You are accurate, it is not absolute that seller, per se, constructed ten of those sets; nor did the description echo the lettering on the case.
I’m not trying to turn the thread into a whine about an ad. I occupy myself with the use, misuse, and abuse of language in the eBay pages.This is another case where a topic in numismatics is presented incompletely or inaccurately to beguile the collector who is incompletely or inaccurately informed. There is a tide of careless sellers and they learn more terms to afflict on careless buyers. I don’t care. I can’t help them. I’m liable to fall into traps like these myself.
This ad does damage if someone who reads it, thinks that it is genuine. This gets in the way of efforts to dispel the myths.
@Creg said:
You are accurate, it is not absolute that seller, per se, constructed ten of those sets; nor did the description echo the lettering on the case.
I’m not trying to turn the thread into a whine about an ad. I occupy myself with the use, misuse, and abuse of language in the eBay pages.This is another case where a topic in numismatics is presented incompletely or inaccurately to beguile the collector who is incompletely or inaccurately informed. There is a tide of careless sellers and they learn more terms to afflict on careless buyers. I don’t care. I can’t help them. I’m liable to fall into traps like these myself.
This ad does damage if someone who reads it, thinks that it is genuine. This gets in the way of efforts to dispel the myths.
It is remarkably easy to remove coins from an SMS and put in coins from 1964 proof sets. If you cut the Gems from '64 proof sets you not only have the means but the motive to fill up empty SMS cases.
But filling up sets in or out of a case from coins that appeared in circulation in 1964 is an impossibility. You couldn't run down to your favorite coin shop and order enough first strike coins to fill up even one single set. Indeed, the only way to acquire a single coin was to go through as many as 50 bags of freshly made coins. It was for every practical purpose impossible to assemble these sets outside the mint. Even at the mint it would require extensive effort and (perhaps) some help in getting dies set up to strike perfect coins after a perfect die was found.
These are specially made and the question is why, how, and by whom. Yes, perhaps an employee could have been charged with intercepting perfect specimens to assemble sets but it would require many weeks.
Again, though, with no expertise in these coins I have no means of knowing just how impossible these are. I'm just going by descriptions and my experience opening rolls and bags of '64 coinage. I am really quite confident that there are dates and mints of modern coins for which not a single Gem made by new dies even were produced much less has survived. The percentage of coins that survived in pristine condition is virtually infinitesimal in many cases.
History will be the final judge of these coins. Right now there are very few collectors even of '64 issues but as time goes on more will be known. I do agree we'll probably never be able to answer the fundamental question about these coins: how did they come to exist.
_ "Indeed, the only way to acquire a single coin was to go through as many as 50 bags of freshly made coins."_
And these bags would need to be random from many different sources because odds are good every bag on a pallet would look pretty much the same. If there were no VEDS coins in one bag there probably wouldn't be on the whole pallet.
Not to derail but this topic reminds me of an article on specimen vs. proof vs. matte & I think satin finishes in the forward to the Eliasberg Sale of Canadian coins.
Bottom line is the US MInt and other prominent mints such as the Royal Mint and Canadian Royal Mint experimented with different finishes even in off years.
Interesting? Well maybe just a bit but IMHO these coins are just not worth huge premiums even if rare.
However Young Al has evidently done us a service and look forward to the read if it should become available to non-ANA members.
Love that Milled British (1830-1960) Well, just Love coins, period.
Back to the original topic. I would just point out that there are many, many seasoned numismatists who have studied these coins, I mean the actual coins—not all the hearsay or lack of Mint documents or tenuous conclusions about the motives of Mint directors or the vocabulary of Mint employees or the opinions of Mint archivists—who believe they are indeed special coins, both in terms of their strike and their unusual finish. The "SMS" is a misnomer that has confused and confounded the issue for decades now, and should never have been used.
But the numismatists who believe/believed the 1964 Special Strike coins are indeed special or specimen coins and far more than mere "first strikes" would certainly include the graders at PCGS back in the 1990s when the coins first appeared (are any of you still around, and would you care to comment?), David Schweitz, Jess Lipka, John Dannreuther, (likely) David Hall, David Lange (NGC), myself, Mitch-Wondercoin, and I believe Jeff Garrett would agree as well. There are plenty of others who have bought and sold these coins whose names probably escape me at this moment. I wonder if JA would not be on that list as well.
The marketplace has determined the worth of these coins, and that will continue. These coins seldom appear in public auction (as most trade privately, and still seldom, as their owners tend to want to hang onto them), and when they do, they bring record prices. When I was a cataloger at Heritage years ago and working on my Kennedy half registry sets, I managed to acquire a 1964 Special Strike Kennedy in "MS67" PCGS (for which I was awarded a "You Suck"), and after hanging on to it for about six years, I consigned it to a Heritage auction where it brought $47,000 with the juice. This result opened the doors for another couple of "1964 SMS" Kennedy halves to appear at auction: one at Heritage April 2019 brought $108,000, a then-world record for a Kennedy half. We have bought and sold several other pieces and "groupings" (never any kind of Mint-assembled sets, which AFAIK do not exist) over the years, always at very healthy prices. One 1964 "SMS" Lincoln cent MS66RD PCGS that we sold on eBay now resides in the DLH Collection.
If it looks like a duck, quacks like a duck and walks like a duck it's a duck.
Except that these coins do not walk, talk, or quack like ducks.
They walk, talk, and quack like coins struck from fresh dies that then had a high degree of preservation post strike, as would be expected for a coin destined for the Smithsonian.
If it looks like a duck, quacks like a duck and walks like a duck it's a duck.
Except that these coins do not walk, talk, or quack like ducks.
They walk, talk, and quack like coins struck from fresh dies that then had a high degree of preservation post strike, as would be expected for a coin destined for the Smithsonian.
I think your research is illuminating and important.
I also think there is a history of coins from various mints in amazing condition or states of preservation without explanation or record.
Ex. CC and S Morgan dollars in proof, early prooflike bust etc.
If it looks like a duck, quacks like a duck and walks like a duck it's a duck.
Except that these coins do not walk, talk, or quack like ducks.
They walk, talk, and quack like coins struck from fresh dies that then had a high degree of preservation post strike, as would be expected for a coin destined for the Smithsonian.
I think your research is illuminating and important.
I also think there is a history of coins from various mints in amazing condition or states of preservation without explanation or record.
Ex. CC and S Morgan dollars in proof, early prooflike bust etc.
Firstly, thank you. I do appreciate the compliment.
There are a few examples of coins that appear to be uncommon, but the problem is that most of these remain hotly debated today. Even looking at the Branch Mint Proof Morgans will show how split the community is.
On another forum, there was hot discussion about the 1921 $20 in Proof. No definite conclusion on its true status was reached despite it residing in a PR holder.
‘’Except that these coins do not walk, talk, or quack like ducks.
They walk, talk, and quack like coins struck from fresh dies that then had a high degree of preservation post strike, as would be expected for a coin destined for the Smithsonian.’’
They sure do walk, talk and quack like Labrador Ducks. And, for those thinking you can find one now in the lake well preserved and looking great, think again.
My checkbook has been open, ready and waiting for these “regular coins” to be offered to me at super high prices and guess what - not one has come my way. I did get a board member privately write and tease me with a pop top 1964 “SMS” Lincoln Cent but it apparently (and unfortunately) will take more than an article to shake it loose. URGENT NEED- Anyone with a coin for sale, even a grade or two under, on the Cent, please write me.
Just my 2 cents.
Wondercoin
Please visit my website at www.wondercoins.com and my ebay auctions under my user name www.wondercoin.com.
@wondercoin said:
‘’Except that these coins do not walk, talk, or quack like ducks.
They walk, talk, and quack like coins struck from fresh dies that then had a high degree of preservation post strike, as would be expected for a coin destined for the Smithsonian.’’
They sure do walk, talk and quack like Labrador Ducks. And, for those thinking you can find one now in the lake well preserved and looking great, think again.
My checkbook has been open, ready and waiting for these “regular coins” to be offered to me at super high prices and guess what - not one has come my way. I did get a board member privately write and tease me with a pop top 1964 “SMS” Lincoln Cent but it apparently (and unfortunately) will take more than an article to shake it loose. URGENT NEED- Anyone with a coin for sale, even a grade or two under, on the Cent, please write me.
Just my 2 cents.
Wondercoin
They aren’t necessarily regular in the sense that they are the highest grade examples for 1964, but there is no proof to suggest they are made in any different way than any other 1964 coins.
‘’They aren’t necessarily regular in the sense that they are the highest grade examples for 1964, but there is no proof to suggest they are made in any different way than any other 1964 coins.’’
Hi Al. They are NOT the highest graded examples for 1964. I think I owned a 64 graded SMS 1C once before I upgraded to the coin in my set and that 64 grade coin looked totally different than the “regular issue coins”. And it sold at auction for hundreds of times (perhaps 1000x) the value of an MS64 regular coin. But, it was a few points lower than coins (fairly) easily found in BU rolls of 1964.
Wondercoin
Please visit my website at www.wondercoins.com and my ebay auctions under my user name www.wondercoin.com.
@wondercoin said:
‘’They aren’t necessarily regular in the sense that they are the highest grade examples for 1964, but there is no proof to suggest they are made in any different way than any other 1964 coins.’’
Hi Al. They are NOT the highest graded examples for 1964. I think I owned a 64 graded SMS 1C once before I upgraded to the coin in my set and that 64 grade coin looked totally different than the “regular issue coins”. And it sold at auction for hundreds of times (perhaps 1000x) the value of an MS64 regular coin. But, it was a few points lower than coins (fairly) easily found in BU rolls of 1964.
Wondercoin
Mitch, from what I've seen, there seems to be a tendency to undergrade the 1964 "SMS" coins due to the SP designation (similar to the grading on 65-67 SMS coins).
I'd imagine that's why the coins stick out.
For example, take the below two coins. Remove the slight die fatigue in the fields of the first coin and you'll be getting damn near, if not exactly, the look of the SP. There is very little difference at all between the two already. Combine exceptionally fresh dies and excellent preservation, and bingo it "looks" different.
@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.
Ignorance of the law (coins) is no excuse.
Successful transactions:Tookybandit. "Everyone is equal, some are more equal than others".
The biggest visual difference between the coins shown above is the lack of "normal" luster on the VEDS coin. This "fine" luster is what really defines the "look" of VEDS coins. The bottom coin does have luster, but it is the luster created only by the flow of planchet metal. The upper coin has luster created mainly by the die after it was subject to the wear of planchet metal flow due to striking many thousands of coins.
Edited to add: most of the VEDS coins I've run across are VEDS on one side only. Here are a couple other VEDS coins I've found:
@FlyingAl has confirmed through research that these coins were made/selected by someone at the mint and put into sets for a purpose we don’t know. They are special in that regard. For those of us who have seen them in hand, the do have a unique look, not necessarily captured in photos. I can’t recall if the OP has actually seen any in person. In this regard, I appreciate his efforts and having the idea that they might be related to the Smithsonian coins. That was a brilliant stroke.
@DMWJR said: @FlyingAl has confirmed through research that these coins were made/selected by someone at the mint and put into sets for a purpose we don’t know. They are special in that regard. For those of us who have seen them in hand, the do have a unique look, not necessarily captured in photos. I can’t recall if the OP has actually seen any in person. In this regard, I appreciate his efforts and having the idea that they might be related to the Smithsonian coins. That was a brilliant stroke.
I do agree that if collectors want to see them as special for the fact that they are related to the Smithsonian coins, that is totally fair. I'd say a FS number on a slab would suffice.
As far as photos go, I'd say the photos capture the coins well. It is of note that the old adage "you can't learn to grade from photos" is just false. For coins like these, you absolutely can compare the coins based on images.
@wondercoin said:
‘’ I can’t recall if the OP has actually seen any in person.’’
Al: if I may ask- How many of the 1964 coins designated by PCGS or NGC as SMS specimens have you personally examined in your career?
Wondercoin
Mitch - I haven't seen any in hand. I've seen pretty much all of the coins that have come up from auction in the auction photos.
While some may see this as some big "gotcha!" moment, the fact of the matter is that my not seeing these coins in hand has absolutely no effect on my research. I would still report the documents exactly as they are today even if I had seen the coins in hand.
Additionally, you can see in this thread alone people who have owned the 1964 "SMS" coins and felt they showed no distinctly special surfaces. There are also others that feel they do show a unique surface. In 50+ years, these conflicting opinions have not really changed much.
I'd also like to note that the vast majority of the coins I've worked with have been through photos. I learned to grade through photos, and it has become quite easy for me to identify factors like surface quality and condition from photos. Understanding how the photos are taken is also extremely helpful. I'm quite sure that if I did see a "SMS" coin in hand, I would not feel it was anything beyond a high grade piece struck from fresh dies. I have seen several "SP" or "PR" coins that aren't traditionally called as such, and my opinion of those coins did not change upon seeing them in hand.
However Mitch, if you think I would feel differently, I'll extend the following offer to you. If you'd like to send me a 1964 "SMS" of any denomination and grade, I'll image it and 10 other coins for you free of charge. If you feel this isn't a good enough deal, please send me a PM and we'll see if we can work something out.
Thousands of collectors could post photos of coins that are similar in grade, appearance and quality as the so-called SP or SMS 1964 coins....well, let's just call them for what they are, early strikes, I know that I could post a few. But then again, very few could resemble a true SP example as we see in the specially made 1994-P and 1997-P Jefferson nickels.
Here's a coin with a strike that occurred earlier than the 1964 coins. Aside from the VEDS details it has, there're also a bit of PL fields and raised lathe lines galore and the frost that appears on Jefferson and the Monticello. At this time, it's the only example I'm aware of with the high qualities it has.
It's hard to believe the only mark, a planchet mark that didn't smooth out during the making of this coin was limited to a MS 66 grade. I guess I should mention the 3 ticks on the 6th step, were they factered into the grade? Hmm But whenever I can buy a $10,000 coin for $50 .....I'll continue to leap for joy! Deserves a SP designation more than.......
Leo
The more qualities observed in a coin, the more desirable that coin becomes!
‘’However Mitch, if you think I would feel differently, I'll extend the following offer to you. If you'd like to send me a 1964 "SMS" of any denomination and grade, I'll image it and 10 other coins for you free of charge. ‘’
Thanks Al. Do you ever come to Las Vegas for a PCGS grading event? In a few months, I’ll have a home in Vegas. How about you plan to attend one of the PCGS Vegas shows in 2025 and I will bring some PCGS SMS coins for you to personally examine? We can do the same thing centered around a Long Beach show as well. Send me a P.M. with your thoughts on either venue.
Wondercoin.
Please visit my website at www.wondercoins.com and my ebay auctions under my user name www.wondercoin.com.
Looking at the 2 sets of photos @FlyingAl posted, the second coin is obviously sharper, especially on the reverse. Look a the steps and Lincoln in the memorial. To me, it is hard to see that sharpness being a die fatigue issue. It looks like the second coin was struck with a higher striking pressure.
You certainly opened some eyes with your research on the Smithsonian connection, but let’s leave it at that. You’ve never seen one, but you can opine on the look of the coins. That is irresponsible.
@leothelyon said:
Thousands of collectors could post photos of coins that are similar in grade, appearance and quality as the so-called SP or SMS 1964 coins....well, let's just call them for what they are, early strikes, I know that I could post a few. But then again, very few could resemble a true SP example as we see in the specially made 1994-P and 1997-P Jefferson nickels.
Here's a coin with a strike that occurred earlier than the 1964 coins. Aside from the VEDS details it has, there're also a bit of PL fields and raised lathe lines galore and the frost that appears on Jefferson and the Monticello. At this time, it's the only example I'm aware of with the high qualities it has.
It's hard to believe the only mark, a planchet mark that didn't smooth out during the making of this coin was limited to a MS 66 grade. I guess I should mention the 3 ticks on the 6th step, were they factered into the grade? Hmm But whenever I can buy a $10,000 coin for $50 .....I'll continue to leap for joy! Deserves a SP designation more than.......
I have several such coins myself. But they are one here and one there, different dates and denominations.
I can't imagine assembling 12 or 15 of every denomination for any date.
That's a really nice nickel by the way. Just nice even strikes are tough enough without also being fully struck and one of the first few from new dies.
@DMWJR said:
You certainly opened some eyes with your research on the Smithsonian connection, but let’s leave it at that. You’ve never seen one, but you can opine on the look of the coins. That is irresponsible.
And exactly how does viewing photos of them not count as "never seen one"? I can't say how many times someone has asked me to give an opinion based on a photo, but I can assure you it's far greater than the number of coins I've been asked to review in person.
Again - even if I somehow decided after seeing one of these in hand that "my goodness, they do look different!" the research does not change.
Saying that "yep - it's different because I looked at them and I say they are different" is irresponsible. Reporting the facts as it appears in mint and historical records, and then drawing logical conclusions based on those documents is not. Numismatic research needs more of the latter today.
Comments
You are accurate, it is not absolute that seller, per se, constructed ten of those sets; nor did the description echo the lettering on the case.
I’m not trying to turn the thread into a whine about an ad. I occupy myself with the use, misuse, and abuse of language in the eBay pages.This is another case where a topic in numismatics is presented incompletely or inaccurately to beguile the collector who is incompletely or inaccurately informed. There is a tide of careless sellers and they learn more terms to afflict on careless buyers. I don’t care. I can’t help them. I’m liable to fall into traps like these myself.
This ad does damage if someone who reads it, thinks that it is genuine. This gets in the way of efforts to dispel the myths.
It is remarkably easy to remove coins from an SMS and put in coins from 1964 proof sets. If you cut the Gems from '64 proof sets you not only have the means but the motive to fill up empty SMS cases.
But filling up sets in or out of a case from coins that appeared in circulation in 1964 is an impossibility. You couldn't run down to your favorite coin shop and order enough first strike coins to fill up even one single set. Indeed, the only way to acquire a single coin was to go through as many as 50 bags of freshly made coins. It was for every practical purpose impossible to assemble these sets outside the mint. Even at the mint it would require extensive effort and (perhaps) some help in getting dies set up to strike perfect coins after a perfect die was found.
These are specially made and the question is why, how, and by whom. Yes, perhaps an employee could have been charged with intercepting perfect specimens to assemble sets but it would require many weeks.
Again, though, with no expertise in these coins I have no means of knowing just how impossible these are. I'm just going by descriptions and my experience opening rolls and bags of '64 coinage. I am really quite confident that there are dates and mints of modern coins for which not a single Gem made by new dies even were produced much less has survived. The percentage of coins that survived in pristine condition is virtually infinitesimal in many cases.
History will be the final judge of these coins. Right now there are very few collectors even of '64 issues but as time goes on more will be known. I do agree we'll probably never be able to answer the fundamental question about these coins: how did they come to exist.
_ "Indeed, the only way to acquire a single coin was to go through as many as 50 bags of freshly made coins."_
And these bags would need to be random from many different sources because odds are good every bag on a pallet would look pretty much the same. If there were no VEDS coins in one bag there probably wouldn't be on the whole pallet.
Not to derail but this topic reminds me of an article on specimen vs. proof vs. matte & I think satin finishes in the forward to the Eliasberg Sale of Canadian coins.
Bottom line is the US MInt and other prominent mints such as the Royal Mint and Canadian Royal Mint experimented with different finishes even in off years.
Interesting? Well maybe just a bit but IMHO these coins are just not worth huge premiums even if rare.
However Young Al has evidently done us a service and look forward to the read if it should become available to non-ANA members.
Well, just Love coins, period.
Back to the original topic. I would just point out that there are many, many seasoned numismatists who have studied these coins, I mean the actual coins—not all the hearsay or lack of Mint documents or tenuous conclusions about the motives of Mint directors or the vocabulary of Mint employees or the opinions of Mint archivists—who believe they are indeed special coins, both in terms of their strike and their unusual finish. The "SMS" is a misnomer that has confused and confounded the issue for decades now, and should never have been used.
But the numismatists who believe/believed the 1964 Special Strike coins are indeed special or specimen coins and far more than mere "first strikes" would certainly include the graders at PCGS back in the 1990s when the coins first appeared (are any of you still around, and would you care to comment?), David Schweitz, Jess Lipka, John Dannreuther, (likely) David Hall, David Lange (NGC), myself, Mitch-Wondercoin, and I believe Jeff Garrett would agree as well. There are plenty of others who have bought and sold these coins whose names probably escape me at this moment. I wonder if JA would not be on that list as well.
The marketplace has determined the worth of these coins, and that will continue. These coins seldom appear in public auction (as most trade privately, and still seldom, as their owners tend to want to hang onto them), and when they do, they bring record prices. When I was a cataloger at Heritage years ago and working on my Kennedy half registry sets, I managed to acquire a 1964 Special Strike Kennedy in "MS67" PCGS (for which I was awarded a "You Suck"), and after hanging on to it for about six years, I consigned it to a Heritage auction where it brought $47,000 with the juice. This result opened the doors for another couple of "1964 SMS" Kennedy halves to appear at auction: one at Heritage April 2019 brought $108,000, a then-world record for a Kennedy half. We have bought and sold several other pieces and "groupings" (never any kind of Mint-assembled sets, which AFAIK do not exist) over the years, always at very healthy prices. One 1964 "SMS" Lincoln cent MS66RD PCGS that we sold on eBay now resides in the DLH Collection.
This^^^^^^^^^^. The duck test.
If it looks like a duck, quacks like a duck and walks like a duck it's a duck.
Except that these coins do not walk, talk, or quack like ducks.
They walk, talk, and quack like coins struck from fresh dies that then had a high degree of preservation post strike, as would be expected for a coin destined for the Smithsonian.
Coin Photographer.
I think your research is illuminating and important.
I also think there is a history of coins from various mints in amazing condition or states of preservation without explanation or record.
Ex. CC and S Morgan dollars in proof, early prooflike bust etc.
Firstly, thank you. I do appreciate the compliment.
There are a few examples of coins that appear to be uncommon, but the problem is that most of these remain hotly debated today. Even looking at the Branch Mint Proof Morgans will show how split the community is.
On another forum, there was hot discussion about the 1921 $20 in Proof. No definite conclusion on its true status was reached despite it residing in a PR holder.
Coin Photographer.
‘’Except that these coins do not walk, talk, or quack like ducks.
They walk, talk, and quack like coins struck from fresh dies that then had a high degree of preservation post strike, as would be expected for a coin destined for the Smithsonian.’’
They sure do walk, talk and quack like Labrador Ducks. And, for those thinking you can find one now in the lake well preserved and looking great, think again.
My checkbook has been open, ready and waiting for these “regular coins” to be offered to me at super high prices and guess what - not one has come my way. I did get a board member privately write and tease me with a pop top 1964 “SMS” Lincoln Cent but it apparently (and unfortunately) will take more than an article to shake it loose. URGENT NEED- Anyone with a coin for sale, even a grade or two under, on the Cent, please write me.
Just my 2 cents.
Wondercoin
They aren’t necessarily regular in the sense that they are the highest grade examples for 1964, but there is no proof to suggest they are made in any different way than any other 1964 coins.
Coin Photographer.
‘’They aren’t necessarily regular in the sense that they are the highest grade examples for 1964, but there is no proof to suggest they are made in any different way than any other 1964 coins.’’
Hi Al. They are NOT the highest graded examples for 1964. I think I owned a 64 graded SMS 1C once before I upgraded to the coin in my set and that 64 grade coin looked totally different than the “regular issue coins”. And it sold at auction for hundreds of times (perhaps 1000x) the value of an MS64 regular coin. But, it was a few points lower than coins (fairly) easily found in BU rolls of 1964.
Wondercoin
Mitch, from what I've seen, there seems to be a tendency to undergrade the 1964 "SMS" coins due to the SP designation (similar to the grading on 65-67 SMS coins).
I'd imagine that's why the coins stick out.
For example, take the below two coins. Remove the slight die fatigue in the fields of the first coin and you'll be getting damn near, if not exactly, the look of the SP. There is very little difference at all between the two already. Combine exceptionally fresh dies and excellent preservation, and bingo it "looks" different.
Coin Photographer.
Ignorance of the law (coins) is no excuse.
The biggest visual difference between the coins shown above is the lack of "normal" luster on the VEDS coin. This "fine" luster is what really defines the "look" of VEDS coins. The bottom coin does have luster, but it is the luster created only by the flow of planchet metal. The upper coin has luster created mainly by the die after it was subject to the wear of planchet metal flow due to striking many thousands of coins.
Edited to add: most of the VEDS coins I've run across are VEDS on one side only. Here are a couple other VEDS coins I've found:
https://easyzoom.com/image/343176/album/0/4?mode=manage
https://easyzoom.com/image/295627/album/0/4?mode=manage
http://macrocoins.com
@FlyingAl has confirmed through research that these coins were made/selected by someone at the mint and put into sets for a purpose we don’t know. They are special in that regard. For those of us who have seen them in hand, the do have a unique look, not necessarily captured in photos. I can’t recall if the OP has actually seen any in person. In this regard, I appreciate his efforts and having the idea that they might be related to the Smithsonian coins. That was a brilliant stroke.
I do agree that if collectors want to see them as special for the fact that they are related to the Smithsonian coins, that is totally fair. I'd say a FS number on a slab would suffice.
As far as photos go, I'd say the photos capture the coins well. It is of note that the old adage "you can't learn to grade from photos" is just false. For coins like these, you absolutely can compare the coins based on images.
Coin Photographer.
‘’ I can’t recall if the OP has actually seen any in person.’’
Al: if I may ask- How many of the 1964 coins designated by PCGS or NGC as SMS specimens have you personally examined in your career?
Wondercoin
Mitch - I haven't seen any in hand. I've seen pretty much all of the coins that have come up from auction in the auction photos.
While some may see this as some big "gotcha!" moment, the fact of the matter is that my not seeing these coins in hand has absolutely no effect on my research. I would still report the documents exactly as they are today even if I had seen the coins in hand.
Additionally, you can see in this thread alone people who have owned the 1964 "SMS" coins and felt they showed no distinctly special surfaces. There are also others that feel they do show a unique surface. In 50+ years, these conflicting opinions have not really changed much.
I'd also like to note that the vast majority of the coins I've worked with have been through photos. I learned to grade through photos, and it has become quite easy for me to identify factors like surface quality and condition from photos. Understanding how the photos are taken is also extremely helpful. I'm quite sure that if I did see a "SMS" coin in hand, I would not feel it was anything beyond a high grade piece struck from fresh dies. I have seen several "SP" or "PR" coins that aren't traditionally called as such, and my opinion of those coins did not change upon seeing them in hand.
However Mitch, if you think I would feel differently, I'll extend the following offer to you. If you'd like to send me a 1964 "SMS" of any denomination and grade, I'll image it and 10 other coins for you free of charge. If you feel this isn't a good enough deal, please send me a PM and we'll see if we can work something out.
Coin Photographer.
Thousands of collectors could post photos of coins that are similar in grade, appearance and quality as the so-called SP or SMS 1964 coins....well, let's just call them for what they are, early strikes, I know that I could post a few. But then again, very few could resemble a true SP example as we see in the specially made 1994-P and 1997-P Jefferson nickels.
Here's a coin with a strike that occurred earlier than the 1964 coins. Aside from the VEDS details it has, there're also a bit of PL fields and raised lathe lines galore and the frost that appears on Jefferson and the Monticello. At this time, it's the only example I'm aware of with the high qualities it has.
It's hard to believe the only mark, a planchet mark that didn't smooth out during the making of this coin was limited to a MS 66 grade. I guess I should mention the 3 ticks on the 6th step, were they factered into the grade? Hmm But whenever I can buy a $10,000 coin for $50 .....I'll continue to leap for joy! Deserves a SP designation more than.......
Leo
The more qualities observed in a coin, the more desirable that coin becomes!
My Jefferson Nickel Collection
‘’However Mitch, if you think I would feel differently, I'll extend the following offer to you. If you'd like to send me a 1964 "SMS" of any denomination and grade, I'll image it and 10 other coins for you free of charge. ‘’
Thanks Al. Do you ever come to Las Vegas for a PCGS grading event? In a few months, I’ll have a home in Vegas. How about you plan to attend one of the PCGS Vegas shows in 2025 and I will bring some PCGS SMS coins for you to personally examine? We can do the same thing centered around a Long Beach show as well. Send me a P.M. with your thoughts on either venue.
Wondercoin.
Looking at the 2 sets of photos @FlyingAl posted, the second coin is obviously sharper, especially on the reverse. Look a the steps and Lincoln in the memorial. To me, it is hard to see that sharpness being a die fatigue issue. It looks like the second coin was struck with a higher striking pressure.
You certainly opened some eyes with your research on the Smithsonian connection, but let’s leave it at that. You’ve never seen one, but you can opine on the look of the coins. That is irresponsible.
I have several such coins myself. But they are one here and one there, different dates and denominations.
I can't imagine assembling 12 or 15 of every denomination for any date.
That's a really nice nickel by the way. Just nice even strikes are tough enough without also being fully struck and one of the first few from new dies.
And exactly how does viewing photos of them not count as "never seen one"? I can't say how many times someone has asked me to give an opinion based on a photo, but I can assure you it's far greater than the number of coins I've been asked to review in person.
Again - even if I somehow decided after seeing one of these in hand that "my goodness, they do look different!" the research does not change.
Saying that "yep - it's different because I looked at them and I say they are different" is irresponsible. Reporting the facts as it appears in mint and historical records, and then drawing logical conclusions based on those documents is not. Numismatic research needs more of the latter today.
Coin Photographer.
Should you ever find yourself in Reno----- Adams Papers:
https://archive.library.unr.edu/public/repositories/2/resources/134