyer's dillema is solved, any problem which had been apparent becomes moot.

But is the problem first brought to our attention by @The Penny Lady solved?  I believe this to be the crux of the problem.  I see the same problem with counterfeits. No one is inclined to do the right thing; seller or buyer, and they make their problem, everyone else's.  When my interests in coins was wide and I did not specialize in a specific type or key coin, I was vulnerable  to the itinerant peddling patent medicines on the street.  Now that I had confined my interest to a single comparatively small series, my exposure to collectible hazards is greatly reduced. But being a fellow hobbyist, I am still receptive to the tricks of the trade hoisted upon my colleagues -- and that includes the 1847 Crown apparently lost to the mails whilst in transit months ago. 

I believe enough has been written about the entire SMS mess as to warrant all collectors steer clear of them. I look forward to reading what @FlyingAl has uncovered in the course of his research.

[RWB]

On 8/27/2024 at 10:46 PM, Sandon said:

   2. The top tier grading services and major dealers and auction houses who touted the actual 1964 pieces deemed "SMS", "Specimen", or "Special Strike" as legitimate extremely rare coins without determining how they were made, for what purpose, and how they were distributed? (Emphasis added)

The primary responsibility is here. The big-money people bought based only on a printed label. The little crooks, like the s.... on ebay are the everyday lowlife.

Until the TPGs open their attributions to a wide base of outside knowledge and objective research, they will continue to fail. They will also continue to hide behind their secrecy.

[RWB]

On 8/28/2024 at 8:22 AM, Henri Charriere said:

I believe enough has been written about the entire SMS mess as to warrant all collectors steer clear of them.

Henri refers to assumptions, guesses, etc. What has not been written about AND publicly presented, are facts. Thus far, the 1964 SMS subject has been discussed only in speculations, guesses, and useless assumptions. The TPGs have never -- never -- presented any facts; and yet they pretend to be "experts."

FlyingAl's Numismatist article will clear up the facts; but it cannot repair the decades of damage, misleading claims, lies and monetary losses pushed on collectors by inept/incompetent attribution.

[VKurtB]

On 8/28/2024 at 10:04 AM, RWB said:

but it cannot repair the decades of damage, misleading claims, lies and monetary losses

THIS is my biggest concern, but I do NOT expect people like Jeff Garrett to back off. He’s too invested in the whole narrative. 

[Henri Charriere]

The problem, as I see it, more so on selling platforms where it appears anything goes, is the willy-nilly use of well-defined numismatic terms used carelessly, at will.

What is Uncirculated?

When, exactly, does a Proof coin cease being one?

How has "wear" become so fragmented as to include "cabinet friction" as well as a routine, generational hand-off from steward to steward?

What qualifies as an "heirloom' piece.

Why are graders with varying degrees of "apprenticeship," not formally licensed as professionals?  If they were, perhaps all the crack-out artists would stop seeking "second opinions."

Is it ethically correct to accept a counterfeit coin that had been sold and accepted as a return to be passed on to another collector?

How can it be acceptable for a coin that failed to cross-grade be returned to stock, or to a web site?

If a buyer who unknowingly acquires a 1964 SMS, wishes to return the item, for cause, why is his only option appealing to the fox guarding the hen house?

[ThePhiladelphiaPenny]

On 8/27/2024 at 8:30 PM, Henri Charriere said:

Maybe it's just me, but would you buy coins from anyone who would uses "Evicter's Coins" as their handle?

For all the good it would do, everyone reading this should report this to eBay.  I plan on doing so right now.

Agreed. I'm glad I happened across this though, because I had this weird idea that there were no '64 proofs until this made me pick up my Red Book and take a look.

[ThePhiladelphiaPenny]

On 8/28/2024 at 6:24 AM, J P M said:

I think the seller is being deceitful and unethical but in reality, he is not advertising a SMS set. Only 1964 proofs in a plastic case. I do not like it but what can you do it is eBay  

True. Didn't see that at first.