Frankly I think submitting the coin no matter the grade is worthwhile because it will protect a memento and preserve a memory you have of your grandfather. And those are definitely worth something!
One diagnostic common among the 1964 SMS Kennedy's is the teardrop dangling from the crosslet of the 4. This also appears in non SMS Kennedy's, but if not present on the OP's coin it should eliminate it from SMS consideration.
Might as well go ahead and get them graded. If nothing else they will be slabbed examples of your grandfathers coins.
Also, it would stop the endless wondering about what you have. If you don't want to believe the opinions of people here (and I don't judge you either way on that) then best to get PCGS to make the final call. If you really believe you have an SMS coin then go ahead and send it in, for your own peace of mind.
I have a super rare error that was easily identified as at least a rare error. It is a 2016 nickel overstruck on a 2015 nickel. The overstrike was obvious, but you had to really scrutinize it to see the 2015 date underneath the second strike. One of the reasons I had it slabbed was so that I would not have to try to convince people I showed it to that the underlying date was 2015. Now, it is plainly stated on the label, so there can be no differences of opinion.
@cmerlo1 said:
Also keep in mind that some 1964 proofs can have a satin appearance instead of brilliant, which can resemble the SMS coins of 1965-1967.
There's nothing too special about these touted/over-rated SMS coins. Sand blasted working dies struck these coins and like all working dies, they strike thousands of coins. And after a while the satin finish effect wears off as the dies continued to strike coins. Nothing but early die state coins with sand textured sorfaces.
There's a thread in the archives here somewhere of someone's visit to a US Mint and they were allowed to see and photograph many EDS examples for other years and denominations the US Mint had set aside.
Just to clarify, in case there was confusion. I'm using the term 'satin' to describe the appearance of some 1964 proof coins, in the same manner it's used to describe 1936 proof cents and nickels, and some 1950 proof coins...
You Suck! Awarded 6/2008- 1901-O Micro O Morgan, 8/2008- 1878 VAM-123 Morgan, 9/2022 1888-O VAM-1B3 H8 Morgan | Senior Regional Representative- ANACS Coin Grading. Posted opinions on coins are my own, and are not an official ANACS opinion.
@cmerlo1 said:
Also keep in mind that some 1964 proofs can have a satin appearance instead of brilliant, which can resemble the SMS coins of 1965-1967.
There's nothing too special about these touted/over-rated SMS coins. Sand blasted working dies struck these coins and like all working dies, they strike thousands of coins. And after a while the satin finish effect wears off as the dies continued to strike coins. Nothing but early die state coins with sand textured sorfaces.
There's a thread in the archives here somewhere of someone's visit to a US Mint and they were allowed to see and photograph many EDS examples for other years and denominations the US Mint had set aside.
Just to clarify, in case there was confusion. I'm using the term 'satin' to describe the appearance of some 1964 proof coins, in the same manner it's used to describe 1936 proof cents and nickels, and some 1950 proof coins...
Got it - thank you.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
I went to the B&M this morning, and for a couple dollars picked up some examples:
1964 cent- MS- typical business strike from the era:
1964 cent PR 'Satin'- this coin is obviously a proof but does not have mirrors. I have seen this on all denominations, and I think these might be getting mistaken from time to time as SMS coins, though they really don't look like those either. As a variety cherrypicker, I've looked at thousands of proof sets from 1960-1964, and I only see this on 1964 coins:
1964 cent PR 'Brilliant'- typical proof appearance for the era:
You Suck! Awarded 6/2008- 1901-O Micro O Morgan, 8/2008- 1878 VAM-123 Morgan, 9/2022 1888-O VAM-1B3 H8 Morgan | Senior Regional Representative- ANACS Coin Grading. Posted opinions on coins are my own, and are not an official ANACS opinion.
Well to my grandfathers coin collection update I found a key to safety deposit box from my GF. What I found in it is very interesting? What are everyone’s
thought?
@CoinMenace said:
Well to my grandfathers coin collection update I found a key to safety deposit box from my GF. What I found in it is very interesting? What are everyone’s
thought?
In case you’re thinking or hoping those are SMS examples, they’re not.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
@Mark said:
Frankly I think submitting the coin no matter the grade is worthwhile because it will protect a memento and preserve a memory you have of your grandfather. And those are definitely worth something!
So you don't think the coin can go bad in the holder?
@Jimnight Of course a coin can go bad in the holder. But I think on average holders protect a coin much better than keeping the coin raw. For example, someone dropping a coin or holding a coin by its obverse is apt to do more damage if the coin is raw.
All these pics are of the same coin. Different angles of light make the coin look different. It’s truly a different 1964 Kennedy coin I’ve ever seen or held. It looks like a proof and a business strike.
I have one too that looks different from the others I own and its complete with the droplet. While mine has no provenance to speak of and has already been debunked here, I still like it for the "What If" factor.
Now, that I look at this photo again I noticed TRUST looks doubled.
@coinmenance Thanks for posting the PCGS grade. Way too many posters arrive, post a coin that they see as unique, and then either never submit the coin or never post the grade. It's nice that you both submitted and posted!
Until this thread I didn't even know there was a '64 SMS. Only knew of '65, '66 and '67. Can anyone give me a brief history on these? Thank you in advance.
I found it and it's very hard to say looking through a loupe with all the shadowing. Here are some new pics and it definitely looks DD just not sure which. After a quick check at Variety Vista I'm still not sure, hopefully number 008 but there is no die gouge dot above the Y in Liberty.
I always thought it would grade decently so I think I'll send it in with my next order along with a restore and get back at ya.
Oh yea, it was a pawn shop purchase so who knows.
The two pics I originally posted (whole coin) I don't think are the same coin I just posted, although the close ups are.
I'm having trouble matching them up, while the tear drop is present in the now and only the before close ups.
Yea, sorry about that! The original whole coin pic is definitely different, I just saw the D, lol.
Again, the original close-ups and the now pics are the same coin. Been a long day.
Comments
Frankly I think submitting the coin no matter the grade is worthwhile because it will protect a memento and preserve a memory you have of your grandfather. And those are definitely worth something!
One diagnostic common among the 1964 SMS Kennedy's is the teardrop dangling from the crosslet of the 4. This also appears in non SMS Kennedy's, but if not present on the OP's coin it should eliminate it from SMS consideration.
- Bob -
"Central Valley" Roosevelts
MPL's - Lincolns of Color
Might as well go ahead and get them graded. If nothing else they will be slabbed examples of your grandfathers coins.
Also, it would stop the endless wondering about what you have. If you don't want to believe the opinions of people here (and I don't judge you either way on that) then best to get PCGS to make the final call. If you really believe you have an SMS coin then go ahead and send it in, for your own peace of mind.
I have a super rare error that was easily identified as at least a rare error. It is a 2016 nickel overstruck on a 2015 nickel. The overstrike was obvious, but you had to really scrutinize it to see the 2015 date underneath the second strike. One of the reasons I had it slabbed was so that I would not have to try to convince people I showed it to that the underlying date was 2015. Now, it is plainly stated on the label, so there can be no differences of opinion.
@MFeld
Just to clarify, in case there was confusion. I'm using the term 'satin' to describe the appearance of some 1964 proof coins, in the same manner it's used to describe 1936 proof cents and nickels, and some 1950 proof coins...
Got it - thank you.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
I went to the B&M this morning, and for a couple dollars picked up some examples:
1964 cent- MS- typical business strike from the era:
1964 cent PR 'Satin'- this coin is obviously a proof but does not have mirrors. I have seen this on all denominations, and I think these might be getting mistaken from time to time as SMS coins, though they really don't look like those either. As a variety cherrypicker, I've looked at thousands of proof sets from 1960-1964, and I only see this on 1964 coins:
1964 cent PR 'Brilliant'- typical proof appearance for the era:
Well to my grandfathers coin collection update I found a key to safety deposit box from my GF. What I found in it is very interesting? What are everyone’s
thought?
And the reverse
What does that writing on the holder inset say.
My Collection of Old Holders
Never a slave to one plastic brand will I ever be.
In case you’re thinking or hoping those are SMS examples, they’re not.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
Lots of hits on the obv and Rev so not even a decent proof or unc.
WS
So you don't think the coin can go bad in the holder?
@Jimnight Of course a coin can go bad in the holder. But I think on average holders protect a coin much better than keeping the coin raw. For example, someone dropping a coin or holding a coin by its obverse is apt to do more damage if the coin is raw.
All these pics are of the same coin. Different angles of light make the coin look different. It’s truly a different 1964 Kennedy coin I’ve ever seen or held. It looks like a proof and a business strike.
Sorry for my cat and other photos
The writing that is on the paper inside the flip is for my submission information for PCGS.
I have one too that looks different from the others I own and its complete with the droplet. While mine has no provenance to speak of and has already been debunked here, I still like it for the "What If" factor.
Now, that I look at this photo again I noticed TRUST looks doubled.
Well Mr. Feld was correct it came back a Ms66 From PCGS
CoinscrarchFever I hope you sent that coin in regardless of where you got it from because who knows where the previous owner had received the coin.
TRUST is dobled
So is WE
Hopefully I kept it during my last silver dump, pretty sure I did. I’ll go have a look now to see if so and if it really looks doubled under a loupe.
@coinmenance Thanks for posting the PCGS grade. Way too many posters arrive, post a coin that they see as unique, and then either never submit the coin or never post the grade. It's nice that you both submitted and posted!
Until this thread I didn't even know there was a '64 SMS. Only knew of '65, '66 and '67. Can anyone give me a brief history on these? Thank you in advance.
https://www.pcgs.com/news/1964-special-mint-set-coins
https://www.pcgs.com/coinfacts/coin/1964-50c-sms/6844
https://coinweek.com/prices/rare-1964-sms-kennedy-half-dollar-sells-47k/
I found it and it's very hard to say looking through a loupe with all the shadowing. Here are some new pics and it definitely looks DD just not sure which. After a quick check at Variety Vista I'm still not sure, hopefully number 008 but there is no die gouge dot above the Y in Liberty.
I always thought it would grade decently so I think I'll send it in with my next order along with a restore and get back at ya.
Oh yea, it was a pawn shop purchase so who knows.
The two pics I originally posted (whole coin) I don't think are the same coin I just posted, although the close ups are.
I'm having trouble matching them up, while the tear drop is present in the now and only the before close ups.
Yea, sorry about that! The original whole coin pic is definitely different, I just saw the D, lol.
Again, the original close-ups and the now pics are the same coin. Been a long day.