Options
The Kennedy Half Dollar Series (MS & Proof)
wondercoin
Posts: 16,685 ✭✭✭✭✭
I have been reading the (2) current threads concerning Kennedys, but, to be honest, I am a bit confused on exactly what the Kennedy Half Dollars collectors really like and dislike about the new changes (and proposed changes). Let's lay out here on this thread EXACTLY what everyone likes and dislikes about the new changes. The Presidential Dollar collectors were able to make real change when we all got together and laid out clearly to PCGS what was wrong with PCGS' initial proposed changes - in the end (after an additional poll to collectors) , many things got changed to better reflect the desires of the dollar collectors.
Let's lay it out here clearly and see if there is some common ground among Kennedy collectors on these latest delveopments. I, personally, have some thoughts which I will address shortly as well.
Wondercoin
Wondercoin
Let's lay it out here clearly and see if there is some common ground among Kennedy collectors on these latest delveopments. I, personally, have some thoughts which I will address shortly as well.
Wondercoin
Wondercoin
Please visit my website at www.wondercoins.com and my ebay auctions under my user name www.wondercoin.com.
0
Comments
I don't understand why its so difficult...actually beyond difficult, for PCGS to fix these problems. These problems have been mounting for 3-4 years, and they are still not resolved.
I just do not understand why PCGS will not give the collectors what they want, and Mitch, I say this with all due respect, but you live in California and have some dream connection to PCGS and speak to them regularly and most of us don't. You usually get what you want, and have some influence that most of us will never have.
Later, Paul.
Later, Paul.
I'd like to find out the reason for removing it.
Was I in the minority?
<< <i>I have been reading the (2) current threads concerning Kennedys, but, to be honest, I am a bit confused on exactly what the Kennedy Half Dollars collectors really like and dislike about the new changes (and proposed changes). Let's lay out here on this thread EXACTLY what everyone likes and dislikes about the new changes. The Presidential Dollar collectors were able to make real change when we all got together and laid out clearly to PCGS what was wrong with PCGS' initial proposed changes - in the end (after an additional poll to collectors) , many things got changed to better reflect the desires of the dollar collectors.
Let's lay it out here clearly and see if there is some common ground among Kennedy collectors on these latest delveopments. I, personally, have some thoughts which I will address shortly as well.
Wondercoin >>
Mitch,
To lay it out here, I am not sure where to start. Maybe a good place to start would be to delete everything and start over with a clean slate!
First, PCGS need to come up with a clear and defined set of rules for the Registry then let the coins fall into the sets on their own merits. Whatever the rules are should be followed without deviation so that a fair “playing field” is established for all participating in the Registry. All series should be treated equal, without special rules for one series and not another. Part of rules should be “definitions” that are universal for all series in the Registry, examples:
1. Basic coin – A coin that was officially issued and released by the United States Mint for commerce or as a collectable item (i.e. for use in circulation, Official US Mint Proof – Uncirculated – SMS sets).
2. Variety coin – A variance of a “Basic coin” as reference in most recognized reference books (i.e. The 1966 DDO SMS FS-103 Kennedy Half Dollar is a variety of the “Basic coin” 1966 SMS).
3. Major Variety coin – Variety coins that are easily recognized as having major differences from other coins of the same design, type, date, and mint. Generally, major varieties are significant and can be easily seen with the naked eye and have the history of being search for by the numismatic community for their “strength of doubling” or differences.
I will stop here for now, and comment latter on some more issues.
Tim
Russ, NCNE
<< <i>I liked having the AH 64 in the set. >>
And, I also agree with that. The Accented Hair is now, and always has been, an integral part of a proof Kennedy set.
Russ, NCNE
Russ, NCNE
<< <i>
<< <i>I liked having the AH 64 in the set. >>
And, I also agree with that. The Accented Hair is now, and always has been, an integral part of a proof Kennedy set.
Russ, NCNE >>
I know that I am getting ahead of myself in the way that I wanted to respond to this thread. But wasn't the Accented Hair proof Kennedy the first type issued by the US Mint for the Proof version of 1964? Then at the request of Mrs. Kennedy it was changed? So if the AH was the first official released proof coin for 1964, then which one is the variety of the date, the AH or the "non AH", or are they both "Basic Coins" the way the US Mint intended them to be?
Russ, NCNE
I have a top 10 MS & Proof Kennedy set and would like to see the sets handled professionally by PCGS. My cursory review of what PCGS came up suggests flaws in their game plan. I can tell you that PCGS did not consult with me on these proposed changes nor anyone I know. Nor, did I ask PCGS to consider consulting with me first, so I have no basis to argue with them now. But, there appears to be some changes needed and PCGS does have a history of "getting it right" even if it takes a couple rounds. So, I am willing to donate my time to try to fix some of the glaring problems before it is too late (and it certainly isn't too late at this point). On top of that, I am comfortable if someone else contacts PCGS on behalf of Kennedy collectors to request changes (it does not matter to me at all if someone else does it for the group), once we all agree what these proposed changes should be. Tim is very articulate (not to mention passionate about the series) and I welcome Tim being the spokesman for all the Kennedy collectors here - he has my vote. So, let's lay out the changes that are needed to get this right and work to make it happen. Wondercoin
The second issue for me to bring up is the inclusion of the 1964 SMS Kennedy into the Complete Variety circulation strike set. I have sent a rather lengthy email to Mr. David Hall justifying my position on not having this coin in the set. Mr. David Hall is either unwilling or unable to defend / justify the position PCGS has taken on this issue.
Tim
Let's discuss the 1964 SMS coin Tim, if you would like.
First question - do you believe the SMS coin deserves to be included in ANY Kennedy Half Dollar set(s). If so, which one(s)?
Wondercoin
<< <i>Tim is very articulate (not to mention passionate about the series) and I welcome Tim being the spokesman for all the Kennedy collectors here - he has my vote. So, let's lay out the changes that are needed to get this right and work to make it happen. Wondercoin >>
Mitch,
I thank you for your kind words. Yes, my son and I are passionate about the series but we are on the East Coast not the West Coast and if someone is going to be an advocate for our group, I think it would be better for someone who had the capability of doing it in person. So if you are willing, I believe that you are in a better position then I.
Sincerely,
Tim
<< <i>Let's discuss the 1964 SMS coin Tim, if you would like. >>
I will jump in here in that I consider this coin to be part of a PATTERN set only. Includeing it in any set is a injustice, as only one or two collectors, will ever have this coin available to put into there sets.
It was issued as a commerative put it in the Half dollar and the complete Commeratives sets where it belongs and leave it out of the Basic and proof sets.
Wondercoin
By that I mean that any coin that does not have at least twenty coins in all grades graded by PCGS could not be a MAJOR variety it would go in the Complete set only.
It appears PCGS will NOT consider rules that tie in the inclusion in the registry of a coin based upon exactly how many coins PCGS has graded (not to mention the fact that someone could crack out a coin 20x to get 20 coins on the pop report - it is that simple - right?)
<< <i>Lindedad - Please address why you believe the SMS Kennedy should not be included in the Registry (even if you assert it is a pattern) - yet the 1856 Flying Eagle pattern coin (which cost way, way more than the SMS Kennedy) is part of the Flying Eagle Registry set? >>
My main reason is that PCGs has graded 298 of the Flyer coin and only 11 of the Kennedy coins. And with the cost of the Flyer does it really belong in a basic set?
<< <i>Lindedad - Please address why you believe the SMS Kennedy should not be included in the Registry (even if you assert it is a pattern) - yet the 1856 Flying Eagle pattern coin (which cost way, way more than the SMS Kennedy) is part of the Flying Eagle Registry set?
Wondercoin >>
Mitch,
Was the 1856 Flying Eagle "Officially" released by the Mint? How about the 1916 Walking Liberty Dollar? or the 1942 "White Metal" Lincoln cent? I could go on and on. This is why I have stated that there needs to be a set of "universal" rules for the Registry then let the coins stand on their own merits (but fairly across all denominations).
Tim
PS: I believe that the government passed a law reconizing the early patterns, trade dollars, etc. as official coins but the 1964 SMS coins have not (if I am wrong here, please show me where the infomation can be found).
<< <i>Lindedad - Please address why you believe the SMS Kennedy should not be included in the Registry (even if you assert it is a pattern) - yet the 1856 Flying Eagle pattern coin (which cost way, way more than the SMS Kennedy) is part of the Flying Eagle Registry set?
Wondercoin >>
Mitch,
You know my view point on the 1964 SMS coins, do you care to state yours?
Wondercoin
<< <i>Guys - First, let me tell you that the leading pattern expert in the country ("Mr. Eureka" / Andy Lustig) does NOT believe the SMS coins are patterns. We can certainly invite him into this discussion and he can tell us all why not. Second, Andy could possibly see calling the coins "experimental pieces", however, it appears the 1964 half dollars were actually struck in 1965 and backdated and, if this is the case, there wouldn't be anything "experimental" at all about them (and Andy supports this line of thinking). This might lead us to a conclusion that the coins should be properly included in one or more Kennedy Half Dollar variety sets. But, I have an open mind on these... I am still thinking through this one.
Wondercoin >>
Mitch,
I agree with Andy and concur with his reasoning as he explained it to me. What I walked away with, with Mr. Lustig’s response was that he believed in taking a conservative approach to the issue and where the 1964 SMS coins may be “legitimate experimental pieces” he was not willing to call them that without proper documentation. Also, he was not willing to call the 1964 SMS coinage "regular issues", for the same reason (no proper documentation on how they came to exist). I fail to see how this may lead us to the conclusion you allude to.
Still waiting to here your take on these so called SMS coins of 1964 Mitch, I know you have given it some thought before and believe you have commented on it earlier this year for the inclusion in the 'variety' sets.
Tim
EDITED to add: I wish PCGS would take the same conservative approach as Andy Lustig, demand documentation before classification. (Make sure they get it right the first time.)
PCGS owns CoinFacts.com and I like one of the paragraph they wrote on the "Pattern" web page, to bad they don't take their own advice with the rest of thier transactions.
“Is it important that we classify these coins properly? Yes, because apart from our natural human tendency to categorize, pigeon-hole, and classify just about everything around us, most collectors are concerned about a thing called "intent". Rarities that were "made-to-order" or that were created deliberately hold less of an attraction than legitimate rarities, and justly so.”
Here are (2) other coins that I am told should have probably been included in the registry based upon PCGS' guidelines.
1965 DDR FS-801
1971-S DDR FS-801
Wondercoin
Until the 1964 SMS coinage can be properly classified, I’m not sure where it belongs. The “pattern” side of the Registry doesn’t want it without documentation on how and why it exists and the Kennedy series collectors that I have talked with also don’t want it until proper documentation on how and why it exists can be shown. It is sort of in a limbo situation. PCGS could create a 1964 SMS Mint Set and list the coins there until some future time as more research might become available. Until then, it should be removed from the “Complete Variety” sets, in my opinion.
I stand by the email that I sent to Mr. Hall on this subject, you have had a chance to review it. Can you tell me where I might be wrong on the arguments presented? I too am trying to keep an open mind but since I wrote that email, I have contacted Andy Lustig, Julian Leidman (who is on PCGS Board of Experts) and Dr. James Wiles. I think you will agree with me that the three named are all established experts in the fields of “patterns” or “die varieties” with Dr. Wiles being a leading expert on the Kennedy series with varieties. Mitch, they all tell me that the 1964 SMS coinage, they can not classify as “regular issue” and that they were not Officially released by the US Mint. Dr. Wiles goes the furthest by telling me that he classifies these coins as “Patterns”.
Tim
<< <i>Tim: My general "gut" feeling (subject to further debate) is that the SMS Kennedy deserves a home in the registry. It is a fascinating Kennedy half Dollar and worthy of a spot in the registry, in one place of another. Perhaps an additional set could be formed that includes this coin if collectors are opposed to having it in the specific variety set PCGS now includes it in - I don't know. But, the coin deserves a home somewhere in the Registry in my humble opinion.
Here are (2) other coins that I am told should have probably been included in the registry based upon PCGS' guidelines.
1965 DDR FS-801
1971-S DDR FS-801
Wondercoin >>
Mitch,
I believe both of these coins will be in the "Complete Variety, proofs" set of the Registry. I am not sure, but think the reason there are no slots yet in the Registry set for these two coins, is that no coins have been attributed yet for those varieties. I am not even sure what coin will be the 1965 DDR FS-801, the Cherrypickers' Guide alludes to this coin being a business strike but sites CONECA number 1-R-II which is assigned to a SMS variety.
Tim
I did show you an example of a pattern coin though (an expensive one at that) that IS in the registry - the 1856 Flying Eagle Cent. So, obviously, there is no hard and fast rule about patterns not being in registry sets. But, as a general rule, I think it is a bad idea for patterns to be included in the non-pattern registry sets. And, I say that as the proud owner of a unique 1976 NO S pattern Ike Dollar that I would love to see PCGS place in some Ike Dollar variety set, but, I know that would be unfair to all the other participants to do and I would not ask it to be done. But, where do you draw the line? No unique patterns permitted? No patterns with under 25 coins known? Or, only patterns with 1,000 coins struck? Or, no patterns period - and delete the 1856 Flying Eagle now? You see the problem.
Wondercoin
<< <i>Tim: I thought your letter was a reasonable and well argued presentation on why the SMS coin should not be in the variety set.
I did show you an example of a pattern coin though (an expensive one at that) that IS in the registry - the 1856 Flying Eagle Cent. So, obviously, there is no hard and fast rule about patterns not being in registry sets. But, as a general rule, I think it is a bad idea for patterns to be included in the non-pattern registry sets. And, I say that as the proud owner of a unique 1976 NO S pattern Ike Dollar that I would love to see PCGS place in some Ike Dollar variety set, but, I know that would be unfair to all the other participants to do and I would not ask it to be done. But, where do you draw the line? No unique patterns permitted? No patterns with under 25 coins known? Or, only patterns with 1,000 coins struck? Or, no patterns period - and delete the 1856 Flying Eagle now? You see the problem.
Wondercoin >>
Mitch,
This is why the first issue that I brought up in this thread, was the "rules of the Registry" or lack there of. The rules should be first, then let the coins fall where they fall into the sets, everything being fair from one set to the next. Consistency being the goal.
I think it is time to update your first post in this thread.
1. Are you willing to be the advocate for our group to PCGS (which ever way the majority goes)? Unless some else from your neck of the “woods” is willing to come forward.
2. Let us wait to see if some more members will come forward and comment if they think PCGS should establish a more “logic”, “Consistent”, and fair set of rules for the Registry and have them it written form so the members could access them.
3. Let us wait to see if more members will weigh in on the idea of including or excluding the 1964 SMS coinage from the “Complete Variety” sets.
The next issue for the Kennedy Sets, I will bring up is the “either / or” policy concerning the business strike verses the satin finish coins. Just for clarification, I want them both, again I’m working on a complete set.
I will make the point that there are several collectors that only want the “business strike” or “regular strike” (non satin finish) coins from 2005 – present in their “basic sets. PCGS has allowed this for the “Statehood Washington Quarters, Circulation Strikes” and the new “Presidential Dollars Basic Set, Circulation Strikes (2007 – 2016)” so why not for other denominations. It could easily be accomplished by having two “Basic” sets in the Registry, one for “Satin Finish” and the other for “Business Strikes”. This way the collector could decide which way he / she want to put their sets together and have their sets compared to as they say, “apples to apples and oranges to oranges, not apples to oranges”.
Tim
Let see what a few more members have to say this weekend. I also want to comment with a few of my thoughts as well. Lindedad has also thoughtfully raised the 1998-S Kennedy as well. Tim - what do you think about this coin - does it need to go from the set?
Wondercoin
<< <i>Tim: I would be happy to assist advancing the joint opinions of this forum to PCGS management or, again, work with anyone else volunteering to do the same.
Let see what a few more members have to say this weekend. I also want to comment with a few of my thoughts as well. Lindedad has also thoughtfully raised the 1998-S Kennedy as well. Tim - what do you think about this coin - does it need to go from the set?
Wondercoin >>
Mitch,
I differ with Syl on the 1998-S SMS coin. This would have been my next issue after discussing the satin finish verses business strike coins.
My thoughts on the 1998-S SMS silver Kennedy is that I am looking for consistency.
The modern commemorative series has produced a few specialty coins for the regular series that are used in commerce today, namely the 1994-P SMS Jefferson nickel (PCGS number 84230), the 1997-P SMS Jefferson nickel (PCGS number 84140) and the 1998-S SMS silver Kennedy half dollar (PCGS number 6775). If being “consistent” is a goal of PCGS, then why hasn’t the 1998-S SMS silver Kennedy been added to the “Basic Kennedy half dollar, Circulation Strike Set” to match the 1994-P SMS Jefferson nickel and the 1997-P SMS Jefferson nickel which are in the “Basic Jefferson Nickel, Circulation Strike Set”. Should the same “type” of coin be treated differently just because it is of a different denomination or in another series? If PCGS doesn’t want to add the 1998-S SMS silver Kennedy to the “Basic” set then the 1994-P SMS and 1997-P SMS Jefferson nickels should be removed from the “Basic” Jefferson Nickel set.
Again, consistency in how the rules are applied across all denominations is one thing I am looking for. (An even playing field.)
To lay everything out on the table so to say, the next issue about the Kennedy series that I will bring up is about the different set(s) availability.
Some Collectors like the way the Registry combined the “circulation strikes” with the “proofs” which formed the current “Kennedy Half Dollar Complete Set, Circulation Strikes and Proofs (1964 – Present)” and they were hoping that this type of set would be used by including the “Varieties” section to form another set, “Kennedy Half Dollar Complete Variety Set, Circulation Strikes and Proofs (1964 – Present)”.
It was also suggested, and I admit they sound like fun sets to do, the “Major Varieties” and “Complete Varieties” for the specialty “Short Silver” sets (1964 – 1970), both proof and circulation strikes along with a set combining both the proof and circulation strike sets.
To be fair, this might not be an issue about having these sets. PCGS may still be working on this; I noticed that some of the other series took more then just one day to post set(s).
Again, just my humble opinion,
Tim
<< <i>however, it appears the 1964 half dollars were actually struck in 1965 and backdated and, if this is the case, there wouldn't be anything "experimental" at all about them >>
This argument doesn't work. For any other year it works, but not 1964. Millions of 1964 business strike coins were also struck later and backdated. There was so much chaos at the time that it's reasonable to conclude that experimental pieces dated 1964 could have been struck in 1965.
<< <i>My general "gut" feeling (subject to further debate) is that the SMS Kennedy deserves a home in the registry. >>
Make it an optional coin in the major variety set.
Russ, NCNE
<< <i>
<< <i>however, it appears the 1964 half dollars were actually struck in 1965 and backdated and, if this is the case, there wouldn't be anything "experimental" at all about them >>
This argument doesn't work. For any other year it works, but not 1964. Millions of 1964 business strike coins were also struck later and backdated. There was so much chaos at the time that it's reasonable to conclude that experimental pieces dated 1964 could have been struck in 1965.
<< <i>My general "gut" feeling (subject to further debate) is that the SMS Kennedy deserves a home in the registry. >>
Make it an optional coin in the major variety set.
Russ, NCNE >>
Russ,
I don’t believe Mitch’s argument passes the “smell” test for a couple of reasons.
1. The 1965 Special Mint Sets were not produced or released by the US Mint until 1966, I believe they were not released until late spring in 1966.
2. It would make sense from my view point, that the US Mint would have made the “experimental” pieces before the run of 1965 SMS coins probably in 1965, if that is what they are.
3. Your argument that the US Mint still produced circulation strike coins for 1964 in later years in order to give the impression to the public that these coins were not being horded.
As far as even making the 1964 SMS optional in the “Major Variety” or "Complete Variety" set(s), I think the jury is still out to even classify this coin as an “optional” coin to the series. I will admit that the 1964 SMS Kennedy Half Dollar is a nice looking example, but an example of “what”? A “Proto – type”? This is the point, no one knows yet for sure what it is and until supporting documentation can be shown this coin doesn’t belong in a “series set(s)”.
JMHO,
Wondercoin
<< <i>As far as even making the 1964 SMS optional in the “Major Variety” or "Complete Variety" set(s), I think the jury is still out to even classify this coin as an “optional” coin to the series >>
My own opinion is that it shouldn't be included at all, but making it optional would be a good compromise between the two sides on the issue.
Russ, NCNE
<< <i>Tim/ Russ - So, it might be that we have a "chicken and the egg" situation here with no one being able to prove anything with respect to the SMS coinage. I never said I know for sure anything - nor does anyone here I suspect? So, perhaps it gets back to what Tim said in the first place - we really need to understand why PCGS and its board of experts determined that the SMS coin was a proper coin for inclusion in the Kennedy Half Dollar variety sets. Agreed?
Wondercoin >>
Mitch,
I have asked, and I know others have asked David Hall what criteria was used by him and the Registry Committee to determine what coins went into what sets. I would like to know what “authoritative” sources were utilized to base their decision on, what research was done and what it showed. Like I have already stated, Mr. Hall was unwilling or unable to answer the questions.
Personally, I feel the evidence is “overwhelming” and irrefutable that the 1964 SMS coinage is not a “regular issue” or a variety of a “regular issue” coin. Maybe this is why PCGS has been so quite on this topic. I hope the reason they “tried to sneak it through the back door” wasn’t just because they didn’t know what else to do with it.
Let the 1964 SMS coinage stand on it’s own merits, and when documentation can be show to justify it being included into a “regular issue” or “variety” set of a series, then so be it. But until that time, I feel the paragraph on PCGS’ CoinFacts web page says it best and I think it applies to this issue:
“Is it important that we classify these coins properly? Yes, because apart from our natural human tendency to categorize, pigeon-hole, and classify just about everything around us, most collectors are concerned about a thing called "intent". Rarities that were "made-to-order" or that were created deliberately hold less of an attraction than legitimate rarities, and justly so.”
As far as your statement “we really need to understand why PCGS and its board of experts determined that the SMS coin was a proper coin for inclusion in the Kennedy Half Dollar variety sets. Agreed?” I don’t want to listen to excuses or half baked attempts of David Hall trying to justify the inclusion of this (what ever it is) into the series sets! I would like to hear the facts, by PCGS sighting what and who they used as an “authoritative” source, I would like to see some accountability and I hope the best PCGS comes up with is not “we were just trying to find a home for these coins” or “it is our sandbox and we will do what we want to”.
If a home is needed for these coins, let PCGS build a “1964 SMS Mint Set” for them. If PCGS can produce “creditable” documentation for the inclusion into the different series set(s), I will keep an open mind.
But, we must remember that this is PCGS playround and PCGS' ball and PCGS makes all of the rules. They don't need to come up with "half baked" excuses for whatever they do. They can do whatever they feel like. It might be our mission though to see to it that the Kennedy half dollar series is handled in a manner that pleases the majority of collectors and welcomes participation - a mission statement that PCGS should also desire as well. With that common goal we can try to work together with PCGS and its experts to address these issues and even offer compromise positions for the common good of all invovled if we need to. I highly doubt we will "strong arm" PCGS into any changes though nor be able to demand they answer any of our questions. And, we will certainly catch more flies with honey here. So, let's consider me sending off a simple email Monday asking PCGS how they came about determining that the 1964 SMS coin should be included in the Kennedy variety set and then see what answer we might get back. Makes sense?
Catch you all later this evening.
Wondercoin
As far as the 1964 SMS coins being classified as patterns, they do not fit the description of a pattern. They were struck in the same metal as other 1964 coins and have the same design. The only difference is a slight change in finish. If it isn't a pattern then it must be considered a regularly issued coin and should then be considered in the regular issue registry sets. The last I heard was that if PCGS has graded more than five of a variety, then it would be included in the variety set. Has this changed? Mitch, you would know. The only question would be to determine whether they fit in the proof or MS sets. Do the coins fit the description of a proof? Have they been struck more than once? Answer that and you should have your answer.
As to the coins not being made for circulation, can someone please remind me how many 1970-D halves were released into general circulation? Should we remove this coin from the mint state registry as well? As to having no records that they were struck, how about coins like the 1870-S dollar, half dime and three dollar gold? There a quite a few other examples including many classic rarities.
Folks, instead of getting upset at how much you are going to have to shell out to acquire one of these, I would say that you should be looking at how much you are going to make on this coin in the future when this coin gets treated as the classic modern rarity that I feel it rightly deserves. I feel they are selling for only a fraction of what they will be worth in the not to distant future.
First, the "Rule of 5" is no more. As much as I liked the rule (and I believe you did as well), PCGS believes now that even if -1- coin is in the pop report, the coin qualifies for inclusion in the Registry sets. I pointed out to PCGS the original basis for the Rule of 5 and how it truly helps collectors - in short, they don't want it any more. So, if there is -1- or more coins in the pop report, the coin can count for registry purposes.
Second, as I mentioned, your view on these coins NOT being patterns is shared by Andy Lustig and I agree with you as well. As far as being struck more than once - my "gut" says no (your "gut" Dave?) -they probably fit more logically on the MS side of things (but, I conceed that is a subject for debate and, perhaps, more careful study of the coins). But, of course, PCGS is also now considering whether SMS coins may be used for both MS and Proof registry sets, so that could easily solve the problem.
Third, interesting comparison to the 70-D and the other coins you have mentioned.
Fourth, no one here has specifically stated this debate is "all about the money". But, I do get back to my comment that this Kennedy Half Dollar is essentially among the coolest Kennedy coins ever produced by the Mint - why wouldn't collectors want to put the Kennedy series "more on the map" by including this rarity in the series? The Sac Dollar set has the Cheerios coin (another similar debate whether it is a pattern or a variety). Frankly, the Kennedy series has the 1964 SMS coin.
Again, I am still willing to listen to all sides and I have an open mind, but, I was asked about my view and I do believe (at this point) the coin should be in some Kennedy Registry set as well.
Wondercoin
<< <i>Well, for one thing it's silly to include the 1964 SMS as a variety. It isn't a variety, it's a pattern or presentation piece. >>
A pattern is an unadapted design or one in a different metal. 1964 SMS are not that. If they are presentation pieces which I believe they absolutely are, then they are akin to a Chapman or Zerbe 1921 dollar and are indeed special enough to be a major variety.
<< <i>I will jump in here in that I consider this coin to be part of a PATTERN set only. Including it in any set is a injustice, as only one or two collectors, will ever have this coin available to put into there sets. >>
Thats moronic! You want it classified incorrectly as a pattern only because you cannot find one /afford it. It is clearly a basic coin so different that it must be part of a complete basic set.
<< <i>Thats moronic! You want it classified incorrectly as a pattern only because you cannot find one /afford it. It is clearly a basic coin so different that it must be part of a complete basic set. >>
Anybody who reads that will know who the real moron is.
Russ, NCNE
<< <i>Thats moronic! You want it classified incorrectly as a pattern only because you cannot find one /afford it. It is clearly a basic coin so different that it must be part of a complete basic set. >>
<< <i>You have time to post 60000 times on here? >>
I don't have 60,000 posts (Which is irrelavent to the discussion) and I find that I agree with Russ.
Later, Paul.
Later, Paul.
<< <i>
<< <i>Well, for one thing it's silly to include the 1964 SMS as a variety. It isn't a variety, it's a pattern or presentation piece. >>
A pattern is an unadapted design or one in a different metal. 1964 SMS are not that. If they are presentation pieces which I believe they absolutely are, then they are akin to a Chapman or Zerbe 1921 dollar and are indeed special enough to be a major variety.
<< <i>I will jump in here in that I consider this coin to be part of a PATTERN set only. Including it in any set is a injustice, as only one or two collectors, will ever have this coin available to put into there sets. >>
Thats moronic! You want it classified incorrectly as a pattern only because you cannot find one /afford it. It is clearly a basic coin so different that it must be part of a complete basic set. >>
Dear 08822,
People that live in glass houses should not be throwing stones. Your use of "moronic, I am guessing you were looking in the mirror at the time of use!
It is obvious that you are un - informed on the topic. A “pattern” does not have to be off metal, most definitions that I have read state that it “may” be off metal.
Two, I agree with Andy Lustig on his take of the situation, the 1964 SMS coinage may be “legitimate experimental” pieces but without proper documentation or supporting evidence they should not be so classified. Andy also wrote to me that without the proper documentation or supporting evidence he would not considered them “regular isues” either.
How you can consider these coins and make the statement "It is clearly a basic coin so different that it must be part of a complete basic set.” This statement just on the face of it demonstrates your lack of logic thought. I guess the question I would ask you, “If your cat had kittens in the oven do you call them biscuits?”
JHMO,
Tim
PS: You can make fun of Russ, but if you researched before hand you might find out that maybe the reason his post count is high is because he is usually willing to help out others with questions and research plus the "open forum" before it closed.
Tim/Russ/Lindedad- Please look in the pattern book and look up the definition of a pattern. Maybe I missed it, but I saw no mention made of a "change in finish" in describing a pattern. Like I stated earlier and was ignored, a pattern is a proposal to have a change in design, denomination, weight, metal or alloy. That is a quote from page four of the 1982 edition of the Judd book. As far as having proper documentation, please read my last post again and show me the proper documentation of the coins I mentioned. No mintage listed for any of the 1870-S coins. No documentation they ever should have existed. PCGS has the 1870-S dollar in the Seated dollar registry set. I agree with Mitch that this coin should be included in some Kennedy registry set.
Mitch, as far as I have been able to tell, these coins along with the 65-67 SMS coins have been struck once. A characteristic of a business strike. So I feel that these coins should be in the mint state set.
“As is the case with the Registry, we cannot make everyone happy 100% of the time, but try to our best to satisfy the needs of the majority while not compromising the integrity of the Registry. I respect your feelings on the issue and understand how you may be disappointed that the committee may not agree with you on every single point.”
The fact of the matter is PCGS didn’t seem to agree on MOST of the points…not just every single one. However, since they referred to serving the needs of the majority…I suppose I should assume they heard from several other collectors who had differing opinions. It would be interesting to know if that was the case…or if our suggestions just weren’t in line with the opinion of the “PCGS trio” who made the decisions on the sets. In any event, in the interest of full disclosure, I’ll post my thoughts here as well. It will be nice to see where the other collectors agree and disagree. I’ll try to keep an open mind, as my thoughts have not been static on all of what follows. I’m also going to try to be comprehensive in this post, in an effort to display some consistency regarding our thoughts across the various sets.
I would strongly agree with Tim that the key to set composition should be tied to some general rules. I also very much agree with his definitions…
1. Basic coin – A coin that was officially issued and released by the United States Mint for commerce or as a collectable item (i.e. for use in circulation, Official US Mint Proof – Uncirculated – SMS sets).
2. Variety coin – A variance of a “Basic coin” as reference in most recognized reference books (i.e. The 1966 DDO SMS FS-103 Kennedy Half Dollar is a variety of the “Basic coin” 1966 SMS).
3. Major Variety coin – Variety coins that are easily recognized as having major differences from other coins of the same design, type, date, and mint. Generally, major varieties are significant and can be easily seen with the naked eye and have the history of being search for by the numismatic community for their “strength of doubling” or differences.
I would add just a few thoughts here. In relation to a “Basic coin” versus a “Variety coin”…a basic coin in my mind is a coin that results from a conscious intent by the US Mint. If the mint purposefully alters the die or planchet with the conscious intent of creating a coin that looks different from others, I believe that to be a “Basic coin”. Regarding the designation as a Major Variety, I would slightly expound on the second half of the definition by saying they were “diligently” searched for by the collectors of the series. Finally…the mintage number, or number of a coin available, should have nothing to do with a coin’s inclusion or exclusion in a set. That should be determined strictly by the definitions used to determine a Basic coin or Variety. Any “Rule of 5”, or rule of any other number, has nothing to do with whether a coin belongs in a set.
Sets
With the creation of the new variety sets that have been put up on the registry, and the adaptation of the old variety set, the Kennedys now have Basic, Major Variety, and Complete variety sets for the MS and proof sides. In addition to the above sets, the Kennedy registry currently includes a “Complete Basic Set, Circulation Strikes and Proofs”...which includes all (non-variety) circulation strikes and proofs together in one set. We had asked PCGS if there was going to be a “Complete Variety Set, Circulation Strikes and Proofs”, which would encompass the entire series...all circulation strikes and proofs, including all varieties. For serious variety collectors, this would be the “Cadillac” of Kennedy sets. We have spoken to some other serious Kennedy variety collectors in the registry who also want this set, and who have also already asked PCGS to include it. I was told by PCGS that this set was going to happen…so I hope its current absence is simply because all the sets didn’t make it up on the same day.
Set Composition
Given the distinctions mentioned above relating to Basic, Variety, and Major Variety coins, here are my thoughts, and opinions, regarding some coins mentioned earlier in this thread…
The 1964 Accent Hair is a basic coin, and belongs in the Basic Proof Set. Likewise, the later minted non-accent hair 1964 proof is also a basic coin and also belongs in the Basic Set. The mint purposefully altered the design...not unlike when it produces multiple state quarters in the same year. The degree of alteration may not be the same…but it’s the same principle. PCGS had this right in the old set.
Same goes for the 1979-S and 1981-S Type II coins…purposefully altered by the mint, as opposed to a “mistake” or unintended change such as the 1968-S Inverted Mintmark or an RPM. PCGS had these right in the old set as well.
The 1998-S SMS is a circulation strike that belongs in the Basic Circulation Strike Set…much as the 1994-P SMS and 1997-P SMS Jefferson nickels.
The 2005-present satin finish coins likewise belong in the Basic Circulation Strike Set. The mints made two coins those years…business strikes and satin finish…with the intent they be different. Both are basic coins and both belong in the Basic Set.
The 1964 SMS pieces…These chunks of metal were never officially released by the mint, and don’t belong in any of the sets.
Major Varieties
I’ve been collecting since the early 1960’s, and in my opinion there are several Kennedy varieties that have long been recognized as major varieties and searched out by the collectors. On the MS side, that list would include…
1964-D DDO FS-101 (Old FS-13.4)
1964-D TDO FS-103 (Old FS-13.5)
1964-D QDO FS-105 (Old FS-13.6)
1966 DDO FS-101 (Old FS-13.8)
1971-D DDO FS-101 (Old FS-14.3)
1973-D FS-101 (Old FS-14.8)
1974-D DDO FS-101 (Old FS-15)
On the proof side, that list would include…
1964 DDO FS-101 (Old FS-13.2)
1966 SMS DDO FS-103
1966 SMS no “FG” FS-901 (Old FS-13.9)
1967 SMS QDO FS-101
1968-S DDO FS-101 (Old FS-14.0)
1971-S DDO FS-102 (Old FS-14.5)
Bear in mind I have already addressed the 1964 Accent Hair, 1979 and 1981 type II coins, the 1998-S SMS, and the 2005-present satin finish coins…all of which should be included in the Major Variety Sets by virtue of being in the Basic Sets.
Weight assigned to coins
This is a fiasco in the new sets as they currently exist…and desperately needs some attention. Two’s and three’s just aren’t representative of the scarcity for some of these varieties. Something more akin to the weights used in the “Jefferson Nickels FS Complete Variety Set, Circulation Strikes (1938-1964)”, where there are some four’s, five’s, and six’s would be more appropriate. As I look at Tim’s chart posted earlier in this thread, I’d say that may be a good place to start.
Finally, a comment on a couple of coins Mitch mentioned…the 1965 FS-801 and the 1971-S FS-801. I don’t have any inside information from PCGS…so I’m speculating here…but my guess is these two coins are not currently in the sets for the following reasons…
The Cherrypickers’ Guide lists the 1965 FS-801 as a 1-R-II. However, the text description seems to indicate this is a circulation strike coin. The 1-R-II is an SMS coin. If the coin is a circulation strike as the text indicates…it’s most likely the 2-R-II…but maybe not. There’s enough confusion there that if I were in PCGS’s shoes, I wouldn’t be attributing 1965-801’s until it was clear.
The Cherrypickers’ Guide lists the 1971-S FS-801 as a 1-R-II, however CONECA and Wiles both list it as 1-R-V-CW. Once again, perhaps just a little confusion.
If there is any lack of clarity on these two, I’d prefer they wait until the next edition of the Cherrypickers’ before they add them to the sets.
OK…that’s my two cents worth…fire away.
COMPLETE KENNEDY VARIETY SET, CIRCULATION STRIKES AND PROOFS
1964 MINT SET
Twincam: Is "officially released" the test for inclusion of a coin in a registry set? Does MS68's discussion of 1870-S coins and $3 gold tie into this at all? Indeed, how do you interpet "officially released"? Did the US Mint "officially release" Missing Edge Lettering Presidential coins for example? This overall discussion is getting good with spirited arguments on both sides. I am just trying to understand why you feel so passionate about these 1964 SMS coins not deserving a place in the registry?
Wondercoin