As I recall, the Mint suspended production of 1964 proof sets after around 3 million had been minted, comparable to the mintage of the 1961 to 1963 sets. When it appeared that no more sets would be made, speculators drove the price up from $2.10 to around ten dollars ($75 in today's money). Proof set production was resumed a few months later, due to continuing collector demand and supposedly to put an end to the speculation.
I think the 1965-67 special mint sets were struck to appease collectors who felt (with some justification) that they were being unfairly blamed for the coin shortage. Many collectors (myself included) responded to the lack of 1965 proof sets by ordering that year's Canadian proof-like sets, which included silver dimes through dollars.
For this study, Ray Parkhurst created three-dimensional micrographs of 1942 1c Judd-2081, 1942 1c business strike and 1942 1c proof coins; relief measurements from these were used to prove that the pattern cent is higher in relief than the regular issue cents. The specific methods for making the micrographs were not described in the article, however. It requires an electron microscope, so if you are working with that kind of a facility, presumably the operator would know how to do it.
As I recall, there was considerable disagreement with that article, but the discussion ended badly.
Numismatist. 50 year member ANA. Winner of four ANA Heath Literary Awards; three Wayte and Olga Raymond Literary Awards; Numismatist of the Year Award 2009, and Lifetime Achievement Award 2020. Winner numerous NLG Literary Awards.
For this study, Ray Parkhurst created three-dimensional micrographs of 1942 1c Judd-2081, 1942 1c business strike and 1942 1c proof coins; relief measurements from these were used to prove that the pattern cent is higher in relief than the regular issue cents. The specific methods for making the micrographs were not described in the article, however. It requires an electron microscope, so if you are working with that kind of a facility, presumably the operator would know how to do it.
As I recall, there was considerable disagreement with that article, but the discussion ended badly.
After some research, here are the prices realized added for the lots listed in the original post.
While not useful to understanding the origins of these 1964 sets, I find the prices realized helpful to indicating the perception of the sets when first showing up and possible reactions by the market back then to their continued availability at Stack's auctions. The prices show at least some bidders viewed them as very different than regular issues. There seemed to be a general down trend after a strong start in prices realized over time, perhaps indicating concern that more sets might keep on becoming available or a market losing interest in about how special they were.
They also might indicate clues as to whether their are differences among the sets that were offered. If any people saw all of them they may be able to answer if that last $33.00 set (assuming no mistake on Stack's PR list) was either not from the same dies as the other sets; or worse condition from the others; or just slipped through the cracks to sell so cheap.
5/2/1990 - Lot 1352 - - hammer price of $715.00 for a total of $786.50
6/19/1991 - Lot 591 - - hammer price listed of $1,000.00 for a total of $1,100.00
6/23/1992 - Lot 1230 - - Prices Realized shows as WITHDRAWN
9/10/1992 - Lot 1206 (3 sets) - - hammer price listed of $2,600.00 for a total of $2,860.00
12/2/1992 - Lot 1345 (missing the Nickel) - - hammer price of $160.00 for a total of $176.00 " (...set was identified to have a 1960 proof nickel with it (missing the nickel). - lilolme"
1/13/1993 - Lot 693 - - hammer price listed of $1,600.00 for a total of $1,760.00
3/18/1993 - Lot 2974 - - hammer price of $500.00 for a total of $550.00
5/5/1993 - Lot 1064 - - hammer price of $480.00 for a total of $528.00
6/16/1993 - 5 cents, 1 dime, 2 halves - Lot 1232 - - hammer price of $525.00 for a total of $577.50
9/8/1993 (not 10/13/1993 as labled on NNP) - Lot 635 - - hammer price of $220.00 for a total of $242.00
1/19/1994 - Lot 526 - - hammer price of $475.00 for a total of $522.50
3/22/1994 - Lot 956 - - hammer price of $230.00 for a total of $253.00
5/2/1995 - Lot 430 - - hammer price of $30.00 for a total of $33.00 (assuming no mistake on Stack's PR list)
= = = = = = =
As far as their origins:
Is there any way to rule in or out whether these sets may have had to do with presenting the newly issued Kennedy Half early in the year as opposed to a test for special striking to replace Proof and regular Mint Sets? Are there any other possible reasons they could have been struck for aside from an SMS test?
The typically higher than normal coin preservation and die polish for each denomination would seem to indicate a special situation of hand picking these 1964 sets right after striking rather than picking random examples. So there seems to be a plan and purpose rather than just a sample from regular production.
It may be helpful if someone has been able to compare the recently discovered (around 2013 - see link to thread) Smithsonian 'special strikes" from the 1950's to 1970's to see if the 1964's located there are from the same or different dies as these 1964 sets. Has anyone done this or if not, does anyone have access to both for comparison? I'm guessing they are different unless the occasion for additional 1964 sets coincided with producing issues for the Smithsonian. It doesn't seem any other year sets exist of early strikes outside of the Smithsonian for the date range.
.
.
Coin World - 8/5/2013 First Strikes in the Smithsonian National Numismatic Collection!
Saw this on ebay, reminded me of this topic. Could it be from the dies that struck the so-called SMS nickels? We should assume those dies went on to help strike a billion more. lol
Leo
The more qualities observed in a coin, the more desirable that coin becomes!
Interesting article, but to describe these coins as ordinary is a contradictory conclusion to the facts presented in the article. We have several sets here that were let out in the wild that match die for die to the sets produced and given to the Smithsonian. Aren’t they presentation sets that were just made to give “someone” exact copies of the coins especially struck for the Smithsonian? Also, can you show me sets from previous years that are die for die copied sets from those given to the Smithsonian?
My experience only comes from delving into the cents. I’ve seen one that was attributed by PCGS as an SMS, but the dies didn’t match what is considered the correct die pair.
These coins are special. The surfaces are unlike proofs or business strike from 1964. The question is what do we call them.
@DMWJR said:
Interesting article, but to describe these coins as ordinary is a contradictory conclusion to the facts presented in the article. We have several sets here that were let out in the wild that match die for die to the sets produced and given to the Smithsonian. Aren’t they presentation sets that were just made to give “someone” exact copies of the coins especially struck for the Smithsonian? Also, can you show me sets from previous years that are die for die copied sets from those given to the Smithsonian?
My experience only comes from delving into the cents. I’ve seen one that was attributed by PCGS as an SMS, but the dies didn’t match what is considered the correct die pair.
These coins are special. The surfaces are unlike proofs or business strike from 1964. The question is what do we call them.
The Mint described the Smithsonian coins as perfectly normal.
Yes, “The Mint” doesn’t solely determine what is special, just that they were not US Mint directed "special mint sets.” Smithsonian and other museum curators haven’t really been known as the best curator or examiner of coins.
As I can only speak to cents, you can’t look at one of these and consider them a business or proof strike. Whatever you want to call them is fine with me, but it should be something more special than a common coin
@DMWJR said:
Interesting article, but to describe these coins as ordinary is a contradictory conclusion to the facts presented in the article. We have several sets here that were let out in the wild that match die for die to the sets produced and given to the Smithsonian. Aren’t they presentation sets that were just made to give “someone” exact copies of the coins especially struck for the Smithsonian? Also, can you show me sets from previous years that are die for die copied sets from those given to the Smithsonian?
My experience only comes from delving into the cents. I’ve seen one that was attributed by PCGS as an SMS, but the dies didn’t match what is considered the correct die pair.
These coins are special. The surfaces are unlike proofs or business strike from 1964. The question is what do we call them.
The Mint described the Smithsonian coins as perfectly normal.
The mint has also describe all mint set coins made since 1968 as regular mint coins.
It's not true. There is nothing "regular" about them and they are all specially made.
They use terms differently than we do in the hobby and always have.
If the article is correct, then it seems the coins were struck with new dies, ie "first strike" coins. This would make sense from a perspective of preserving history of the first coins struck from each year. It also explains the VEDS nature of the "SMS" coins, which show zero die wear and satiny surfaces, but not satiny in the same way as the 1936 proofs or the early 1950 proofs. Those were made with polished dies but unpolished planchets, while the "SMS" coins were presumably brand new dies and normal planchets.
PM me for coin photography equipment, or visit my website:
@FlyingAl - I should have also thanked you for the informative research. It was brilliant, and not thought of before. I reread my post, which seemed harsh by just jumping on what I disagreed with.
@DMWJR said: @FlyingAl - I should have also thanked you for the informative research. It was brilliant, and not thought of before. I reread my post, which seemed harsh by just jumping on what I disagreed with.
Doug, that’s quite alright. I expected some push back, as the research pushes pretty hard against what is the current accepted stance on the coins.
Ultimately, it’s up to the collectors to decide what makes a coin “special”. For me, that hard line is cut by the mint, who would need to acknowledge that something different was done in the manufacture process to impart a unique look. That does not appear to be the case here, but if collectors want a different stance on Specimen than I presented, they can go ahead and do so.
The 1964 SMS cents, as Doug suggests are “night and day” with “normal” coins. As are the other denominations as well. So, am I told to understand that the Mint wants me to believe they are “perfectly normal” coins and the “Emperor is wearing clothes”. Nice try! 🤣 😝.
Anyone with those high grade “perfectly normal” 1964 SMS cents- please contact me at once to try to dump your coins to me while there is still time!
Just my 2 cents.
Wondercoin.
Please visit my website at www.wondercoins.com and my ebay auctions under my user name www.wondercoin.com.
For sure the first few coins (some folks say the first 100 or so) struck from a new die, while they could be described as "perfectly normal", don't really look the same as coins struck once the die has started to wear. I search a lot of BU rolls, and while my main search target is die varieties, I put aside any of these VEDS coins I find.
Here is a good example of such a coin, a 1956-D Cent. Notice the fine die scratches that run right up to the devices without showing any reduction in definition that happens after the first 100 or so coins are struck from the new die. The closeup photos I've seen of the 1964 SMS coins seem to show a similar characteristic:
@rmpsrpms said:
For sure the first few coins (some folks say the first 100 or so) struck from a new die, while they could be described as "perfectly normal", don't really look the same as coins struck once the die has started to wear. I search a lot of BU rolls, and while my main search target is die varieties, I put aside any of these VEDS coins I find.
Here is a good example of such a coin, a 1956-D Cent. Notice the fine die scratches that run right up to the devices without showing any reduction in definition that happens after the first 100 or so coins are struck from the new die. The closeup photos I've seen of the 1964 SMS coins seem to show a similar characteristic:
Exactly. When you combine this with exceptional perseveration, you get the look that the 1964 "SMS" coins have, despite there having been no exceptionally special process to the production.
@rmpsrpms said:
For sure the first few coins (some folks say the first 100 or so) struck from a new die, while they could be described as "perfectly normal", don't really look the same as coins struck once the die has started to wear. I search a lot of BU rolls, and while my main search target is die varieties, I put aside any of these VEDS coins I find.
Here is a good example of such a coin, a 1956-D Cent. Notice the fine die scratches that run right up to the devices without showing any reduction in definition that happens after the first 100 or so coins are struck from the new die. The closeup photos I've seen of the 1964 SMS coins seem to show a similar characteristic:
With clad and five cent coin it appears to be only the first ten or twelve that show positive signs of VEDS as your cent does. This was determined by multiplying their incidence times the mintage and dividing by the number of dies used. I believe it is somewhat variable and the variability might be the result of several factors and especially die pressure.
Generally speaking while VEDS coins appear somewhat "special" they do not have the appearance of the '64 "SMS" coins. My experience with silver VEDS is quite limited however. As your coin shows VEDS does not assure a solid strike from good dies. It just assures you can see fine die characteristics. The "SMS" coins, whatever they may be, are solid strikes from good dies that were well hubbed. Well hubbed good dies have been the exception to the rule for a very long time. If these coins weren't specially made then someone knew exactly where to look to get the best specimens even before they were produced.
It is true that VEDS clads can often be spotted longer than the first dozen specimens but the fine detail will be gone.
With clad and five cent coin it appears to be only the first ten or twelve that show positive signs of VEDS as your cent does. This was determined by multiplying their incidence times the mintage and dividing by the number of dies used. I believe it is somewhat variable and the variability might be the result of several factors and especially die pressure.
Generally speaking while VEDS coins appear somewhat "special" they do not have the appearance of the '64 "SMS" coins. My experience with silver VEDS is quite limited however. As your coin shows VEDS does not assure a solid strike from good dies. It just assures you can see fine die characteristics. The "SMS" coins, whatever they may be, are solid strikes from good dies that were well hubbed. Well hubbed good dies have been the exception to the rule for a very long time. If these coins weren't specially made then someone knew exactly where to look to get the best specimens even before they were produced.
It is true that VEDS clads can often be spotted longer than the first dozen specimens but the fine detail will be gone.
I believe the Nickel in the outer layers makes clad planchets a bit harder than bronze Cent planchets, so it makes sense that clad dies would wear faster. I also believe silver planchets are a bit softer than Cents, so they would wear slower. I'm not 100% on these since rolling/annealing processes may skew the results in any direction, but assuming similar processes the metallurgy should follow what I said.
The closeups I've seen show that the "SMS" coins exhibit VEDS characteristics, but there may be other factors as well such as intentionally stronger strikes, etc. The point of my post was not only to show the VEDS characteristics but also to emphasize that "perfectly normal" has a range of characteristics, and thus requires more analysis. That 56-D Cent is a "business strike" yet is far from what I'd call "perfectly normal".
PM me for coin photography equipment, or visit my website:
The closeups I've seen show that the "SMS" coins exhibit VEDS characteristics, but there may be other factors as well such as intentionally stronger strikes, etc. The point of my post was not only to show the VEDS characteristics but also to emphasize that "perfectly normal" has a range of characteristics, and thus requires more analysis. That 56-D Cent is a "business strike" yet is far from what I'd call "perfectly normal".
This is a point that is easy to overlook. Sometimes everything just works and Gems are made. The odds are so heavily stacked against it that for some moderns there may be no true Gems at all but it does happen most years and you can't call every Gem a "special issue".
Was the US Mint capable of producing SMS coins in 1964 as nice as they did for the 1994-P and 1997-P SMS nickels? Absolutely!
What I find puzzling, why these 1964 early strikes aren't proof-like and I'll leave it at that.
Although Denver minted, came from fresh dies but later dies.
Leo
The more qualities observed in a coin, the more desirable that coin becomes!
I owned the dime at one time. Sold it after studying it. Special or not, it just wasn't exciting to me. Looked like a regular Roosevelt dime with alot of heavy die polish lines or die scratches that seemed to be in every direction, kind of sloppy. If these were "presentation strikes," I would think they would have prepared more carefully.
Dead Cat Waltz Exonumia
"Coin collecting for outcasts..."
@DCW said:
I owned the dime at one time. Sold it after studying it. Special or not, it just wasn't exciting to me. Looked like a regular Roosevelt dime with alot of heavy die polish lines or die scratches that seemed to be in every direction, kind of sloppy. If these were "presentation strikes," I would think they would have prepared more carefully.
Those die polish lines and die scratches are a common feature of VEDS business strikes. In fact they are the feature that distinguishes them from EDS, MDS, etc. As the die wears, those lines and scratches wear away as they are replaced by lines from die wear.
PM me for coin photography equipment, or visit my website:
@DCW said:
I owned the dime at one time. Sold it after studying it. Special or not, it just wasn't exciting to me. Looked like a regular Roosevelt dime with alot of heavy die polish lines or die scratches that seemed to be in every direction, kind of sloppy. If these were "presentation strikes," I would think they would have prepared more carefully.
Those die polish lines and die scratches are a common feature of VEDS business strikes. In fact they are the feature that distinguishes them from EDS, MDS, etc. As the die wears, those lines and scratches wear away as they are replaced by lines from die wear.
You are correct, and this is kind of my point. If these are supposed to be "special" (not business strikes) why are they not prepared in a way that makes then esthetically pleasing upon inspection? If they are just very early strikes, which they appear to be, and the Mint says they did nothing different in striking them than what they normally do, why do they command tens of thousands of dollars?
Because the label denotes that they are specimens.
Dead Cat Waltz Exonumia
"Coin collecting for outcasts..."
You are correct, and this is kind of my point. If these are supposed to be "special" (not business strikes) why are they not prepared in a way that makes then esthetically pleasing upon inspection? If they are just very early strikes, which they appear to be, and the Mint says they did nothing different in striking them than what they normally do, why do they command tens of thousands of dollars?
Because the label denotes that they are specimens.
I'm not an SMS specialist, but weren't the SMS coins (the ones from 65 and later SMS sets) just standard business strike coins? Were they first strike / VEDS or just pulled from random production flow? Many of them have marks, so were clearly not handled like proofs to ensure quality. Can anyone authoritatively summarize the process for striking/selection/handling/packaging these?
I would guess we know less about the yearly first strike coins that went to the Smithsonian and the process they went through. The Numismatist article was the first time I've heard about these. Did they receive any special striking/selection/handling?
Now, if the article is correct, and these were coins that were intended for the Smithsonian got somehow diverted and eventually made it to market, wouldn't that justify their premium, regardless of how they were classified or made?
I guess a question is how many other "Smithsonian Mint Specimens" are floating around out there? Why would the 1964's be the only ones?
PM me for coin photography equipment, or visit my website:
@DCW said:
... and the Mint says they did nothing different in striking them than what they normally do, why do they command tens of thousands of dollars?
Again, these are just words. The mint makes all sorts of special issues and puts them in many places from the Smithsonian to mint sets and calls them "regular issues made like all coins". This only means that they aren't proofs for the main part. Most of these special issues are made intentionally and some are unintentional and caused by everything going right in the process. Anything going right striking modern coins is the exception so when everything goes right you can simply assume it was probably intentional.
Every year the mint uses various processes to produce dies and strike coins. When good dies strike properly you get a Gem. When good dies in brand new condition strike properly you get a special coin whether it's intentional or not.
Many dies do not have die polish or small scratches when they are brand new and these strike coins that are vaguely matte finish and quite beautiful especially if there was proper tonnage and all the detail forms and planchet marking is erased.
We may never really know if the '64 "SMS's" were intentional or not but the fact of the matter is everything the minty does and their motivation does not show up on the annual report any longer. Look at the WI quarter varieties. They are beyond "special issues" and that there is any record at all is because the mint did an internal investigation. Without this investigation the records would all be lost in a very short time. Expecting details from the '64/ '65 era when everything at the mint was in utter turmoil is not reasonable.
The mint reports sometimes suggest they are experimenting with techniques to produce dies or coins but it doesn't list every variety that comes out of the mint. We have to find them and try to reconstruct history.
Many dies do not have die polish or small scratches when they are brand new and these strike coins that are vaguely matte finish and quite beautiful especially if there was proper tonnage and all the detail forms and planchet marking is erased. >
I'm fairly sure this is incorrect, especially for the era. The only dies that you can be sure have no scratches and such are proof dies that have been specially prepared specifically to have perfect surfaces. All business strike dies have scratches and marks and such. Indeed many of them have "hub scratches", raised lines from being impressed by working hubs with scratches! These are as indicative of VEDS as the fine die scratches are, and from my studies actually wear away faster than do the scratches.
After re-reading the Numismatist article, I can only say that while the conclusions are presented as proof (they do not rise to that level), the fact that the remaining '64 SMS (Smithsonian Mint Specimen) coins appear to be from the same die in the same VEDS die state as the certified '64 SMS (Special Mint Set) coins makes me a believer in the overall story.
Edited to add: for anyone interested in VEDS coins with hub scratches, here is a shot of a VEDS 1955-S showing strong hub scratches in the fields above and below LIBERTY:
@Floridafacelifter said:
So @FlyingAl in summary, they are nothing special, not worth the extra money or special label, correct?
In my opinion, yes. There's no evidence to suggest that these coins were struck in any other distinctly special manner than a MS65 1964 half for example besides "they look different". As has been heavily discussed above, regular issue coinage has an extremely wide tolerance on "it looks different".
Part of the mystery for me is that coins from the same dies as the sets delivered to the Smithsonian were also set aside and put into sets. Couldn’t be an accident. It had to be the same person who picked and assembled the sets going to the Smithsonian. Did this just happen once?
In full disclosure, I have a 1964 cent in Specimen 68Red (pop 2/0). Financially, I don’t think there would be much of a price difference if it were now considered MS68 - just a normal coin
Many dies do not have die polish or small scratches when they are brand new and these strike coins that are vaguely matte finish and quite beautiful especially if there was proper tonnage and all the detail forms and planchet marking is erased. >
I'm fairly sure this is incorrect, especially for the era. The only dies that you can be sure have no scratches and such are proof dies that have been specially prepared specifically to have perfect surfaces. All business strike dies have scratches and marks and such. Indeed many of them have "hub scratches", raised lines from being impressed by working hubs with scratches! These are as indicative of VEDS as the fine die scratches are, and from my studies actually wear away faster than do the scratches.
After re-reading the Numismatist article, I can only say that while the conclusions are presented as proof (they do not rise to that level), the fact that the remaining '64 SMS (Smithsonian Mint Specimen) coins appear to be from the same die in the same VEDS die state as the certified '64 SMS (Special Mint Set) coins makes me a believer in the overall story.
Edited to add: for anyone interested in VEDS coins with hub scratches, here is a shot of a VEDS 1955-S showing strong hub scratches in the fields above and below LIBERTY:
I have extensive experience with VDS's except it is largely confined to coins that appear in 1965 and later mint sets. I've seen earlier ones in hand and pictures but most of the specimens I've seen are cu/ni clad cu. These usually appear analogously to a brand new tire that still has the little bits of rubber sticking out but no major polishing or die scratches.
In aggregate , including pictures, I've seen only a few hundred. I will defer to your expertise in earlier and non-mint set issues.
First I do not have any interest in these and as so I don't know why I spend my time with this. But I am not the smartest one.
I recalled this subject previously and had dug out a comment from John Butler (on another forum). A screenshot is below.
.
.
With the above and whom it is from as I respect his grading opinion, I would have (maybe no one else) high confidence that these coins are different from others and including typical VEDS.
Now would I be able to tell the difference having no experience with them - well I would not bet on that one.
This also does not appear to me to be something unique. Having collected Morgans I think of the Morgan Branch Mint Proofs (or do some call them Specimens ). I should double check but as I recall only four of the date and mm had any documentation and a couple of those were secondary. I think only the 1879 O had/has a separate die pair and others, as described, can have die cracks (worn dies reprocessed and used?). However, the TPG graders and perhaps some specialist have determined they are different (not just an excellent DMPL) and labeled them as such. Seems similar but this is certainly not my subject matter.
This seems like a good time and place to repost what I wrote here back in February:
1964 SMS coins - What I’ve heard, what I’ve seen, what I know and what I don’t know about them
To my knowledge, no documentation of their production or discovery has surfaced and I don’t think it ever will. Some numismatists even doubt that the coins were specially made. Highly regarded numismatic researcher and author, Roger W. Burdette, holds such a view.
Last year, out of the blue, I received a call from a coin dealer I’ve known for roughly 40 years. He’d seen a thread about the 1964 SMS coins on this forum and decided to share his personal experiences with me. He also gave me permission to disclose the details of our conversation. As best I can remember, the following is what he told me, none of which I have reason to doubt:
The dealer was friends with coin dealer Lester Merkin. One day (in either 1991 or 1992) while he was at Lester Merkin’s office, Mr. Merkin pulled some coins out of his desk drawer and handed them to him to look at.
The coins weren’t in special holders or accompanied by any paperwork. But you can probably guess what date they were. There were approximately 4 or 5 sets, cents through half dollars. The dealer (who is highly expert) was immediately convinced that he was looking at some very distinctive, special coins. Mr. Merkin told him that Eva Adams, who had been U.S. Mint Director from 1961-1969, had given him the sets and asked him to show them around to some people and ask what they thought of them. It was obvious that Lester Merkin was very proud of them.
Sometime not too long afterwards, Lester Merkin passed away. The dealer was subsequently contacted by Mr. Merkin’s widow, who mentioned the coins to him. He was sure they were valuable, but he chose not to try to buy them from her. As far as the dealer knows, Mrs. Merkin consigned the coins to Stack’s and they were auctioned in the early 90’s.
Speaking of the early 90’s, I happened to be a grader at NGC from 1991-1998. And while I was there, (edited from “a handful”) several unusual 1964 sets were submitted to us for grading by a well known dealer who’d purchased them out of Stack’s auctions. I think that we at NGC, were the first graders to see the coins. Most, though not all of them looked quite distinctive/specially made. And as a result, if memory serves me correctly, not all of the coins were given special designations. I remember thinking it was a tough call to do that, seeing as how we were examining complete sets. But ultimately, we felt that each coin needed to stand on its own merits.
It’s clear that the dealer who contacted me didn’t see all of the 1964 SMS sets that have surfaced, as he only remembered having seen approximately 4 to 5 of them. And, while it would be fun to speculate as to how the other sets entered the marketplace, I choose not to do so.
Admittedly, If I were to see a post like this on a coin forum, I’d be at least somewhat skeptical, regardless of who wrote it. So I certainly won’t take it personally if this post is questioned, doubted or debated. But I hope it has at least called into question, some of the inaccurate “information” about the discovery and source of 1964 SMS coins that has persisted for so many years.
Edited to add:
After making the referenced dealer aware of this thread, he gave me permission to disclose his name - Steve Blum. He also messaged me with the following: “…Lester’s widow gave me the contents of his desk and included the SMS sets. I let her know the coins were very rare and I could sell them for her. She immediately decided to give them to Stacks. I wanted to do the right thing since Lester was a good friend.”
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
I could be mistaken since it was so long ago and wasn't extremely important to me at the time but I believe Eva Adams' name was mentioned in the Stacks auction in the early-'90's. I did consider bidding on these. I rarely bought the kind of coins in Stacks auctions so it was somewhat memorable. Indeed, this was the only time they ever, before or since, sent me a catalog.
I could be mistaken since it was so long ago and wasn't extremely important to me at the time but I believe Eva Adams' name was mentioned in the Stacks auction in the early-'90's. I did consider bidding on these. I rarely bought the kind of coins in Stacks auctions so it was somewhat memorable. Indeed, this was the only time they ever, before or since, sent me a catalog.
I’ve seen the auction descriptions and don't think any of them mentioned Eva Adams. Here are couple of them I found in another thread here:
From 1992:
“ 1345 1964 P Cent, Dime, Quarter and Half Dollar
(missing the Nickel). Choice Brilliant Uncirculated.
Nearly all show evidence of die refinishing at the mint. The strike on all the coins is far sharper than is seen even on the Special Mint Sets. We suspect that these were struck as an experiment to determine the sort of
finish the Mint would use from 1965 through 1967. Inexplicibly a 1960 Proof Nickel is now with the set, perhaps as a comparison between the former Proof
strikes and this special strike. 5 pieces.”
From 1993:
“ 1232 VERY SPECIAL 1964 ISSUES 1964 Very Special Mint issues. Nearly all show evidence of die refinishing at the Mint. Contained
are Cents (5), some with traces of finger-spotting; Dime, Half Dollars (2). The strike on all the coins is far sharper than is seen on the Special Mint Sets. We suspect that these were struck as an experiment to determine the sort of finish the
Mint would use from 1965 to 1967.”
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
I could be mistaken since it was so long ago and wasn't extremely important to me at the time but I believe Eva Adams' name was mentioned in the Stacks auction in the early-'90's. I did consider bidding on these. I rarely bought the kind of coins in Stacks auctions so it was somewhat memorable. Indeed, this was the only time they ever, before or since, sent me a catalog.
I’ve seen the auction descriptions and don't think any of them mentioned Eva Adams. Here are couple of them I found in another thread here:
From 1992:
“ 1345 1964 P Cent, Dime, Quarter and Half Dollar
(missing the Nickel). Choice Brilliant Uncirculated.
Nearly all show evidence of die refinishing at the mint. The strike on all the coins is far sharper than is seen even on the Special Mint Sets. We suspect that these were struck as an experiment to determine the sort of
finish the Mint would use from 1965 through 1967. Inexplicibly a 1960 Proof Nickel is now with the set, perhaps as a comparison between the former Proof
strikes and this special strike. 5 pieces.”
From 1993:
“ 1232 VERY SPECIAL 1964 ISSUES 1964 Very Special Mint issues. Nearly all show evidence of die refinishing at the Mint. Contained
are Cents (5), some with traces of finger-spotting; Dime, Half Dollars (2). The strike on all the coins is far sharper than is seen on the Special Mint Sets. We suspect that these were struck as an experiment to determine the sort of finish the
Mint would use from 1965 to 1967.”
This is correct. The original auction description is published in the article, and nearly every description to follow is a near carbon copy of the original.
Additionally, while I trust Mark, all connection to Eva Adams is at this point simply hearsay. Therefore, I find it unfit to include with other research that is less circumstantial. I'd love to see if there is solid evidence to connect the two, but all I could turn up was what people could recall.
I'd also like to point out that connection to Eva Adams makes it more, not less, likely the coins aren't special - she makes it extremely clear in several memos (two of which are in the article) that all trial strikes are to be destroyed.
I could be mistaken since it was so long ago and wasn't extremely important to me at the time but I believe Eva Adams' name was mentioned in the Stacks auction in the early-'90's. I did consider bidding on these. I rarely bought the kind of coins in Stacks auctions so it was somewhat memorable. Indeed, this was the only time they ever, before or since, sent me a catalog.
I’ve seen the auction descriptions and don't think any of them mentioned Eva Adams. Here are couple of them I found in another thread here:
From 1992:
“ 1345 1964 P Cent, Dime, Quarter and Half Dollar
(missing the Nickel). Choice Brilliant Uncirculated.
Nearly all show evidence of die refinishing at the mint. The strike on all the coins is far sharper than is seen even on the Special Mint Sets. We suspect that these were struck as an experiment to determine the sort of
finish the Mint would use from 1965 through 1967. Inexplicibly a 1960 Proof Nickel is now with the set, perhaps as a comparison between the former Proof
strikes and this special strike. 5 pieces.”
From 1993:
“ 1232 VERY SPECIAL 1964 ISSUES 1964 Very Special Mint issues. Nearly all show evidence of die refinishing at the Mint. Contained
are Cents (5), some with traces of finger-spotting; Dime, Half Dollars (2). The strike on all the coins is far sharper than is seen on the Special Mint Sets. We suspect that these were struck as an experiment to determine the sort of finish the
Mint would use from 1965 to 1967.”
This is correct. The original auction description is published in the article, and nearly every description to follow is a near carbon copy of the original.
Additionally, while I trust Mark, all connection to Eva Adams is at this point simply hearsay. Therefore, I find it unfit to include with other research that is less circumstantial. I'd love to see if there is solid evidence to connect the two, but all I could turn up was what people could recall.
I'd also like to point out that connection to Eva Adams makes it more, not less, likely the coins aren't special - she makes it extremely clear in several memos (two of which are in the article) that all trial strikes are to be destroyed.
Thank you, Alex and I understand your position and reasoning. I think you're handling this like a pro.
Is there a date at which you're allowed to post your article publicly?
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
I could be mistaken since it was so long ago and wasn't extremely important to me at the time but I believe Eva Adams' name was mentioned in the Stacks auction in the early-'90's. I did consider bidding on these. I rarely bought the kind of coins in Stacks auctions so it was somewhat memorable. Indeed, this was the only time they ever, before or since, sent me a catalog.
I’ve seen the auction descriptions and don't think any of them mentioned Eva Adams. Here are couple of them I found in another thread here:
From 1992:
“ 1345 1964 P Cent, Dime, Quarter and Half Dollar
(missing the Nickel). Choice Brilliant Uncirculated.
Nearly all show evidence of die refinishing at the mint. The strike on all the coins is far sharper than is seen even on the Special Mint Sets. We suspect that these were struck as an experiment to determine the sort of
finish the Mint would use from 1965 through 1967. Inexplicibly a 1960 Proof Nickel is now with the set, perhaps as a comparison between the former Proof
strikes and this special strike. 5 pieces.”
From 1993:
“ 1232 VERY SPECIAL 1964 ISSUES 1964 Very Special Mint issues. Nearly all show evidence of die refinishing at the Mint. Contained
are Cents (5), some with traces of finger-spotting; Dime, Half Dollars (2). The strike on all the coins is far sharper than is seen on the Special Mint Sets. We suspect that these were struck as an experiment to determine the sort of finish the
Mint would use from 1965 to 1967.”
This is correct. The original auction description is published in the article, and nearly every description to follow is a near carbon copy of the original.
Additionally, while I trust Mark, all connection to Eva Adams is at this point simply hearsay. Therefore, I find it unfit to include with other research that is less circumstantial. I'd love to see if there is solid evidence to connect the two, but all I could turn up was what people could recall.
I'd also like to point out that connection to Eva Adams makes it more, not less, likely the coins aren't special - she makes it extremely clear in several memos (two of which are in the article) that all trial strikes are to be destroyed.
Thank you, Alex and I understand your position and reasoning. I think you're handling this like a pro.
Is there a date at which you're allowed to post your article publicly?
Mark, thank you very much. I appreciate it.
The article is currently available publicly to ANA members via the online catalog of The Numismatist on the ANA website.
Was a very good and well-reasoned read. Appreciate how you make a clear distinction between facts and theories. Look forward to any future articles you might write.
@Creg said:
So, seller is putting ‘64s in ‘66 and ’67 cases?
Or someone else did that before the seller acquired them.
Either way, he’s not trying to sell them as the rare/valuable type of SMS coins being discussed in this thread.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
Comments
As I recall, the Mint suspended production of 1964 proof sets after around 3 million had been minted, comparable to the mintage of the 1961 to 1963 sets. When it appeared that no more sets would be made, speculators drove the price up from $2.10 to around ten dollars ($75 in today's money). Proof set production was resumed a few months later, due to continuing collector demand and supposedly to put an end to the speculation.
I think the 1965-67 special mint sets were struck to appease collectors who felt (with some justification) that they were being unfairly blamed for the coin shortage. Many collectors (myself included) responded to the lack of 1965 proof sets by ordering that year's Canadian proof-like sets, which included silver dimes through dollars.
My Adolph A. Weinman signature
As I recall, there was considerable disagreement with that article, but the discussion ended badly.
Interesting - I was not aware of that.
After some research, here are the prices realized added for the lots listed in the original post.
While not useful to understanding the origins of these 1964 sets, I find the prices realized helpful to indicating the perception of the sets when first showing up and possible reactions by the market back then to their continued availability at Stack's auctions. The prices show at least some bidders viewed them as very different than regular issues. There seemed to be a general down trend after a strong start in prices realized over time, perhaps indicating concern that more sets might keep on becoming available or a market losing interest in about how special they were.
They also might indicate clues as to whether their are differences among the sets that were offered. If any people saw all of them they may be able to answer if that last $33.00 set (assuming no mistake on Stack's PR list) was either not from the same dies as the other sets; or worse condition from the others; or just slipped through the cracks to sell so cheap.
5/2/1990 - Lot 1352 - - hammer price of $715.00 for a total of $786.50
6/19/1991 - Lot 591 - - hammer price listed of $1,000.00 for a total of $1,100.00
6/23/1992 - Lot 1230 - - Prices Realized shows as WITHDRAWN
9/10/1992 - Lot 1206 (3 sets) - - hammer price listed of $2,600.00 for a total of $2,860.00
12/2/1992 - Lot 1345 (missing the Nickel) - - hammer price of $160.00 for a total of $176.00 " (...set was identified to have a 1960 proof nickel with it (missing the nickel). - lilolme"
1/13/1993 - Lot 693 - - hammer price listed of $1,600.00 for a total of $1,760.00
3/18/1993 - Lot 2974 - - hammer price of $500.00 for a total of $550.00
5/5/1993 - Lot 1064 - - hammer price of $480.00 for a total of $528.00
6/16/1993 - 5 cents, 1 dime, 2 halves - Lot 1232 - - hammer price of $525.00 for a total of $577.50
9/8/1993 (not 10/13/1993 as labled on NNP) - Lot 635 - - hammer price of $220.00 for a total of $242.00
1/19/1994 - Lot 526 - - hammer price of $475.00 for a total of $522.50
3/22/1994 - Lot 956 - - hammer price of $230.00 for a total of $253.00
5/2/1995 - Lot 430 - - hammer price of $30.00 for a total of $33.00 (assuming no mistake on Stack's PR list)
= = = = = = =
As far as their origins:
Is there any way to rule in or out whether these sets may have had to do with presenting the newly issued Kennedy Half early in the year as opposed to a test for special striking to replace Proof and regular Mint Sets? Are there any other possible reasons they could have been struck for aside from an SMS test?
The typically higher than normal coin preservation and die polish for each denomination would seem to indicate a special situation of hand picking these 1964 sets right after striking rather than picking random examples. So there seems to be a plan and purpose rather than just a sample from regular production.
It may be helpful if someone has been able to compare the recently discovered (around 2013 - see link to thread) Smithsonian 'special strikes" from the 1950's to 1970's to see if the 1964's located there are from the same or different dies as these 1964 sets. Has anyone done this or if not, does anyone have access to both for comparison? I'm guessing they are different unless the occasion for additional 1964 sets coincided with producing issues for the Smithsonian. It doesn't seem any other year sets exist of early strikes outside of the Smithsonian for the date range.
.
.
Coin World - 8/5/2013 First Strikes in the Smithsonian National Numismatic Collection!
https://forums.collectors.com/discussion/894254/coin-world-8-5-2013-first-strikes-in-the-smithsonian-national-numismatic-collection
.
.
Guessing that the future article by FlyingAl will clarify or fully answer these issues regarding the 1964 sets.
"To Be Esteemed Be Useful" - 1792 Birch Cent --- "I personally think we developed language because of our deep need to complain." - Lily Tomlin
Any updates on the "new information"?
My US Mint Commemorative Medal Set
Yes, I’m working on getting the final touches added and will be contacting publishers here soon.
Coin Photographer.
Wanted to update this thread.
As of this time, a finished and reviewed article is slated to appear as the cover article in November's issue of The Numismatist.
Coin Photographer.
Alex, please tell them I said November isn’t soon enough.😉
I hope it’s OK to extend my congratulations, in advance.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
Mark, that's funny.
We did try for a bit earlier, but I'm not complaining. It's been a long time coming for this work to be published.
Thank you!
Coin Photographer.
Alex - Just one more feather in your cap to add to ALL of the others! And this time the COVER story!
WOW!
Steve
My collecting “Pride & Joy” is my PCGS Registry Dansco 7070 Set:
https://www.pcgs.com/setregistry/type-sets/design-type-sets/complete-dansco-7070-modified-type-set-1796-date/publishedset/213996
Saw this on ebay, reminded me of this topic. Could it be from the dies that struck the so-called SMS nickels? We should assume those dies went on to help strike a billion more. lol
Leo
The more qualities observed in a coin, the more desirable that coin becomes!
My Jefferson Nickel Collection
Congrats, Al! Quite an accomplishment
Dead Cat Waltz Exonumia
"Coin collecting for outcasts..."
The ANA November 2024 issue is here, and the "Origins of the 1964 SMS Coins" article is in it. A very interesting read.
Edited to say @FlyingAl it may be the right time to revise the title of this thread now.
My US Mint Commemorative Medal Set
Thanks for updating the title. The article documents some interesting historical information about these controversial and expensive coins.
My US Mint Commemorative Medal Set
Interesting article, but to describe these coins as ordinary is a contradictory conclusion to the facts presented in the article. We have several sets here that were let out in the wild that match die for die to the sets produced and given to the Smithsonian. Aren’t they presentation sets that were just made to give “someone” exact copies of the coins especially struck for the Smithsonian? Also, can you show me sets from previous years that are die for die copied sets from those given to the Smithsonian?
My experience only comes from delving into the cents. I’ve seen one that was attributed by PCGS as an SMS, but the dies didn’t match what is considered the correct die pair.
These coins are special. The surfaces are unlike proofs or business strike from 1964. The question is what do we call them.
The Mint described the Smithsonian coins as perfectly normal.
Coin Photographer.
Yes, “The Mint” doesn’t solely determine what is special, just that they were not US Mint directed "special mint sets.” Smithsonian and other museum curators haven’t really been known as the best curator or examiner of coins.
As I can only speak to cents, you can’t look at one of these and consider them a business or proof strike. Whatever you want to call them is fine with me, but it should be something more special than a common coin
The mint has also describe all mint set coins made since 1968 as regular mint coins.
It's not true. There is nothing "regular" about them and they are all specially made.
They use terms differently than we do in the hobby and always have.
If the article is correct, then it seems the coins were struck with new dies, ie "first strike" coins. This would make sense from a perspective of preserving history of the first coins struck from each year. It also explains the VEDS nature of the "SMS" coins, which show zero die wear and satiny surfaces, but not satiny in the same way as the 1936 proofs or the early 1950 proofs. Those were made with polished dies but unpolished planchets, while the "SMS" coins were presumably brand new dies and normal planchets.
http://macrocoins.com
@FlyingAl - I should have also thanked you for the informative research. It was brilliant, and not thought of before. I reread my post, which seemed harsh by just jumping on what I disagreed with.
Doug, that’s quite alright. I expected some push back, as the research pushes pretty hard against what is the current accepted stance on the coins.
Ultimately, it’s up to the collectors to decide what makes a coin “special”. For me, that hard line is cut by the mint, who would need to acknowledge that something different was done in the manufacture process to impart a unique look. That does not appear to be the case here, but if collectors want a different stance on Specimen than I presented, they can go ahead and do so.
Coin Photographer.
The 1964 SMS cents, as Doug suggests are “night and day” with “normal” coins. As are the other denominations as well. So, am I told to understand that the Mint wants me to believe they are “perfectly normal” coins and the “Emperor is wearing clothes”. Nice try! 🤣 😝.
Anyone with those high grade “perfectly normal” 1964 SMS cents- please contact me at once to try to dump your coins to me while there is still time!
Just my 2 cents.
Wondercoin.
For sure the first few coins (some folks say the first 100 or so) struck from a new die, while they could be described as "perfectly normal", don't really look the same as coins struck once the die has started to wear. I search a lot of BU rolls, and while my main search target is die varieties, I put aside any of these VEDS coins I find.
Here is a good example of such a coin, a 1956-D Cent. Notice the fine die scratches that run right up to the devices without showing any reduction in definition that happens after the first 100 or so coins are struck from the new die. The closeup photos I've seen of the 1964 SMS coins seem to show a similar characteristic:
https://easyzoom.com/image/124030/album/0/4?mode=manage
http://macrocoins.com
Exactly. When you combine this with exceptional perseveration, you get the look that the 1964 "SMS" coins have, despite there having been no exceptionally special process to the production.
Coin Photographer.
With clad and five cent coin it appears to be only the first ten or twelve that show positive signs of VEDS as your cent does. This was determined by multiplying their incidence times the mintage and dividing by the number of dies used. I believe it is somewhat variable and the variability might be the result of several factors and especially die pressure.
Generally speaking while VEDS coins appear somewhat "special" they do not have the appearance of the '64 "SMS" coins. My experience with silver VEDS is quite limited however. As your coin shows VEDS does not assure a solid strike from good dies. It just assures you can see fine die characteristics. The "SMS" coins, whatever they may be, are solid strikes from good dies that were well hubbed. Well hubbed good dies have been the exception to the rule for a very long time. If these coins weren't specially made then someone knew exactly where to look to get the best specimens even before they were produced.
It is true that VEDS clads can often be spotted longer than the first dozen specimens but the fine detail will be gone.
I believe the Nickel in the outer layers makes clad planchets a bit harder than bronze Cent planchets, so it makes sense that clad dies would wear faster. I also believe silver planchets are a bit softer than Cents, so they would wear slower. I'm not 100% on these since rolling/annealing processes may skew the results in any direction, but assuming similar processes the metallurgy should follow what I said.
The closeups I've seen show that the "SMS" coins exhibit VEDS characteristics, but there may be other factors as well such as intentionally stronger strikes, etc. The point of my post was not only to show the VEDS characteristics but also to emphasize that "perfectly normal" has a range of characteristics, and thus requires more analysis. That 56-D Cent is a "business strike" yet is far from what I'd call "perfectly normal".
http://macrocoins.com
This is a point that is easy to overlook. Sometimes everything just works and Gems are made. The odds are so heavily stacked against it that for some moderns there may be no true Gems at all but it does happen most years and you can't call every Gem a "special issue".
Was the US Mint capable of producing SMS coins in 1964 as nice as they did for the 1994-P and 1997-P SMS nickels? Absolutely!
What I find puzzling, why these 1964 early strikes aren't proof-like and I'll leave it at that.
Although Denver minted, came from fresh dies but later dies.
Leo
The more qualities observed in a coin, the more desirable that coin becomes!
My Jefferson Nickel Collection
I owned the dime at one time. Sold it after studying it. Special or not, it just wasn't exciting to me. Looked like a regular Roosevelt dime with alot of heavy die polish lines or die scratches that seemed to be in every direction, kind of sloppy. If these were "presentation strikes," I would think they would have prepared more carefully.
Dead Cat Waltz Exonumia
"Coin collecting for outcasts..."
Those die polish lines and die scratches are a common feature of VEDS business strikes. In fact they are the feature that distinguishes them from EDS, MDS, etc. As the die wears, those lines and scratches wear away as they are replaced by lines from die wear.
http://macrocoins.com
You are correct, and this is kind of my point. If these are supposed to be "special" (not business strikes) why are they not prepared in a way that makes then esthetically pleasing upon inspection? If they are just very early strikes, which they appear to be, and the Mint says they did nothing different in striking them than what they normally do, why do they command tens of thousands of dollars?
Because the label denotes that they are specimens.
Dead Cat Waltz Exonumia
"Coin collecting for outcasts..."
I'm not an SMS specialist, but weren't the SMS coins (the ones from 65 and later SMS sets) just standard business strike coins? Were they first strike / VEDS or just pulled from random production flow? Many of them have marks, so were clearly not handled like proofs to ensure quality. Can anyone authoritatively summarize the process for striking/selection/handling/packaging these?
I would guess we know less about the yearly first strike coins that went to the Smithsonian and the process they went through. The Numismatist article was the first time I've heard about these. Did they receive any special striking/selection/handling?
Now, if the article is correct, and these were coins that were intended for the Smithsonian got somehow diverted and eventually made it to market, wouldn't that justify their premium, regardless of how they were classified or made?
I guess a question is how many other "Smithsonian Mint Specimens" are floating around out there? Why would the 1964's be the only ones?
http://macrocoins.com
Again, these are just words. The mint makes all sorts of special issues and puts them in many places from the Smithsonian to mint sets and calls them "regular issues made like all coins". This only means that they aren't proofs for the main part. Most of these special issues are made intentionally and some are unintentional and caused by everything going right in the process. Anything going right striking modern coins is the exception so when everything goes right you can simply assume it was probably intentional.
Every year the mint uses various processes to produce dies and strike coins. When good dies strike properly you get a Gem. When good dies in brand new condition strike properly you get a special coin whether it's intentional or not.
Many dies do not have die polish or small scratches when they are brand new and these strike coins that are vaguely matte finish and quite beautiful especially if there was proper tonnage and all the detail forms and planchet marking is erased.
We may never really know if the '64 "SMS's" were intentional or not but the fact of the matter is everything the minty does and their motivation does not show up on the annual report any longer. Look at the WI quarter varieties. They are beyond "special issues" and that there is any record at all is because the mint did an internal investigation. Without this investigation the records would all be lost in a very short time. Expecting details from the '64/ '65 era when everything at the mint was in utter turmoil is not reasonable.
The mint reports sometimes suggest they are experimenting with techniques to produce dies or coins but it doesn't list every variety that comes out of the mint. We have to find them and try to reconstruct history.
So @FlyingAl in summary, they are nothing special, not worth the extra money or special label, correct?
I'm fairly sure this is incorrect, especially for the era. The only dies that you can be sure have no scratches and such are proof dies that have been specially prepared specifically to have perfect surfaces. All business strike dies have scratches and marks and such. Indeed many of them have "hub scratches", raised lines from being impressed by working hubs with scratches! These are as indicative of VEDS as the fine die scratches are, and from my studies actually wear away faster than do the scratches.
After re-reading the Numismatist article, I can only say that while the conclusions are presented as proof (they do not rise to that level), the fact that the remaining '64 SMS (Smithsonian Mint Specimen) coins appear to be from the same die in the same VEDS die state as the certified '64 SMS (Special Mint Set) coins makes me a believer in the overall story.
Edited to add: for anyone interested in VEDS coins with hub scratches, here is a shot of a VEDS 1955-S showing strong hub scratches in the fields above and below LIBERTY:
https://easyzoom.com/image/294790/album/0/4?mode=manage
http://macrocoins.com
In my opinion, yes. There's no evidence to suggest that these coins were struck in any other distinctly special manner than a MS65 1964 half for example besides "they look different". As has been heavily discussed above, regular issue coinage has an extremely wide tolerance on "it looks different".
Coin Photographer.
Part of the mystery for me is that coins from the same dies as the sets delivered to the Smithsonian were also set aside and put into sets. Couldn’t be an accident. It had to be the same person who picked and assembled the sets going to the Smithsonian. Did this just happen once?
In full disclosure, I have a 1964 cent in Specimen 68Red (pop 2/0). Financially, I don’t think there would be much of a price difference if it were now considered MS68 - just a normal coin
I have extensive experience with VDS's except it is largely confined to coins that appear in 1965 and later mint sets. I've seen earlier ones in hand and pictures but most of the specimens I've seen are cu/ni clad cu. These usually appear analogously to a brand new tire that still has the little bits of rubber sticking out but no major polishing or die scratches.
In aggregate , including pictures, I've seen only a few hundred. I will defer to your expertise in earlier and non-mint set issues.
First I do not have any interest in these and as so I don't know why I spend my time with this.
But I am not the smartest one. 
I recalled this subject previously and had dug out a comment from John Butler (on another forum). A screenshot is below.
.
.
With the above and whom it is from as I respect his grading opinion, I would have (maybe no one else) high confidence that these coins are different from others and including typical VEDS.
Now would I be able to tell the difference having no experience with them - well I would not bet on that one.
This also does not appear to me to be something unique. Having collected Morgans I think of the Morgan Branch Mint Proofs (or do some call them Specimens
). I should double check but as I recall only four of the date and mm had any documentation and a couple of those were secondary. I think only the 1879 O had/has a separate die pair and others, as described, can have die cracks (worn dies reprocessed and used?). However, the TPG graders and perhaps some specialist have determined they are different (not just an excellent DMPL) and labeled them as such. Seems similar but this is certainly not my subject matter.
https://youtube.com/watch?v=_KWVk0XeB9o - Ruby Starr (from 'Go Jim Dandy') Piece Of My Heart
.
https://youtube.com/watch?v=D0FPxuQv2ns - Ruby Starr (from 'Go Jim Dandy') Maybe I'm Amazed
RLJ 1958 - 2023
This seems like a good time and place to repost what I wrote here back in February:
1964 SMS coins - What I’ve heard, what I’ve seen, what I know and what I don’t know about them
To my knowledge, no documentation of their production or discovery has surfaced and I don’t think it ever will. Some numismatists even doubt that the coins were specially made. Highly regarded numismatic researcher and author, Roger W. Burdette, holds such a view.
Last year, out of the blue, I received a call from a coin dealer I’ve known for roughly 40 years. He’d seen a thread about the 1964 SMS coins on this forum and decided to share his personal experiences with me. He also gave me permission to disclose the details of our conversation. As best I can remember, the following is what he told me, none of which I have reason to doubt:
The dealer was friends with coin dealer Lester Merkin. One day (in either 1991 or 1992) while he was at Lester Merkin’s office, Mr. Merkin pulled some coins out of his desk drawer and handed them to him to look at.
The coins weren’t in special holders or accompanied by any paperwork. But you can probably guess what date they were. There were approximately 4 or 5 sets, cents through half dollars. The dealer (who is highly expert) was immediately convinced that he was looking at some very distinctive, special coins. Mr. Merkin told him that Eva Adams, who had been U.S. Mint Director from 1961-1969, had given him the sets and asked him to show them around to some people and ask what they thought of them. It was obvious that Lester Merkin was very proud of them.
Sometime not too long afterwards, Lester Merkin passed away. The dealer was subsequently contacted by Mr. Merkin’s widow, who mentioned the coins to him. He was sure they were valuable, but he chose not to try to buy them from her. As far as the dealer knows, Mrs. Merkin consigned the coins to Stack’s and they were auctioned in the early 90’s.
Speaking of the early 90’s, I happened to be a grader at NGC from 1991-1998. And while I was there, (edited from “a handful”) several unusual 1964 sets were submitted to us for grading by a well known dealer who’d purchased them out of Stack’s auctions. I think that we at NGC, were the first graders to see the coins. Most, though not all of them looked quite distinctive/specially made. And as a result, if memory serves me correctly, not all of the coins were given special designations. I remember thinking it was a tough call to do that, seeing as how we were examining complete sets. But ultimately, we felt that each coin needed to stand on its own merits.
It’s clear that the dealer who contacted me didn’t see all of the 1964 SMS sets that have surfaced, as he only remembered having seen approximately 4 to 5 of them. And, while it would be fun to speculate as to how the other sets entered the marketplace, I choose not to do so.
Admittedly, If I were to see a post like this on a coin forum, I’d be at least somewhat skeptical, regardless of who wrote it. So I certainly won’t take it personally if this post is questioned, doubted or debated. But I hope it has at least called into question, some of the inaccurate “information” about the discovery and source of 1964 SMS coins that has persisted for so many years.
Edited to add:
After making the referenced dealer aware of this thread, he gave me permission to disclose his name - Steve Blum. He also messaged me with the following: “…Lester’s widow gave me the contents of his desk and included the SMS sets. I let her know the coins were very rare and I could sell them for her. She immediately decided to give them to Stacks. I wanted to do the right thing since Lester was a good friend.”
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
Mark. Interesting post.
Meanwhile, I wait patiently for anyone wanting to quote me on these “ordinary coins”.
Wondercoin
Special or not, it's always special when one of our own becomes a published author!
Congratulations @FlyingAl on your accomplishment
Dead Cat Waltz Exonumia
"Coin collecting for outcasts..."
I could be mistaken since it was so long ago and wasn't extremely important to me at the time but I believe Eva Adams' name was mentioned in the Stacks auction in the early-'90's. I did consider bidding on these. I rarely bought the kind of coins in Stacks auctions so it was somewhat memorable. Indeed, this was the only time they ever, before or since, sent me a catalog.
I’ve seen the auction descriptions and don't think any of them mentioned Eva Adams. Here are couple of them I found in another thread here:
From 1992:
“ 1345 1964 P Cent, Dime, Quarter and Half Dollar
(missing the Nickel). Choice Brilliant Uncirculated.
Nearly all show evidence of die refinishing at the mint. The strike on all the coins is far sharper than is seen even on the Special Mint Sets. We suspect that these were struck as an experiment to determine the sort of
finish the Mint would use from 1965 through 1967. Inexplicibly a 1960 Proof Nickel is now with the set, perhaps as a comparison between the former Proof
strikes and this special strike. 5 pieces.”
From 1993:
“ 1232 VERY SPECIAL 1964 ISSUES 1964 Very Special Mint issues. Nearly all show evidence of die refinishing at the Mint. Contained
are Cents (5), some with traces of finger-spotting; Dime, Half Dollars (2). The strike on all the coins is far sharper than is seen on the Special Mint Sets. We suspect that these were struck as an experiment to determine the sort of finish the
Mint would use from 1965 to 1967.”
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
This is correct. The original auction description is published in the article, and nearly every description to follow is a near carbon copy of the original.
Additionally, while I trust Mark, all connection to Eva Adams is at this point simply hearsay. Therefore, I find it unfit to include with other research that is less circumstantial. I'd love to see if there is solid evidence to connect the two, but all I could turn up was what people could recall.
I'd also like to point out that connection to Eva Adams makes it more, not less, likely the coins aren't special - she makes it extremely clear in several memos (two of which are in the article) that all trial strikes are to be destroyed.
Coin Photographer.
Thank you, Alex and I understand your position and reasoning. I think you're handling this like a pro.
Is there a date at which you're allowed to post your article publicly?
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
Mark, thank you very much. I appreciate it.
The article is currently available publicly to ANA members via the online catalog of The Numismatist on the ANA website.
Coin Photographer.
Was a very good and well-reasoned read. Appreciate how you make a clear distinction between facts and theories. Look forward to any future articles you might write.
So, seller is putting ‘64s in ‘66 and ’67 cases?
Or someone else did that before the seller acquired them.
Either way, he’s not trying to sell them as the rare/valuable type of SMS coins being discussed in this thread.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.