One Lucky 1964 Quarter Owner...
FlyingAl
Posts: 3,304 ✭✭✭✭✭
This 1964 quarter is listed in CoinFacts as MS65.
This $32 coin is from the same die pair as the 1964 "SMS" coins, meaning it should have graded as such and would be worth several multiples of the $32 MS65 price. It is one of two such coins I have found tonight, showing that there is significant similarity between 1964 "SMS" and regular issue coins even in hand. Research has shown that there is little reason to believe the 1964 "SMS" coins are anything but regular issue coins.
To registry owner CoinTotol - a resubmission perhaps and a quick auction perhaps? 
Coin Photographer.
9
Comments
why are the rims whacked?
Dear Al. Until you actually see a PCGS 1964 SMS quarter in hand, and stop drawing 100% of your conclusions via internet coin pictures only, I will have to agree with at least the one other poster here recently who suggested such “research” is bordering on reckless behavior (not 100% sure his position was “bordering on” vs. already there, but giving the benefit of the doubt to you). Try to have a look at a few SMS quarters “live” before rendering your “final” conclusions.
Just my 2 cents.
Wondercoin.
The OP coin conclusively matches graded 1964 "SMS" coins via die markers that are quite obvious to see in images (they are from the same die pair). I'd be happy to draw up some comparisons for you.
There is no doubt that this OP coin and the "SMS" coins are one and the same. None.
Coin Photographer.
Please post a few things us mortals can look for.
Never mind. I
looked up the PCGS coin. It's too bad Roger B. is banned from this forum. Are there any Mint records stating they made SMS finish coins in 1964 or experimenting with surface finishes. Otherwise, we are probably dealing with just another TPGS/coin market made up "Specimen."
I thought a 1964 Type B 25c I once found was something very special until I found out it was not. And you already found two 1964 SMS. Just proves knowledge is power.
I've gone ahead and circled the obvious pick up points where die polish matches. The most obvious is the die polish line coming perpendicularly off of the "L" in LIBERTY. There are a lot of other points, but they aren't immediately obvious due to slightly different camera angles. The second coin is graded PCGS SP68 SMS. If closeups are needed, let me know.
Coin Photographer.
that's just the large sized tv image for the op coin. where is the max sized?
why are the dies aligned differently on the two sets?
I don’t know, The N in unum looks different to me.
I don’t know much about these SMS coins, but isn’t there more to this than just the die pair used? The surface finish should be different, as well as the definition of the edges, with the SMS being more sharp and square like proofs.
I know that folks get confused about Peace Dollar proofs, since those dies were also used for circulation strikes. Maybe die markers aren’t as definitive for identification of these coins as one might hope?
I'm confused why you're stating that if one coin is a specimen or proof another from the same die pair must be also. There are a bunch of cases where proof dies have been used to strike business strikes afterward. The mint didn't just toss them after striking the "special" coins.
Dies rotate during use sometimes, and images don't always have a level coin when they're shot.
Coin Photographer.
This would be contrary to what is currently said about 1964 "SMS" coins.
Coin Photographer.
What’s been said about the coins that would be contrary to that?
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
Being from the same die pair doesn't mean anything, unless you are poking at the legitimacy of the 1964 SMS coins. It certainly wouldn't be the first time a "special" die pair was reused by the Mint, 1921 proof Peace Dollars come to mind, I'm sure there are others.
Collector, occasional seller
From Heritage:
"All 1964 SMS half dollars show various die markers that identify a single die pair."
CoinWorld:
"All of the SMS 1964 Kennedy half dollars are known to have been struck from a single pair of dies."
CoinFacts:
"One of the interesting diagnostic features of the Specimen Strike 1964 Half Dollars is a small, raised defect that appears to hang from the crosslet of the 4. This defect has been seen on all examples except one. In an admittedly rare hypothtical situation where one of these remarkable coins was spent, the defect can be used to confirm the original status of the coin."
I take the last statement CoinFacts to mean that die matching can be used to "confirm the original status" of the coin. If PCGS's stance was that the dies were also used for circulation strike coins, then the die markers could not be used to do the same.
Coin Photographer.
The Mint has often done exactly that. Many, many times.
As far as I'm aware, no coins struck from the 1964 "SMS" die pairs have ever been found "in the wild" among regular circulating coinage, so it would be very interesting to know from the owner where this coin came from. My hunch would be that it has the same origin as the other 1964 "SMS" coins, that the owner knows this already, that the SMS designation was requested, and that the coin simply didn't receive it in error.
I can say from first hand experience that you can scream about die markers to a TPG until you are blue in the face, and it often makes no difference. Not pointing any fingers, I've had the same problem on both sides of the street, so to speak.
A single die pair doesn’t necessarily mean that only specially made examples were produced from it.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
Al, I am late to the party here and confess that I know nothing about 1963 SMS coins. But, you are showing us quarters and backing up your points with quotes about half dollars.
Oops, I meany 1964.
@FlyingAl the Heritage and Coinworld statements are not contrary to my post. Mfeld explains why.
It is not clear from the Coinfacts excerpt whether they're saying that the die features are ONE aspect of confirming a special strike or the ONLY aspect, but either way I'd be very hesitant to assume that Coinfacts website copy represents the position of senior graders at PCGS.
I don't "buy" the SMS anything except for any foolery done by Mint insiders (didn't these certified coins come from an estate of a Mint official); however, DIE STATE becomes involved. Al says he has matched up specific die polish on coins graded as SMS by our host. I expect Al to know the difference between polish on a Master Die and Working Die. If SMS dies were used to strike regular issue coins they would eventually become a different die state and the surface characteristics would be different.
I don't have a horse in this race, and I think you may very well be right about these coins. However many things at the mint have been done without explicit documentation, and proving a negative is a difficult, thankless task here.
The die study is interesting, but doesn't add much weight to the argument either way, given the Mint's actions in the past when it comes to reusing dies.
Are you talking to me? As I said, the available information indicates that the Mint did not reuse the dies. If this quarter was released into circulation, it would be a first and a new discovery. I suspect the owner would be able to clear all of this up, which is why I'd like to hear from them.
Mark, if the die pairs were indeed reused, then why don't we have a large number of matches on circulation strike coinage (this of course assumes that they were used to strike SP coins in the first place)?
We see this in the case of the 1921 Peace dollars, where VAM 1-H coins in MS far outnumber any Proofs. As far as I have seen this is the only MS 1964 quarter from this die pair that hasn't been called SP. There's a far more obvious explanation to that than the dies being used to strike business strike coins, and that's a grading error.
I'd like to ask if die pairing is not what sets the 1964 "SMS" coins apart - then what does?
Regardless, there are cases of the exact same coin being called MS and SP by the same service. For example, this 1964 quarter which does not match the other 1964 SMS coins by die match was called MS66 and SP66 by PCGS. That would serve as evidence to the points made in my OP post.
Coin Photographer.
The alternative to that position is effectively that the mint would have struck a number of business strikes, then said, "yep, let's reuse these dies for MS coins", then struck a single coin, and called it good.
I sincerely doubt that is the case here.
Of course, this assumes that special coins were struck in the first place to begin with.
Coin Photographer.
‘’@wondercoin said:
Dear Al. Until you actually see a PCGS 1964 SMS quarter in hand, and stop drawing 100% of your conclusions via internet coin pictures only, I will have to agree with at least the one other poster here recently who suggested such “research” is bordering on reckless behavior (not 100% sure his position was “bordering on” vs. already there, but giving the benefit of the doubt to you). Try to have a look at a few SMS quarters “live” before rendering your “final” conclusions.
Just my 2 cents.
Wondercoin.
The OP coin conclusively matches graded 1964 "SMS" coins via die markers that are quite obvious to see in images (they are from the same die pair). I'd be happy to draw up some comparisons for you.
There is no doubt that this OP coin and the "SMS" coins are one and the same. None.”
————————-
Al. I can’t address conclusively why some collector or dealer MIGHT have a coin out there that isn’t designated as an SMS coin that you think is “special”. I would need to see it for starters.
What I can say is until such time you actually compare SIDE BY SIDE (IN YOUR HANDS WITH YOUR OWN EYES) true SMS coinage to regular coins and see the incredible difference in surface appearance between the coinage, your research on the subject is FAR from complete.
There is truly not much more to discuss here. You have never held a true 1964 SMS coin in your hands and therefore, in my opinion, your research has barely begun. First thing will be to explain the obvious differences in the surface appearance of the SMS coins and the regular coins, when you finally actually get to see an SMS coin!
Just my 2 cents.
Wondercoin.
Isn't this the converse? This says that all SMS coins came from a single die pair not that only SMS coins came from that die pair.
@MsMorrisine some context to go along with your photos may be helpful.
The “L” and “4” photos seems to support them being from the same dies, given the identical polish lines.
Is that the point you are attempting to make?
Nothing is as expensive as free money.
It doesn't seem like seeing them in hand makes much difference at all, given the example in this thread alone that PCGS graded both MS66 and SP66. This would seem to negate any statement that there are "obvious differences in the surface appearance of the SMS coins and the regular coins" when a team of professional graders couldn't see it consistently.
It also does not explain why this coin is the only coin from any SMS die pair that hasn't been called SMS. It seems we're more likely to make up stories here than even look at the possibility that the graders got it wrong, like they did with the other coin. I'd also like to point out the fact that my not seeing it in hand doesn't change the fact that it is still the only known coin from a SMS die pair that hasn't been called SMS.
Coin Photographer.
The "only known" or the only one you know about?
I've looked through a couple thousand coins from each denomination. The two examples in this thread are the two anomalies. I can't look at every 1964 coin, but no one else has ever reported seeing one.
FWIW, I'm confident the OP coin will regrade SMS.
Coin Photographer.
That does look like an interesting coin... lots of features seem to match up.
What does the mint say in their records about these 1964 SMS coins?
Were the planchets treated differently before striking?
Was the striking method different?
Were the coins treated in any way after being minted?
I hate to wade into this discussion as this is outside my area of expertise; but I would say that based on the two coins @FlyingAl compared initially (and also the next 2 coins in CoinFacts) I agree they certainly appear to be from the same pair of dies.
I also know better than to argue with Mark and Wondercoin as to whether that makes them both SMS coins. I trust additional differences in planchet preparation and striking methods certainly could distinguish the true SMS coins.
I'm intrigued to say the least.
Good point but if the coin is a good strike from the same dies then it would still be a scarcity identified as "SMS" regardless of what "SMS" really means. On this basis FlyingAl's contention seems to be the reality.
I thought the SMS designation was all about the provenance. 🤔
As we all know eventually every coin has to be able to stand on its own merits independently of common wisdom, provenance, and any paperwork that came with it. If this coin looks like a Gem, quacks like a Gem, and waddles like a Gem then it is Gem.
Millions of 1964 quarters were produced and even though many were saved because they were silver most are lightly circulated from handling in and out of circulation. Many many BU rolls exist but most of these probably haven't even been checked for the clad version of the '64. There are also coins struck by reverse dies intended for clad. Until people start collecting 1964 and later coinage we aren't going to have a very good idea of what was made or where it can be found.
This coin might not even prove the "SMS's" were made for circulation. It could have been separated from its "paperwork". There are numerous ways this could happen. For instance 1991 was a long time ago so one of the buyers might have passed on and this coins sent into slabbing without ID or paperwork. Perhaps Wondercoin is right (he usually is) that it lacks the luster and appearance of the SMS's because it really is a later strike with more worn dies and different presses. Without seeing them in hand there are other possibilities as well.
I hope we can get more facts about this coin since it might shed light on the manufacture and nature of the coins we call SMS.
I’ve held over 30 different PCGS certified 1c-50c SMS in hand. They have a very different look.
If the OP wants a clearer answer, attend one of the shows that features Steve Feltner as a PCGS expert show it to him. He is likely to be able to provide clarity as to why it may certify as an SMS or not. If you choose this route, be sure to get in line early to ensure you have a few minutes to show it to him.
My understanding has been that there is sufficient uncertainty about diagnostics (i.e. - were the SMS dies also used for circulation strikes) that provenance was critical.
Under that approach, if someone pays for a verified SMS coin and then spends or scraps it, then the designation is lost.
Similarly, if you pay for a coin with a "first strike" or similar label and then crack it out, that designation evaporates.
I am no expert on these, but I just read the threads about them that come along.
The Mint does not report any 1964 SMS coins
I’ve heard the same thing. I’ve had numerous people over the years bring 1964 coins to my table thinking they are SMS. Without even getting into the provenance consideration, the alleged SMS coins look nothing like the PCGS certified 1964 SMS coins I’ve seen.
What provenance are you referring to?
Coin Photographer.
Found your article a good read. Ultimately it alleges an absence of evidence--from where you looked. I did not see any reference to Eva Adam’s papers, or to the Estate of Merkin (if one was opened). Might be many areas /sources yet to be explored. Think I linked where Adam’s papers are in another thread. Adams was extremely responsive when LBJ called. Did present him with more than one specially prepared group of medals—fast.
Had there been a business practice for a record to be created at the Mint etc. and one was not created, that would be more persuasive.
Absence of evidence is probative, but I think insufficient to draw any definitive conclusions. I do believe there are many other sources that have not been looked at. 1964 was a significant year, Kennedy assassination, new half design, attempts to revive silver dollar, switch to clad. Lot of people who were not routinely involved with the Mint, were.
Your post above is interesting, adds info, but given the common re-use of dies, do not see it as adding significant weight to your theory.
Think in sum your theory is there is no record of SMS coins being struck, they look the same as coins off a fresh die, and there is no record of any special strikes being ordered or presented Others who have seen the coins in hand say they are different. Some records were examined, some were not.
Absence of business records, especially where it is not the usual practice of an organization to create them, has some, but limited, probative value. How probative depends on what records you did, and did not, examine. That is unclear. Your article certainly adds interesting information—it is not conclusive though.
BTW, rather than a general reference, a pinpoint citation to the page number(s) of the source you are drawing info from, is the more common academic practice.
Roger Burdette's opinion:
"1. No "Special Mint Sets" ever existed before those produced in 1965-66-67. Thus, by definition, there can be no "1964 SMS" coins of any kind.
2. All US Mint correspondence refers to the annual sample pieces sent to the museum in 1964-63-63 etc. as "uncirculated" or "circulation" coins. Note this is the same description given to George Goddard at the Connecticut State Library when T. Louis Comparette sent him (and several museums) newly struck coins. (See CT state archives for extensive correspondence, Van Block State Library Storage Facility, Hartford and New Haven.)
3. All new dies produce above average coins for the first few hundred strikes. This gradually fades. These coins are no more "special" than the last ones made before condemnation.
4. Without explicit evidence otherwise, all one can say is that certain coins are better struck and/or have more uniform surfaces than others made from the same dies.
The entire "1964 SMS" episode began as an ignorant speculation. But after FlyingAl's research, to continue this is a charade and a fraud."
https://forum.cacgrading.com/discussion/comment/27784/#Comment_27784
"Got a flaming heart, can't get my fill"
Burdette touts academic standards, but I find he does not apply them with rigor to his opinions. He is falling into the fallacy that the absence of records, in an organization that does not have an established practice of routinely creating specific records, is somehow sufficient in itself to prove something.
SMS coins were first marketed in 1965, is extrapolated into---therefore if there were SMS coins struck in 1964 there would have to be a record of it in the Mint files he looked at. What is his basis/evidence for his assertion that a record would have to be created by the Mint in 1964 for it to specially strike coins? He offers none.
Don't see where Burdette looked into any records apart from unspecified "Mint correspondence" ....
My understanding is all PCGS certified 1964 SMS all came from the same group of coins. I’ve seen reference in various auction listings they may have come from Eva Adam’s, a Mint Director, estate.
This is essentially what we all do and why we all (even experts) have different opinions.
There are just good researchers and bad researchers not right ones and wrong ones. Burdette is a good one but I believe he is wrong in this instance.