1965 Satin finish SMS coins

RonaldDay

Is there any reason the Satin Finish coins from 1965 aren't designated? They are easy enough to differentiate from the PL coins that came later that year and in 66 and 67?

RonaldDay

RonaldDay

Kinda surprised nobody had anything to say about this.

WinLoseWin

Are they an actual intended different finish or did they start out similar and became more satiny with use?

Could it be similar to some early 1950's Proof coins that are so satiny from die overuse that they almost look like business strikes but the near flawless surfaces give them away. Have noticed some Proof 1950 and 1951 half dollars especially, can be really frosty and barely reflective.

MFeld

@RonaldDay said:

Is there any reason the Satin Finish coins from 1965 aren't designated? They are easy enough to differentiate from the PL coins that came later that year and in 66 and 67?

They are designated.

See here: https://www.ebay.com/itm/266964974936?mkrid=711-53200-19255-0&siteid=0&mkcid=1&campid=5337164065&mkevt=1

and here: https://www.ebay.com/itm/196543644158?mkrid=711-53200-19255-0&siteid=0&mkcid=1&campid=5337164065&mkevt=1

RonaldDay

@MFeld said:

@RonaldDay said:

Is there any reason the Satin Finish coins from 1965 aren't designated? They are easy enough to differentiate from the PL coins that came later that year and in 66 and 67?

They are designated.

See here: https://www.ebay.com/itm/266964974936?mkrid=711-53200-19255-0&siteid=0&mkcid=1&campid=5337164065&mkevt=1

and here: https://www.ebay.com/itm/196543644158?mkrid=711-53200-19255-0&siteid=0&mkcid=1&campid=5337164065&mkevt=1

Your links simply show SMS (SPECIAL MINT SET) coins with and without a CAM designation. This is not what I am talking about. The majority of coins in special mint sets had polished dies, some of (especially the coins from 1965) had satin finished dies. There is no designation for the Satin finished dies that are easily confused with early die state Mint State coins.

RonaldDay

@WinLoseWin said:
Are they an actual intended different finish or did they start out similar and became more satiny with use?

Could it be similar to some early 1950's Proof coins that are so satiny from die overuse that they almost look like business strikes but the near flawless surfaces give them away. Have noticed some Proof 1950 and 1951 half dollars especially, can be really frosty and barely reflective.

Different dies. Some were had a satin finish, some were polished.

WAYNEAS

No deliberate strikes were produced for a satin finish in '65, '66 or '67.
They were designated as Special Mint State coins (SMS) and the outcome was generated by the way the die was prepared. Some dies were polished, and some were not.
Luck of the draw.
Wayne

BillJones

This does not impress me at all.

One of the complaints about the 1965 SMS coins was that they looked too much like business strike pieces. Most collectors didn't see anything "special" about them except the price. For $4 you got less than Proof quality coins with one 40% silver coin in the set. Prior to that, you paid $2.10 for five Proof coins with three of them made of 90% silver.

To me, this is a gimmick. The lower quality stuff is now "special" ... NOT.

fiftysevener

A few '65 SMS Kennedy Halves do resemble proofs.

cladking

@WAYNEAS said:
No deliberate strikes were produced for a satin finish in '65, '66 or '67.
They were designated as Special Mint State coins (SMS) and the outcome was generated by the way the die was prepared. Some dies were polished, and some were not.
Luck of the draw.
Wayne

They did a lot of different things trying to make a saleable product and they continued the experimentation right into 1967 when they pretty much settled on a PL product that was well struck by new frosted dies. Quality varied even on these, of course.

They did different things with die preparation in `1965 and '66 including polishing, extra hubbing, basining, and sandblasting/ acid. They varied strike pressure and duration. They even used various techniques for handling coins after the strike. The oddest was a 1966 quarter that usually appears completely mark free but weakly struck by by poorly hubbed dies on heavily polished planchets. It accounts for only about .5% of production. Many years ago a dealer offered me a handful at a favorable price but at the time I thought they were just polished circulation strikes.

There were so many techniques used and apparently even some "mules" so almost anything can be found in these sets. I've seen a very few coins that were apparently double struck with new dies so are technically Proofs. A lot of the coins are highly PL. Marking is an issue since the coins were rarely handled like proofs but many many of the coins are only very lightly marked.

A lot of these coins develop a haze and this especially applies to '65 issues because the plastic is not entirely stable. Sometimes what looks like a matte or satin finish is actually just hazing that is easily removed in acetone.

WAYNEAS

I am in total agreement with your post @cladking.
Thanks for the additional info.
Wayne

FlyingAl

@RonaldDay said:

@WinLoseWin said:
Are they an actual intended different finish or did they start out similar and became more satiny with use?

Could it be similar to some early 1950's Proof coins that are so satiny from die overuse that they almost look like business strikes but the near flawless surfaces give them away. Have noticed some Proof 1950 and 1951 half dollars especially, can be really frosty and barely reflective.

Different dies. Some were had a satin finish, some were polished.

Check your knowledge - this is incorrect on several different levels.

The coins you posted are late die states, which means they're simply poor quality when compared to the CAM and DCAM coins. There's no need to designate them because they're the same thing as all the other SMS coins, but poorer in quality.

RonaldDay

https://forums.collectors.com/discussion/594491/in-what-sets-should-satin-finish-coins-be-included
https://www.coincommunity.com/forum/topic.asp?topic_id=459204

RonaldDay

@FlyingAl said:

@RonaldDay said:

@WinLoseWin said:
Are they an actual intended different finish or did they start out similar and became more satiny with use?

Could it be similar to some early 1950's Proof coins that are so satiny from die overuse that they almost look like business strikes but the near flawless surfaces give them away. Have noticed some Proof 1950 and 1951 half dollars especially, can be really frosty and barely reflective.

Different dies. Some were had a satin finish, some were polished.

Check your knowledge - this is incorrect on several different levels.

The coins you posted are late die states, which means they're simply poor quality when compared to the CAM and DCAM coins. There's no need to designate them because they're the same thing as all the other SMS coins, but poorer in quality.

Check the coin pictures again, these are not late state dies. There is full hair detail and virtually no signs of die wear.

FlyingAl

@RonaldDay said:

@FlyingAl said:

@RonaldDay said:

@WinLoseWin said:
Are they an actual intended different finish or did they start out similar and became more satiny with use?

Could it be similar to some early 1950's Proof coins that are so satiny from die overuse that they almost look like business strikes but the near flawless surfaces give them away. Have noticed some Proof 1950 and 1951 half dollars especially, can be really frosty and barely reflective.

Different dies. Some were had a satin finish, some were polished.

Check your knowledge - this is incorrect on several different levels.

The coins you posted are late die states, which means they're simply poor quality when compared to the CAM and DCAM coins. There's no need to designate them because they're the same thing as all the other SMS coins, but poorer in quality.

Check the coin pictures again, these are not late state dies. There is full hair detail and virtually no signs of die wear.

Signs of die wear on SMS dies include - lack of cameo frosting and deep mirrors.

SMS coins were struck at higher pressures to show more detail than normal. Again, please check your statements before posting them as fact.

RonaldDay

Take another look. far from lacking "cameo frosting" the high points (as well as the fields) are fully frosted with a satin finish.

RonaldDay

@FlyingAl said:

@RonaldDay said:

@FlyingAl said:

@RonaldDay said:

@WinLoseWin said:
Are they an actual intended different finish or did they start out similar and became more satiny with use?

Could it be similar to some early 1950's Proof coins that are so satiny from die overuse that they almost look like business strikes but the near flawless surfaces give them away. Have noticed some Proof 1950 and 1951 half dollars especially, can be really frosty and barely reflective.

Different dies. Some were had a satin finish, some were polished.

Check your knowledge - this is incorrect on several different levels.

The coins you posted are late die states, which means they're simply poor quality when compared to the CAM and DCAM coins. There's no need to designate them because they're the same thing as all the other SMS coins, but poorer in quality.

Check the coin pictures again, these are not late state dies. There is full hair detail and virtually no signs of die wear.

Signs of die wear on SMS dies include - lack of cameo frosting and deep mirrors.

SMS coins were struck at higher pressures to show more detail than normal. Again, please check your statements before posting them as fact.

Ron Guth:

In 1965, the U.S. Mint discontinued issuing both Proof and Mint sets. However, as an alternative, the Mint began offering what are known as Special Mint Sets. The coins in these sets had a special finish that was most akin to the Satin Proofs of 1936.

MFeld

@RonaldDay said:

@FlyingAl said:

@RonaldDay said:

@FlyingAl said:

@RonaldDay said:

@WinLoseWin said:
Are they an actual intended different finish or did they start out similar and became more satiny with use?

Could it be similar to some early 1950's Proof coins that are so satiny from die overuse that they almost look like business strikes but the near flawless surfaces give them away. Have noticed some Proof 1950 and 1951 half dollars especially, can be really frosty and barely reflective.

Different dies. Some were had a satin finish, some were polished.

Check your knowledge - this is incorrect on several different levels.

The coins you posted are late die states, which means they're simply poor quality when compared to the CAM and DCAM coins. There's no need to designate them because they're the same thing as all the other SMS coins, but poorer in quality.

Check the coin pictures again, these are not late state dies. There is full hair detail and virtually no signs of die wear.

Signs of die wear on SMS dies include - lack of cameo frosting and deep mirrors.

SMS coins were struck at higher pressures to show more detail than normal. Again, please check your statements before posting them as fact.

Ron Guth:

In 1965, the U.S. Mint discontinued issuing both Proof and Mint sets. However, as an alternative, the Mint began offering what are known as Special Mint Sets. The coins in these sets had a special finish that was most akin to the Satin Proofs of 1936.

But the 1936 Satin Proofs don't typically display frosted surfaces or cameo contrast.

FlyingAl

@RonaldDay said:

@FlyingAl said:

@RonaldDay said:

@FlyingAl said:

@RonaldDay said:

@WinLoseWin said:
Are they an actual intended different finish or did they start out similar and became more satiny with use?

Could it be similar to some early 1950's Proof coins that are so satiny from die overuse that they almost look like business strikes but the near flawless surfaces give them away. Have noticed some Proof 1950 and 1951 half dollars especially, can be really frosty and barely reflective.

Different dies. Some were had a satin finish, some were polished.

Check your knowledge - this is incorrect on several different levels.

The coins you posted are late die states, which means they're simply poor quality when compared to the CAM and DCAM coins. There's no need to designate them because they're the same thing as all the other SMS coins, but poorer in quality.

Check the coin pictures again, these are not late state dies. There is full hair detail and virtually no signs of die wear.

Signs of die wear on SMS dies include - lack of cameo frosting and deep mirrors.

SMS coins were struck at higher pressures to show more detail than normal. Again, please check your statements before posting them as fact.

Ron Guth:

In 1965, the U.S. Mint discontinued issuing both Proof and Mint sets. However, as an alternative, the Mint began offering what are known as Special Mint Sets. The coins in these sets had a special finish that was most akin to the Satin Proofs of 1936.

And yet both were struck in entirely different manners.

jmlanzaf

@FlyingAl said:

@RonaldDay said:

@FlyingAl said:

@RonaldDay said:

@FlyingAl said:

@RonaldDay said:

@WinLoseWin said:
Are they an actual intended different finish or did they start out similar and became more satiny with use?

Could it be similar to some early 1950's Proof coins that are so satiny from die overuse that they almost look like business strikes but the near flawless surfaces give them away. Have noticed some Proof 1950 and 1951 half dollars especially, can be really frosty and barely reflective.

Different dies. Some were had a satin finish, some were polished.

Check your knowledge - this is incorrect on several different levels.

The coins you posted are late die states, which means they're simply poor quality when compared to the CAM and DCAM coins. There's no need to designate them because they're the same thing as all the other SMS coins, but poorer in quality.

Check the coin pictures again, these are not late state dies. There is full hair detail and virtually no signs of die wear.

Signs of die wear on SMS dies include - lack of cameo frosting and deep mirrors.

SMS coins were struck at higher pressures to show more detail than normal. Again, please check your statements before posting them as fact.

Ron Guth:

In 1965, the U.S. Mint discontinued issuing both Proof and Mint sets. However, as an alternative, the Mint began offering what are known as Special Mint Sets. The coins in these sets had a special finish that was most akin to the Satin Proofs of 1936.

And yet both were struck in entirely different manners.

And that quote does not indicate two different finishes, regardless of what you want to call the SMS finish

FlyingAl

@jmlanzaf said:

@FlyingAl said:

@RonaldDay said:

@FlyingAl said:

@RonaldDay said:

@FlyingAl said:

@RonaldDay said:

@WinLoseWin said:
Are they an actual intended different finish or did they start out similar and became more satiny with use?

Could it be similar to some early 1950's Proof coins that are so satiny from die overuse that they almost look like business strikes but the near flawless surfaces give them away. Have noticed some Proof 1950 and 1951 half dollars especially, can be really frosty and barely reflective.

Different dies. Some were had a satin finish, some were polished.

Check your knowledge - this is incorrect on several different levels.

The coins you posted are late die states, which means they're simply poor quality when compared to the CAM and DCAM coins. There's no need to designate them because they're the same thing as all the other SMS coins, but poorer in quality.

Check the coin pictures again, these are not late state dies. There is full hair detail and virtually no signs of die wear.

Signs of die wear on SMS dies include - lack of cameo frosting and deep mirrors.

SMS coins were struck at higher pressures to show more detail than normal. Again, please check your statements before posting them as fact.

Ron Guth:

In 1965, the U.S. Mint discontinued issuing both Proof and Mint sets. However, as an alternative, the Mint began offering what are known as Special Mint Sets. The coins in these sets had a special finish that was most akin to the Satin Proofs of 1936.

And yet both were struck in entirely different manners.

And that quote does not indicate two different finishes, regardless of what you want to call the SMS finish

The OP is trying to claim that since the 1965 SMS coins sometimes look like the 1936 Satin Proofs, those SMS coins struck from worn dies should be designated differently. The SMS and Satin Proof finishes are two entirely different things, and the Guth quote should have reflected that.

The Ron Guth quote is also teetering on the edge of being incorrect as well. This is exactly why experts in numismatics should never rely on "it looks like" to make determinations of status of a coin.

MFeld

@FlyingAl said:

@jmlanzaf said:

@FlyingAl said:

@RonaldDay said:

@FlyingAl said:

@RonaldDay said:

@FlyingAl said:

@RonaldDay said:

@WinLoseWin said:
Are they an actual intended different finish or did they start out similar and became more satiny with use?

Could it be similar to some early 1950's Proof coins that are so satiny from die overuse that they almost look like business strikes but the near flawless surfaces give them away. Have noticed some Proof 1950 and 1951 half dollars especially, can be really frosty and barely reflective.

Different dies. Some were had a satin finish, some were polished.

Check your knowledge - this is incorrect on several different levels.

The coins you posted are late die states, which means they're simply poor quality when compared to the CAM and DCAM coins. There's no need to designate them because they're the same thing as all the other SMS coins, but poorer in quality.

Check the coin pictures again, these are not late state dies. There is full hair detail and virtually no signs of die wear.

Signs of die wear on SMS dies include - lack of cameo frosting and deep mirrors.

SMS coins were struck at higher pressures to show more detail than normal. Again, please check your statements before posting them as fact.

Ron Guth:

In 1965, the U.S. Mint discontinued issuing both Proof and Mint sets. However, as an alternative, the Mint began offering what are known as Special Mint Sets. The coins in these sets had a special finish that was most akin to the Satin Proofs of 1936.

And yet both were struck in entirely different manners.

And that quote does not indicate two different finishes, regardless of what you want to call the SMS finish

The OP is trying to claim that since the 1965 SMS coins sometimes look like the 1936 Satin Proofs, those SMS coins struck from worn dies should be designated differently. The SMS and Satin Proof finishes are two entirely different things, and the Guth quote should have reflected that.

The Ron Guth quote is also teetering on the edge of being incorrect as well. This is exactly why experts in numismatics should never rely on "it looks like" to make determinations of status of a coin.

I just posted this in his other thread on this topic:

“As you know, there are already Cameo and Deep Cameo designations for 1965 SMS coins that qualify as such. So there’s no need for an additional “Satin Finish” designation for any examples that don’t qualify.”

Married2Coins

Anyone here know what Roger Burdett has to say on this subject. It looks like he got banned over a year (?) ago. Perhaps some info is in one of his books.

Married2Coins

Another question: Why are these coins called "Specimens"? It seems a little silly to me but I don't claim to be an expert at anything except losing money on coins.

robec

@Married2Coins said:
Another question: Why are these coins called "Specimens"? It seems a little silly to me but I don't claim to be an expert at anything except losing money on coins.

PCGS uses the “SP” prefix (in place of “MS” or “PR”) to designate this genre of specimen or special-strike coins, and it includes some spectacularly interesting and attractive pieces.

While each of these SMS coins was struck with a special (SP) finish, some of the nicest pieces appear virtually indistinguishable from cameo proofs.

https://www.pcgs.com/news/collecting-the-sms-coins-of-1965-1967

In the case of SMS coins SP is used for Special not Specimen.

RonaldDay

@RonaldDay said:

Is there any reason the Satin Finish coins from 1965 aren't designated? They are easy enough to differentiate from the PL coins that came later that year and in 66 and 67?

I am re-posting this again to illustrate that this coin was not struck with "worn dies" in fact, from what I've gathered in other threads when some of the SMS dies were worn they were used for Business Strike coins and that the wear is one of the tell tail signs the graders use to differentiate between Business strikes and SMS coins that don't fall into the proof like camp. It makes a lot more sense to think that mirrored surfaces came from polishing dies than coins with satin finishes came from worn dies.

cladking

@RonaldDay said:

I am re-posting this again to illustrate that this coin was not struck with "worn dies" in fact, from what I've gathered in other threads when some of the SMS dies were worn they were used for Business Strike coins and that the wear is one of the tell tail signs the graders use to differentiate between Business strikes and SMS coins that don't fall into the proof like camp. It makes a lot more sense to think that mirrored surfaces came from polishing dies than coins with satin finishes came from worn dies.

I believe this coin would look a lot more brilliant with an acetone bath.

Not only were dies prepared in various ways but so were planchets. There are lots of different appearances for these coins and some do indeed appear satin.

Maywood

It took perhaps 5+ years of healthy debate at this forum before some members agreed that the early 1950's proofs weren't struck with specially prepared dies which imparted a soft, matte-like appears to the coins, particularly the larger Half-Dollars. They were instead struck with overused dies which lost detail and the flat, reflective appearance of the fields. That is the same thing here, the dies have lost detail and the brilliant reflectivity of the fields. I know the OP will claim no detail is lost but only judging on the images in this thread it appears that isn't true. The strike appears "softer" to me.

SanctionII

I have these two 1965 SMS halves that have a Satin appearance. They do look very attractive in hand.

SP66

SP67

I also have this 1965 SMS half that looks like a Cameo proof.

SP66CAM

1965-1967 SMS coinage is interesting, given the wide variety of appearances they can have, especially the 1965 coins. These coins range from low quality, ugly coins that appear to be massed produced circulation strikes to high quality gorgeous coins.

privatecoin

SP66Cam

SP67

CRHer700

@cladking said:

@WAYNEAS said:
No deliberate strikes were produced for a satin finish in '65, '66 or '67.
They were designated as Special Mint State coins (SMS) and the outcome was generated by the way the die was prepared. Some dies were polished, and some were not.
Luck of the draw.
Wayne

They did a lot of different things trying to make a saleable product and they continued the experimentation right into 1967 when they pretty much settled on a PL product that was well struck by new frosted dies. Quality varied even on these, of course.

They did different things with die preparation in `1965 and '66 including polishing, extra hubbing, basining, and sandblasting/ acid. They varied strike pressure and duration. They even used various techniques for handling coins after the strike. The oddest was a 1966 quarter that usually appears completely mark free but weakly struck by by poorly hubbed dies on heavily polished planchets. It accounts for only about .5% of production. Many years ago a dealer offered me a handful at a favorable price but at the time I thought they were just polished circulation strikes.

There were so many techniques used and apparently even some "mules" so almost anything can be found in these sets. I've seen a very few coins that were apparently double struck with new dies so are technically Proofs. A lot of the coins are highly PL. Marking is an issue since the coins were rarely handled like proofs but many many of the coins are only very lightly marked.

A lot of these coins develop a haze and this especially applies to '65 issues because the plastic is not entirely stable. Sometimes what looks like a matte or satin finish is actually just hazing that is easily removed in acetone.

What mules?

RonaldDay

@RonaldDay said:

This was a second set of pictures, the coin in hand has full cartwheels and no reflectivity at all. BTW, I use acetone on all my coins before I send them in for grading so that is not an issue here.>

@SanctionII said:

I have these two 1965 SMS halves that have a Satin appearance. They do look very attractive in hand.

SP66

SP67

1965-1967 SMS coinage is interesting, given the wide variety of appearances they can have, especially the 1965 coins. These coins range from low quality, ugly coins that appear to be massed produced circulation strikes to high quality gorgeous coins.

If you compare the pictures you notice that your coins seem to have much more of a proof-like finish than mine.

SanctionII

Ronald Day.

You are correct. I have run across a few of these 1965 SMS half dollars that look like yours. If they are well struck and mostly mark free they are very attractive coins.

RonaldDay

@SanctionII said:
Ronald Day.

You are correct. I have run across a few of these 1965 SMS half dollars that look like yours. If they are well struck and mostly mark free they are very attractive coins.

I had removed this coin from what I thought was an original roll of 1965 Kennedy halves. This was the best of the bunch and I was expecting to get a MS grade not an SMS grade since the finish shows no proof like signs. It was after that I started looking into what the different types of finish SMS coins were minted with. While there are plenty of 1965 coins that are not CAM or DCAM coins, there aren't that many that don't have proof-like finishes - Those that don't have proof-like finishes look like mine.

Creg

I enjoy digesting these discussions on the SMS coins. My single comment is that the mint employees learned how to make clad coinage thru progressive refinements after they started issuing them.

RonaldDay

@Creg said:
I enjoy digesting these discussions on the SMS coins. My single comment is that the mint employees learned how to make clad coinage thru progressive refinements after they started issuing them.

You can say that again, just look at the Pennies from the 1980's!