Could it be a 1964 Kennedy Half Dollar SMS?
NateInSav
Posts: 31 ✭
I have collected many 1964 Kennedy Half Dollar both business strikes and proofs over the years. I have one coin that just seems different. Could this be an SMS? It just looks so different!
I am looking for information and opinions from true SMS coin collectors and grading professionals.
My understanding of SMS coins:
1. Proof like square rims
2. Crisp strike details like a proof
3. Non-reflective finish in the fields (Does not seem to be a degraded proof)
4. Visible polishing lines (unique feature in SMS coins due to die prep method)
5. Hanging crosslet (1964 Kennedy Half Dollar SMS specific)
Did I miss anything in that list?
I am going to post photos - first of known certified 1964 SMS Kennedy Half Dollar coins and then of the unknown coin.
Known Certified 1964 Kennedy Half Dollar SMS Coins: (Shown as similar examples for context)
https://bestinc.co/50SMS_Obverse_Certified_HA.jpg
https://bestinc.co/50SMS_Reverse_Certified_HA.jpg
https://bestinc.co/6844.67-36516972_obv.jpg
https://bestinc.co/6844.67-36516972_rev.jpg
Unknown coin in sealed snap case: (reordered for viewing ease)
#1: https://bestinc.co/image1.jpeg - click to view
#2: https://bestinc.co/image2.jpeg - click to view
#3: https://bestinc.co/image0.jpeg - click to view
#4: https://bestinc.co/image3.jpeg - click to view
#5: https://bestinc.co/image4.jpeg - click to view
#6: https://bestinc.co/image5.jpeg - click to view
#7: https://bestinc.co/image7.jpeg - click to view
#8: https://bestinc.co/WIN_20250131_02_56_11_Pro.jpg - click to view
I have never directly touched the coin or opened the case. When I realized it was glued closed, I left it alone to preserve potential historic value and context. I have heard rumors that the other SMS coins were cracked out of the original plastic cases by the coin dealer who acquired some of them. I didn't know if they were put in cases as memento presentation pieces or something of that nature? Have any been found in the plastic cases?
As the photos show, the lighting intensity and angle makes a huge difference in how this coin shows up in the photograph. The case has a few scratches, but the coin seems scratch free. There are some small noticeable defects, but they must have been in the planchet prior to being struck. (since the defects traverse some things like lettering or other features)
Thoughts and comments appreciated!
Comments
No.
My Collection of Old Holders
Never a slave to one plastic brand will I ever be.
No way you could have seen the photos in sixty seconds or less...
@FlyingAl
Founder- Peak Rarities
Website
Instagram
Facebook
Ah man, not again!
I write a whole paper on the things, and it can't stop the parking lot finds.
Coin Photographer.
No - I don’t see anything about the coin that even hints it could be an SMS example.
And I’ve never heard rumors that the SMS coins were “cracked out of the original plastic cases by the coin dealer who acquired some of them.” On the contrary, I spoke directly to someone who was shown some of the coins by the dealer who had some of the SMS coins and there was never any mention of plastic cases.
Edited to add: Did you ever submit this coin you posted about in 2022?
https://forums.collectors.com/discussion/1073978/recent-find-1922-s-peace-dollar-flip-double-struck/p1
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
Couple of notes:
First, it may well have been closer to two minutes.
If you posted at 5:26:01 and if coinbuf responded at 5:27:59.
Secondly, if you had stated there was a Unicorn in the trunk of your car I wouldn't have had to sift through a bunch of photos to come up with a determination, "no" it is not a unicorn (but rather a holloween costume).
.
Ok. So thanks for everyone's comments.
It's my understanding that business strike coins do not have the polishing lines, is that correct? The photos and the coin clearly show polishing lines on the coin.
I'd like to read your paper. Link please? Thanks!
LOL - write the check and make it so... lol
I suppose it might be a correct description of what you understand. It certainly isn't remotely correct beyond that.
...which is a completely normal situation for coins of all types. Could be are struck by dies. Does get polished. That's what happens.
Coin dies used for making coins after heavy use sometmes get polished. If a heavy polish, scratches are made into the die. When used for making coins again, the scratches in the die become small raised lines on the new coins made. These are identical for the first made.
Are the die polish lines on your coin identical (same locations) to your SMS examples?
You’re not gonna like it.
Coin Photographer.
I do see strong correlation between the https://bestinc.co/50SMS_Obverse_Certified_HA.jpg photo and the coin I presented. It seems that the dies were polished in a cross cut manner. The two certified examples seem to correlate to each other - although its hard to tell. Lighting and the angle of lighting applied can highlight one set or the other set of cross cut ridges. Coin photography (photography in general) is an art form!
Also here is another photo (lesser quality camera - single lens camera but optics pick up the polishing lines):
Oy Vey!
Fingerprints.
I am open-minded. As long as your paper doesn’t solely rely on the SMS provenance theory: Eva Adams' estate via Lester Merkin. Lester Merkin was a coin dealer—and coin dealers sell coins. The 1964 SMS coins weren’t identified as significant until the early 1990s, long after Merkin handled the estate. We have no way of knowing whether he sold some privately to his other customers before the numismatic community recognized their rarity.
Open-minded enough to see fingerprints as die polishing lines.
Ok. OK. So the same guy was operating the press the entire day the SMS coins were being produced (probably true based on quantity estimates...)
Case closed! It's an SMS. :-)
Thanks for taking a look at this. I appreciate your time.
Thank you.
"When they can't find anything wrong with you, they create it!"
My paper argues and provides strong evidence for the stance that the 1964 SMS coins are not even special at all.
Coin Photographer.
.
After doing some more research on my own and based on comments here I have to agree.
This is NOT an SMS or SP coin. The SMS's all have a Type 1 reverse. Meaning they have a straight "G" and rays 11-13 counting from left are broken at the stars... SO - this is NOT and SMS.
I’d like to take a moment to acknowledge the community atmosphere. I came here seeking guidance in understanding whether this is or is not an SMS coin, and I truly appreciate those who have taken the time to share their knowledge—thank you for your help and insights.
At the same time, I had hoped for a space where open discussion and learning take precedence. I value constructive dialogue and thoughtful discussion from those more experienced in this area. Engaging in a respectful exchange of ideas is far more beneficial than unproductive remarks. I look forward to continuing to learn from those willing to share their expertise.
That's an interesting take, but they certainly do look different. Certain collectors are willing to pay huge sum of money for them as well. I lean towards thinking they were/are a rare "experimental" version of what followed in the years 1965 and beyond when SMS were a legitimate product. I have purchased and examined the 1965 SMS coins. The thing that stands out to me most are the defects introduced by the abrasive treatment of the planchets. Those swirled scratches definitely appear in the 1964 certified SMS photos and the 1965 SMS products... Just my thoughts.
This issue has been beaten to death on the forum over the years. If you are a newer member then you've missed all the "respectful exchange of ideas" that has already taken place. That doesn't mean it didn't take place.
@NateInSav A positive attitude is appreciated, but will only get you so far. Based on this and your Peace dollar thread, you're way off in la la land. Realistically, that's a serious limiting factor for constructive dialogue and thoughtful discussion.
What does my peace dollar thread have to do with THIS conversation? I still own it - not done with it.
I appreciate differing viewpoints and welcome constructive dialogue, as that’s how we all learn and grow in this field. My goal here has always been to seek understanding from those with experience, not to dismiss possibilities outright. Numismatics thrives on research, curiosity, and an open exchange of ideas—many of the greatest discoveries in this hobby/field were once considered improbable.
If we’re here for thoughtful discussion, then let’s have one. If we’re here to shut down inquiry with dismissiveness, that’s a different conversation entirely. I’ll choose the former every time.
You expressed some degree of disappointment with the tone and substance of responses you received. This thread and the Peace dollar thread both relate directly to that. Your attitude seems positive and invites constructive dialogue, but the substance of your posts does not. The content that you post communicates to the Forum that you are out of touch with reality, which makes your expectations of constructive dialogue unrealistic.
I appreciate your perspective, but meaningful discussion isn’t fostered through dismissiveness—it thrives on curiosity, facts, and a willingness to consider new ideas. If my questions challenge conventional norms, they should invite exploration, not shut down conversation.
Many of the most significant numismatic discoveries began as ideas that seemed ‘out of touch with reality’ at the time. If every challenge to established beliefs had been dismissed outright, progress in this field would have been severely hindered. I’m here to learn, explore possibilities, and engage in constructive dialogue—whether others choose to do the same is entirely up to them.
That said, I’ve noticed a tendency among some numismatists to instinctively dismiss alternative possibilities rather than consider that they may, in fact, be correct. With advancing technology, speculation will soon be met with definitive, measurable proof—and that will mark a turning point in numismatics. At that stage, personal skepticism will no longer matter; what is, will simply be.
When surfaces can be measured, mapped, and compared numerically rather than subjectively, how will you continue to justify saying "no"? Consider that carefully—because one day, the legal world may be asking the same question. Add Artificial Intelligence into the equation, and these debates may eventually become unnecessary, as technology will provide answers beyond human bias.
Reality determines fact. Our perceptions of reality may differ, but that does not mean I am right and you are wrong—or vice versa. What is, is.
Please submit the coin to a TPG. Then we have something to discuss.
The Peace dollar thread is balance of your cred here.
You know what happens when posters continue to push members to discuss “leanings”.
You are not writing to children.
Some people here are always polite and engage in conversations. Some people are rude and sarcastic to everyone. It's an open community. You will always get a range of responses and attitudes.
The OP is obviously intelligent and has impressive photography skills (based on the Peace Dollar thread). That is why I think this is a high level troll job. Both discussions are so utterly ridiculous they can't be real.
Philippians 4:4-7
Yeah, exactly! So....I was walking the other day and didn't notice the curvature of the Earth. I have a great amount of respect for the expert and intelligent members of this board and feel that an open and frank discussion about whether the Earth is flat or not would be an engaging and interesting discussion to while away the weekend.
I have seen some evidence for the Earth being round but then again I have also seen some evidence to the contrary. Many of the most significant scientific discoveries began as ideas that seemed ‘out of touch with reality’ at the time. If every challenge to established beliefs had been dismissed outright, progress in this field would have been severely hindered. I’m here to learn, explore possibilities, and engage in constructive dialogue—whether others choose to do the same is entirely up to them.
Please disregard my prior comments about the Sun revolving around the Earth, they have no bearing on this conversation.
I don't know one way or the other. But there is really no advantage to being rude. In fact, being rude to a troll just encourages them while being rude to a newbie just discourages them. So what's the upside? The rude person feels somehow superior?
In a vacuum, you are right.
The solution is for everyone to ignore posts like these and not post. Clearly, that is never going to happen.
The next best solution is to explain and educate and then ignore the post once OP starts disagreeing with facts like their opinion is the equivalent of everyone else's facts. That is also not likely to happen.
The real world solution (although it doesn't solve anything) is to explain and educate. Then, once the OP refuses to accept the expert answer to their question and insists on defending an indefensible opinion, relentlessly mock the OP for their delusions.
Lol. If you like. The problem is some people are just rude and mocking or of the gate.
Yeah, agreed, first response (assuming no prior similar threads) should be at least neutral.
Would it have been more neutral if my correct response was Нет (pronounced nyet) instead of no.
My Collection of Old Holders
Never a slave to one plastic brand will I ever be.
I wasn't thinking of you
Discouragement has its place. When one embarks on a journey where they cannot possibly succeed (or even progress) due to delusion or what have you, it's the only fair and reasonable course of action. To provide encouragement in such a case would be harmful.
There are certain instructor types that view instruction as their hammer and everything else as a nail. That is a delusion in itself. It may inflate the ego of such a person to treat everyone as their protégé (perhaps allowing them to feel more knowledgeable about many a topic than they really are), but it is unproductive and irresponsible nevertheless.