I think the US Mint could have done a better job to produced a higher quality product/coin if their intentions were in fact to make/issue SMS mint sets. And for what? To somehow commemorate the new Kennedy half dollar? Doesn't the US Mint have a way/custom of pulling the very first strikes for historical records? They do and it would be interesting to learn how the coins in question compare to what's been stored at the Mint.
The nickel I had a chance to buy but passed on because I wasn't too impressed with it was in a NGC holder and the dealer was from New Jersey, mid 1990's, a couple of takes I got while reading here.
What about the original packaging to these once-intack sets? Did they say, US Mint SMS sets. Some of you have claimed to have seen some sets, what did the packaging look like? Can't imagine no-one bothered to take photos of these sets to document their discovery before they were broken up.
But here's another scenario, with this reasoning, for every denomination every year the US Mint saves and stores a few of the very first strikes of those coins for historical documentation reasons, however you want to call it. But in 1964 someone goofed up and pulled a few too many examples of the first strikes and instead of throwing them back into the hoppers they were sent to the mint set department. But someone likely had knowledge of the desire/demand for EDS material of mint products and had access to the sets and took them home. Anyone could have easily handled 12-15-18 mint sets. But did they go through the process of being sealed the usual way?
Leo
The more qualities observed in a coin, the more desirable that coin becomes!
@leothelyon said:
I think the US Mint could have done a better job to produced a higher quality product/coin if their intentions were in fact to make/issue SMS mint sets. And for what? To somehow commemorate the new Kennedy half dollar? Doesn't the US Mint have a way/custom of pulling the very first strikes for historical records? They do and it would be interesting to learn how the coins in question compare to what's been stored at the Mint.
The nickel I had a chance to buy but passed on because I wasn't too impressed with it was in a NGC holder and the dealer was from New Jersey, mid 1990's, a couple of takes I got while reading here.
What about the original packaging to these once-intack sets? Did they say, US Mint SMS sets. Some of you have claimed to have seen some sets, what did the packaging look like? Can't imagine no-one bothered to take photos of these sets to document their discovery before they were broken up.
But here's another scenario, with this reasoning, for every denomination every year the US Mint saves and stores a few of the very first strikes of those coins for historical documentation reasons, however you want to call it. But in 1964 someone goofed up and pulled a few too many examples of the first strikes and instead of throwing them back into the hoppers they were sent to the mint set department. But someone likely had knowledge of the desire/demand for EDS material of mint products and had access to the sets and took them home. Anyone could have easily handled 12-15-18 mint sets. But did they go through the process of being sealed the usual way?
Leo
The 1964 sets being discussed weren't being offered to the public, so there wasn't any reason for them to be in special "original" packaging. Thus, there wouldn't have been a photo opportunity of the type that you asked about.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
@Connecticoin said:
For the coins that were originally in Eva Adam’s possession (or with others) as “sets”, how were they stored? In envelopes? In plastic “SMS” holders (probably not)? In a Wayte Raymond holder?
After reading your post, I contacted Steve Blum, asked how the coins were stored and let him know I'd post his reply here. He wrote: "Coins were in cellophane and kept in individual flips. Easily passed over by Lester’s widow as not being very important".
Now there's a coincidence. That is to say, I have coins stored that way, too. I suppose these weren't labeled by this Director of the Mint as anything special, though, I mean, given the theory, now, they were probably easily passed over as not being very important. That of course doesn't mean that they weren't very important, only that it hadn't occurred to this Director of the Mint to label the flips, as such. Funny. I label all my important coins, my varieties, my errors, even my die cracks, I put little arrows right on the flip, right adjacent to them. That way I know they're there when I look back on them later. Sometimes you can overlook a repunched date or mint mark when you look back on them later, if the flips aren't labeled. But anyway, that's why I do it. FWIW.
@leothelyon said:
I think the US Mint could have done a better job to produced a higher quality product/coin if their intentions were in fact to make/issue SMS mint sets. And for what? To somehow commemorate the new Kennedy half dollar? Doesn't the US Mint have a way/custom of pulling the very first strikes for historical records? They do and it would be interesting to learn how the coins in question compare to what's been stored at the Mint.
The nickel I had a chance to buy but passed on because I wasn't too impressed with it was in a NGC holder and the dealer was from New Jersey, mid 1990's, a couple of takes I got while reading here.
What about the original packaging to these once-intack sets? Did they say, US Mint SMS sets. Some of you have claimed to have seen some sets, what did the packaging look like? Can't imagine no-one bothered to take photos of these sets to document their discovery before they were broken up.
But here's another scenario, with this reasoning, for every denomination every year the US Mint saves and stores a few of the very first strikes of those coins for historical documentation reasons, however you want to call it. But in 1964 someone goofed up and pulled a few too many examples of the first strikes and instead of throwing them back into the hoppers they were sent to the mint set department. But someone likely had knowledge of the desire/demand for EDS material of mint products and had access to the sets and took them home. Anyone could have easily handled 12-15-18 mint sets. But did they go through the process of being sealed the usual way?
Leo
There were 1964 proof sets and 1964 Mint sets. If there were 1964 SMS trial pieces, they would be a separate unpacked category.
@Connecticoin said:
For the coins that were originally in Eva Adam’s possession (or with others) as “sets”, how were they stored? In envelopes? In plastic “SMS” holders (probably not)? In a Wayte Raymond holder?
After reading your post, I contacted Steve Blum, asked how the coins were stored and let him know I'd post his reply here. He wrote: "Coins were in cellophane and kept in individual flips. Easily passed over by Lester’s widow as not being very important".
Now there's a coincidence. That is to say, I have coins stored that way, too. I suppose these weren't labeled by this Director of the Mint as anything special, though, I mean, given the theory, now, they were probably easily passed over as not being very important. That of course doesn't mean that they weren't very important, only that it hadn't occurred to this Director of the Mint to label the flips, as such. Funny. I label all my important coins, my varieties, my errors, even my die cracks, I put little arrows right on the flip, right adjacent to them. That way I know they're there when I look back on them later. Sometimes you can overlook a repunched date or mint mark when you look back on them later, if the flips aren't labeled. But anyway, that's why I do it. FWIW.
They weren't very important at the time.
Oh I get what you're saying. You're saying they weren't important until somebody started circulating a story about them.
@Connecticoin said:
For the coins that were originally in Eva Adam’s possession (or with others) as “sets”, how were they stored? In envelopes? In plastic “SMS” holders (probably not)? In a Wayte Raymond holder?
After reading your post, I contacted Steve Blum, asked how the coins were stored and let him know I'd post his reply here. He wrote: "Coins were in cellophane and kept in individual flips. Easily passed over by Lester’s widow as not being very important".
Now there's a coincidence. That is to say, I have coins stored that way, too. I suppose these weren't labeled by this Director of the Mint as anything special, though, I mean, given the theory, now, they were probably easily passed over as not being very important. That of course doesn't mean that they weren't very important, only that it hadn't occurred to this Director of the Mint to label the flips, as such. Funny. I label all my important coins, my varieties, my errors, even my die cracks, I put little arrows right on the flip, right adjacent to them. That way I know they're there when I look back on them later. Sometimes you can overlook a repunched date or mint mark when you look back on them later, if the flips aren't labeled. But anyway, that's why I do it. FWIW.
They weren't very important at the time.
Oh I get what you're saying. You're saying they weren't important until somebody started circulating a story about them.
They weren't very important due that reason, but also because if you are director of the Mint you are seeing trial strikes and things all the time.
@Connecticoin said:
For the coins that were originally in Eva Adam’s possession (or with others) as “sets”, how were they stored? In envelopes? In plastic “SMS” holders (probably not)? In a Wayte Raymond holder?
After reading your post, I contacted Steve Blum, asked how the coins were stored and let him know I'd post his reply here. He wrote: "Coins were in cellophane and kept in individual flips. Easily passed over by Lester’s widow as not being very important".
Now there's a coincidence. That is to say, I have coins stored that way, too. I suppose these weren't labeled by this Director of the Mint as anything special, though, I mean, given the theory, now, they were probably easily passed over as not being very important. That of course doesn't mean that they weren't very important, only that it hadn't occurred to this Director of the Mint to label the flips, as such. Funny. I label all my important coins, my varieties, my errors, even my die cracks, I put little arrows right on the flip, right adjacent to them. That way I know they're there when I look back on them later. Sometimes you can overlook a repunched date or mint mark when you look back on them later, if the flips aren't labeled. But anyway, that's why I do it. FWIW.
They weren't very important at the time.
Oh I get what you're saying. You're saying they weren't important until somebody started circulating a story about them.
They weren't very important due that reason, but also because if you are director of the Mint you are seeing trial strikes and things all the time.
True and fiction? Manny ideas and suppositions. Let go more deep.
In Jully 1964, the Reserve ask Eva Adams to double the production of the coins. The Mint was in time OK to finish the normal production of the coins. this request from the Reserve, made Eva Adams to go in front of the congress and report and answer the questions (sorry I can not downlod here the congress meeting report).
Interesting from the debate was: Ask to be able to strike coins in 1965 with year 1964 (was granted) and only a few words which approuch this debate: "As per presented, we will change the proofs stikes with this new coins."
Nothing more, nothing less.
Me personally I saw MSM 64 set in London, Monaco and Sweeden. As per "what was presented", mean some congressmans (ladies) reseive some samples. If they receive, mean the presidency also receive and the International Relation department also receive. How manny ??? mistery, who know.
Me I believe those coins was test in West Point. In time was an Millitary strickt Reserve location.
Years after, when West Point become Reserve, with some (2) defuncts well know coins specialists, I was there to look in some reserve bags. OK this activity, but me I ask if I can see the 1964 Minting documents. Negative answer because the time of the documents was millitary location and archive.
Conclusion: If Eva Brown has som sets? Yes could have. Who was in time those from the expression: As presented????
I feel that we never will go at the bottom of the baril. Millitary archive disclosure will never happened.
So: the reality is those sets are real. How manny: Unknow. Who own : Unknow. Release in the wild? NO.
NEVER ARGUE WITH AN IDIOT.FIRST THEY WILL DRAG YOU DOWN TO THEIR LEVEL.THEN, THEY WILL BEAT YOU WITH EXPERIENCE. MARK TWAIN
@silviosi said:
True and fiction? Manny ideas and suppositions. Let go more deep.
In Jully 1964, the Reserve ask Eva Adams to double the production of the coins. The Mint was in time OK to finish the normal production of the coins. this request from the Reserve, made Eva Adams to go in front of the congress and report and answer the questions (sorry I can not downlod here the congress meeting report).
Interesting from the debate was: Ask to be able to strike coins in 1965 with year 1964 (was granted) and only a few words which approuch this debate: "As per presented, we will change the proofs stikes with this new coins."
Nothing more, nothing less.
Me personally I saw MSM 64 set in London, Monaco and Sweeden. As per "what was presented", mean some congressmans (ladies) reseive some samples. If they receive, mean the presidency also receive and the International Relation department also receive. How manny ??? mistery, who know.
Me I believe those coins was test in West Point. In time was an Millitary strickt Reserve location.
Years after, when West Point become Reserve, with some (2) defuncts well know coins specialists, I was there to look in some reserve bags. OK this activity, but me I ask if I can see the 1964 Minting documents. Negative answer because the time of the documents was millitary location and archive.
Conclusion: If Eva Brown has som sets? Yes could have. Who was in time those from the expression: As presented????
I feel that we never will go at the bottom of the baril. Millitary archive disclosure will never happened.
So: the reality is those sets are real. How manny: Unknow. Who own : Unknow. Release in the wild? NO.
Why doesn't "as per presented" refer to the words in the presentation and not coins? And the new issue would be the 1965 coins not the 1964 coins.
There would be little point in doing test strikes using planchets of a different alloy. The 64 fine and quarter were 90% and the 65v were clad. The half was 90% in 64 and the 65 was 40%. You would only test the new strike on planchets of the correct composition as there was no corresponding design change.
Further, West Point Mint documents would not be classified, especially 60 years later, as they have no military secrets.
Interesting from the debate was: Ask to be able to strike coins in 1965 with year 1964 (was granted) and only a few words which approuch this debate: "As per presented, we will change the proofs stikes with this new coins."
You even found a way to butcher the English in a supposedly direct quotation.
Interesting from the debate was: Ask to be able to strike coins in 1965 with year 1964 (was granted) and only a few words which approuch this debate: "As per presented, we will change the proofs stikes with this new coins."
You even found a way to butcher the English in a supposedly direct quotation.
I'm starting to get a Forrest Gump vibe. Good old Forrest managed to be at every important historical event
Apropos thoughts on Mint actions being highly formal, or not, and recorded for posterity, or not, here is an interesting little article that says that to be sure that the new clad coins would work in machines, Eva Adams personally took some blank planchets to Las Vegas to see if they would work in the slot machines.
Since she was from Nevada this was probably during a personal trip to Nevada, and not a junket at the taxpayers' expense. FWIW I had never heard this story before.
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.
After I wrote about the Eva Adams in front of the Judiciary commitee, interesting points.
First: US Military Forces documents are not public without special approuvment in any cases. Example: In 1965 the Mint uses the Millitaru presses for the coignage. Do any of the US forces document was publish where was strike or how many presses used. In that interview with the Congress Eva states that wait theirs OK to use those presses. Folks do not work in politic.
Second: The clad testing began in 1963. Who do the tests or where?? I do not have any prouve at this moment.
Third: Eva wanted and done the replacement of the proof coins process till the Mint recuperate the production which happened on December 1967. For me ** "As per presented, we will change the proofs stikes with this new coins."** mean she presented samples of those coins to be compare and approuved. when we discuss about differences on the coins qualities never will be presented as design on paper as is done for medals or new coins designs.
For those sceptics philosophs here who do not trust nothing, I encourage to go to ask permission and study the Congress Library. I had same kind of reactions also when I say that in 1962 on 1 August the Mint change the alloy for 1 Cent from bronze to brass.
PS: Political leanguage has nothing to do with any other kind of normal leanguage.
NEVER ARGUE WITH AN IDIOT.FIRST THEY WILL DRAG YOU DOWN TO THEIR LEVEL.THEN, THEY WILL BEAT YOU WITH EXPERIENCE. MARK TWAIN
PS: Political leanguage has nothing to do with any other kind of normal leanguage.
Who is to say what "normal leanguage" really is? 🤔
Lmfao.
I think there are too many words to be considered "leanguage".
He also appears to be the only one aware of these "per presented" coins. We're somehow supposed to trust his recollection of an event no one else knows about??? I assume the hearing was in Italian so we can trust his translation.
@silviosi said:
After I wrote about the Eva Adams in front of the Judiciary commitee, interesting points.
First: US Military Forces documents are not public without special approuvment in any cases. Example: In 1965 the Mint uses the Millitaru presses for the coignage. Do any of the US forces document was publish where was strike or how many presses used. In that interview with the Congress Eva states that wait theirs OK to use those presses. Folks do not work in politic.
Second: The clad testing began in 1963. Who do the tests or where?? I do not have any prouve at this moment.
Third: Eva wanted and done the replacement of the proof coins process till the Mint recuperate the production which happened on December 1967. For me ** "As per presented, we will change the proofs stikes with this new coins."** mean she presented samples of those coins to be compare and approuved. when we discuss about differences on the coins qualities never will be presented as design on paper as is done for medals or new coins designs.
For those sceptics philosophs here who do not trust nothing, I encourage to go to ask permission and study the Congress Library. I had same kind of reactions also when I say that in 1962 on 1 August the Mint change the alloy for 1 Cent from bronze to brass.
PS: Political leanguage has nothing to do with any other kind of normal leanguage.
My skepticism, as presented, had no trial strikes associated with it. It is quite common to say "as presented" in English to refer to a discourse and not an actual object.
Numismatists have been looking for evidence of the 1964 SMS coins for 30 years and you think they missed the actual public presentation in Congress?
Further, if such a presentation of actual coinage had occurred, dealers would have been all over them in 1964 and not flabbergasted by their appearance 25+ years later.
You offer alleged evidence unknown to the numismatic community. Our skepticism is warranted.
@silviosi said:
After I wrote about the Eva Adams in front of the Judiciary commitee, interesting points.
First: US Military Forces documents are not public without special approuvment in any cases. Example: In 1965 the Mint uses the Millitaru presses for the coignage. Do any of the US forces document was publish where was strike or how many presses used. In that interview with the Congress Eva states that wait theirs OK to use those presses. Folks do not work in politic.
Second: The clad testing began in 1963. Who do the tests or where?? I do not have any prouve at this moment.
Third: Eva wanted and done the replacement of the proof coins process till the Mint recuperate the production which happened on December 1967. For me ** "As per presented, we will change the proofs stikes with this new coins."** mean she presented samples of those coins to be compare and approuved. when we discuss about differences on the coins qualities never will be presented as design on paper as is done for medals or new coins designs.
For those sceptics philosophs here who do not trust nothing, I encourage to go to ask permission and study the Congress Library. I had same kind of reactions also when I say that in 1962 on 1 August the Mint change the alloy for 1 Cent from bronze to brass.
PS: Political leanguage has nothing to do with any other kind of normal leanguage.
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.
Comments
I think the US Mint could have done a better job to produced a higher quality product/coin if their intentions were in fact to make/issue SMS mint sets. And for what? To somehow commemorate the new Kennedy half dollar? Doesn't the US Mint have a way/custom of pulling the very first strikes for historical records? They do and it would be interesting to learn how the coins in question compare to what's been stored at the Mint.
The nickel I had a chance to buy but passed on because I wasn't too impressed with it was in a NGC holder and the dealer was from New Jersey, mid 1990's, a couple of takes I got while reading here.
What about the original packaging to these once-intack sets? Did they say, US Mint SMS sets. Some of you have claimed to have seen some sets, what did the packaging look like? Can't imagine no-one bothered to take photos of these sets to document their discovery before they were broken up.
But here's another scenario, with this reasoning, for every denomination every year the US Mint saves and stores a few of the very first strikes of those coins for historical documentation reasons, however you want to call it. But in 1964 someone goofed up and pulled a few too many examples of the first strikes and instead of throwing them back into the hoppers they were sent to the mint set department. But someone likely had knowledge of the desire/demand for EDS material of mint products and had access to the sets and took them home. Anyone could have easily handled 12-15-18 mint sets. But did they go through the process of being sealed the usual way?
Leo
The more qualities observed in a coin, the more desirable that coin becomes!
My Jefferson Nickel Collection
The 1964 sets being discussed weren't being offered to the public, so there wasn't any reason for them to be in special "original" packaging. Thus, there wouldn't have been a photo opportunity of the type that you asked about.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
They weren't very important at the time.
There were 1964 proof sets and 1964 Mint sets. If there were 1964 SMS trial pieces, they would be a separate unpacked category.
Oh I get what you're saying. You're saying they weren't important until somebody started circulating a story about them.
They weren't very important due that reason, but also because if you are director of the Mint you are seeing trial strikes and things all the time.
Understood. Thanks.
True and fiction? Manny ideas and suppositions. Let go more deep.
In Jully 1964, the Reserve ask Eva Adams to double the production of the coins. The Mint was in time OK to finish the normal production of the coins. this request from the Reserve, made Eva Adams to go in front of the congress and report and answer the questions (sorry I can not downlod here the congress meeting report).
Interesting from the debate was: Ask to be able to strike coins in 1965 with year 1964 (was granted) and only a few words which approuch this debate: "As per presented, we will change the proofs stikes with this new coins."
Nothing more, nothing less.
Me personally I saw MSM 64 set in London, Monaco and Sweeden. As per "what was presented", mean some congressmans (ladies) reseive some samples. If they receive, mean the presidency also receive and the International Relation department also receive. How manny ??? mistery, who know.
Me I believe those coins was test in West Point. In time was an Millitary strickt Reserve location.
Years after, when West Point become Reserve, with some (2) defuncts well know coins specialists, I was there to look in some reserve bags. OK this activity, but me I ask if I can see the 1964 Minting documents. Negative answer because the time of the documents was millitary location and archive.
Conclusion: If Eva Brown has som sets? Yes could have. Who was in time those from the expression: As presented????
I feel that we never will go at the bottom of the baril. Millitary archive disclosure will never happened.
So: the reality is those sets are real. How manny: Unknow. Who own : Unknow. Release in the wild? NO.
NEVER ARGUE WITH AN IDIOT.
FIRST THEY WILL DRAG YOU DOWN TO THEIR LEVEL.
THEN, THEY WILL BEAT YOU WITH EXPERIENCE.
MARK TWAIN
Why doesn't "as per presented" refer to the words in the presentation and not coins? And the new issue would be the 1965 coins not the 1964 coins.
There would be little point in doing test strikes using planchets of a different alloy. The 64 fine and quarter were 90% and the 65v were clad. The half was 90% in 64 and the 65 was 40%. You would only test the new strike on planchets of the correct composition as there was no corresponding design change.
Further, West Point Mint documents would not be classified, especially 60 years later, as they have no military secrets.
You even found a way to butcher the English in a supposedly direct quotation.
I'm starting to get a Forrest Gump vibe. Good old Forrest managed to be at every important historical event
“As per presented, cambieremo the proofs stikes with this new coins.”
That does not mean that it happened.
Apropos thoughts on Mint actions being highly formal, or not, and recorded for posterity, or not, here is an interesting little article that says that to be sure that the new clad coins would work in machines, Eva Adams personally took some blank planchets to Las Vegas to see if they would work in the slot machines.
Since she was from Nevada this was probably during a personal trip to Nevada, and not a junket at the taxpayers' expense. FWIW I had never heard this story before.
https://scvhistory.com/scvhistory/signal/coins/soltaylor051609.html
After I wrote about the Eva Adams in front of the Judiciary commitee, interesting points.
First: US Military Forces documents are not public without special approuvment in any cases. Example: In 1965 the Mint uses the Millitaru presses for the coignage. Do any of the US forces document was publish where was strike or how many presses used. In that interview with the Congress Eva states that wait theirs OK to use those presses. Folks do not work in politic.
Second: The clad testing began in 1963. Who do the tests or where?? I do not have any prouve at this moment.
Third: Eva wanted and done the replacement of the proof coins process till the Mint recuperate the production which happened on December 1967. For me ** "As per presented, we will change the proofs stikes with this new coins."** mean she presented samples of those coins to be compare and approuved. when we discuss about differences on the coins qualities never will be presented as design on paper as is done for medals or new coins designs.
For those sceptics philosophs here who do not trust nothing, I encourage to go to ask permission and study the Congress Library. I had same kind of reactions also when I say that in 1962 on 1 August the Mint change the alloy for 1 Cent from bronze to brass.
PS: Political leanguage has nothing to do with any other kind of normal leanguage.
NEVER ARGUE WITH AN IDIOT.
FIRST THEY WILL DRAG YOU DOWN TO THEIR LEVEL.
THEN, THEY WILL BEAT YOU WITH EXPERIENCE.
MARK TWAIN
Who is to say what "normal leanguage" really is? 🤔
Lmfao.
I think there are too many words to be considered "leanguage".
He also appears to be the only one aware of these "per presented" coins. We're somehow supposed to trust his recollection of an event no one else knows about??? I assume the hearing was in Italian so we can trust his translation.
My skepticism, as presented, had no trial strikes associated with it. It is quite common to say "as presented" in English to refer to a discourse and not an actual object.
Numismatists have been looking for evidence of the 1964 SMS coins for 30 years and you think they missed the actual public presentation in Congress?
Further, if such a presentation of actual coinage had occurred, dealers would have been all over them in 1964 and not flabbergasted by their appearance 25+ years later.
You offer alleged evidence unknown to the numismatic community. Our skepticism is warranted.
Show some respect, everyone; you are talking to a Nobel Price nominee...
Lesson number 1 on how to win an argument.
If no one knows what you are saying they can't argue with you.
Read this book by Roger W. Burdette:
https://nnp.wustl.edu/library/periodical/518314
Linguistic overreach.