WHY?
19Lyds
Posts: 26,491 ✭✭✭✭
Why is the 1964 SMS Kennedy Half Dollar in the Kennedy Half Dollars Complete Variety Set, Circulation Strikes (1964-Present) and NOT in the Kennedy Half Dollars Complete Variety Set, Proof (1964-Present) along with its 1965, 1966, and 1967 counterparts?
All 4 coins come with Normal, CAM, and DCAM attributes.
All 4 coins come with Normal, CAM, and DCAM attributes.
I decided to change calling the bathroom the John and renamed it the Jim. I feel so much better saying I went to the Jim this morning.
The name is LEE!
The name is LEE!
0
Comments
WS
<< <i>Why is the 1964 SMS Kennedy Half Dollar in the Kennedy Half Dollars Complete Variety Set, Circulation Strikes (1964-Present) and NOT in the Kennedy Half Dollars Complete Variety Set, Proof (1964-Present) along with its 1965, 1966, and 1967 counterparts?
All 4 coins come with Normal, CAM, and DCAM attributes. >>
I have to agree with many collectors on this one. First, there is no such thing as a 1964 SMS coin; this is something that PCGS just made up sort of like pulling a rabbit out of a hat.
PCGS is supposed to be one of the leading companies in the field of authentication of US coinage; I'm surprised that PCGS would jeopardize their reputation by authenticating these so called 1964 SMS without any documentation from an “official” source (i.e. the US Mint or the US Treasury Department).
To the contrary, the US Mint has stated that the coinage dated 1965 was the first year of the Special Mint Sets.
So to answer the OP question, the erroneous labeled 1964 SMS coinage should not be any competitive sets, either proof or business strikes.
JMHO
Or, you of the thought they were not specimen strikes?
peacockcoins
<< <i>
<< <i>Why is the 1964 SMS Kennedy Half Dollar in the Kennedy Half Dollars Complete Variety Set, Circulation Strikes (1964-Present) and NOT in the Kennedy Half Dollars Complete Variety Set, Proof (1964-Present) along with its 1965, 1966, and 1967 counterparts?
All 4 coins come with Normal, CAM, and DCAM attributes. >>
I have to agree with many collectors on this one. First, there is no such thing as a 1964 SMS coin; this is something that PCGS just made up sort of like pulling a rabbit out of a hat.
PCGS is supposed to be one of the leading companies in the field of authentication of US coinage; I'm surprised that PCGS would jeopardize their reputation by authenticating these so called 1964 SMS without any documentation from an “official” source (i.e. the US Mint or the US Treasury Department).
To the contrary, the US Mint has stated that the coinage dated 1965 was the first year of the Special Mint Sets.
So to answer the OP question, the erroneous labeled 1964 SMS coinage should not be any competitive sets, either proof or business strikes.
JMHO >>
They should not and never should have been called SMS coins, because they are to me not that similar to the true Special Mint Set coins of 1965. But when they first appeared in Stack's auctions in 1993, the writeups said:
=============================
From Stack's auction catalog, December 1–2, 1993. Lot 1299:
A SPECIAL SET. 1964'P' Cent through Half Dollar Mint Set. Choice Brilliant Uncirculated. Nearly all show evidence of die refinishing at the Mint. The strike on all the coins is far sharper than is seen even on the Special Mint Sets. We suspect that these were struck as an experiment to determine the sort of finish the Mint would use from 1965 to 1967. 5 pieces, 1 set.
=============================
The Stack's association with the 1965-67 Special Mint Sets led to the misleading original moniker, which stuck. They are Specimen coins that bear an experimental finish and a full proof strike on a highly polished circulation strike die, and to that end they certainly belong as PART OF THE COMPLETE KENNEDY SET, argue all you want to the contrary. But it is absurd to suggest that they are not authentic just because they lack documentation. Where is the documentation for the 1913 Liberty nickels? (And I think the Kennedy halves are nearly as rare.)
No less an expert than John Dannreuther (who is on the PCGS CoinFacts Board of Experts) has written of the 1964 "SMS" coins:
"Although the exact source of the Special Mint Set strikings of 1964 coinage is uncertain (most believe they came from the estate of dealer Lester Merkin), they have been trading in the numismatic marketplace since their surfacing in auctions beginning in 1993. Their inclusion as separate varieties is analogous to the separate listing of Satin finish examples in Mint Sets, which were first issued in 2005. Both are striking variations that represent a variation from the normal strikes (hence, PCGS listing them as separate varieties)."
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>Why is the 1964 SMS Kennedy Half Dollar in the Kennedy Half Dollars Complete Variety Set, Circulation Strikes (1964-Present) and NOT in the Kennedy Half Dollars Complete Variety Set, Proof (1964-Present) along with its 1965, 1966, and 1967 counterparts?
All 4 coins come with Normal, CAM, and DCAM attributes. >>
I have to agree with many collectors on this one. First, there is no such thing as a 1964 SMS coin; this is something that PCGS just made up sort of like pulling a rabbit out of a hat.
PCGS is supposed to be one of the leading companies in the field of authentication of US coinage; I'm surprised that PCGS would jeopardize their reputation by authenticating these so called 1964 SMS without any documentation from an “official” source (i.e. the US Mint or the US Treasury Department).
To the contrary, the US Mint has stated that the coinage dated 1965 was the first year of the Special Mint Sets.
So to answer the OP question, the erroneous labeled 1964 SMS coinage should not be any competitive sets, either proof or business strikes.
JMHO >>
They should not and never should have been called SMS coins, because they are to me not that similar to the true Special Mint Set coins of 1965. But when they first appeared in Stack's auctions in 1993, the writeups said:
=============================
From Stack's auction catalog, December 1–2, 1993. Lot 1299:
A SPECIAL SET. 1964'P' Cent through Half Dollar Mint Set. Choice Brilliant Uncirculated. Nearly all show evidence of die refinishing at the Mint. The strike on all the coins is far sharper than is seen even on the Special Mint Sets. We suspect that these were struck as an experiment to determine the sort of finish the Mint would use from 1965 to 1967. 5 pieces, 1 set.
=============================
The Stack's association with the 1965-67 Special Mint Sets led to the misleading original moniker, which stuck. They are Specimen coins that bear an experimental finish and a full proof strike on a highly polished circulation strike die, and to that end they certainly belong as PART OF THE COMPLETE KENNEDY SET, argue all you want to the contrary. But it is absurd to suggest that they are not authentic just because they lack documentation. Where is the documentation for the 1913 Liberty nickels? (And I think the Kennedy halves are nearly as rare.)
No less an expert than John Dannreuther (who is on the PCGS CoinFacts Board of Experts) has written of the 1964 "SMS" coins:
"Although the exact source of the Special Mint Set strikings of 1964 coinage is uncertain (most believe they came from the estate of dealer Lester Merkin), they have been trading in the numismatic marketplace since their surfacing in auctions beginning in 1993. Their inclusion as separate varieties is analogous to the separate listing of Satin finish examples in Mint Sets, which were first issued in 2005. Both are striking variations that represent a variation from the normal strikes (hence, PCGS listing them as separate varieties)." >>
Thanks Georgio11. At least your reply gets me closer to understanding the "why's" as it sounds as if you're saying that it's called an SMS simply because it was initially mis-labeled by Stacks and at this point in time they don't know what else to call it (them)? Right?
The name is LEE!
<< <i>Thanks Georgio11. At least your reply gets me closer to understanding the "why's" as it sounds as if you're saying that it's called an SMS simply because it was initially mis-labeled by Stacks and at this point in time they don't know what else to call it (them)? Right? >>
19Lyds,
The “Hype” trying to hock the set in the Stack’s auction catalog stated that the strike is far sharper than is seen even on the Special Mint Sets, not that these were Special Mint Sets.
By PCGS attributing these coins as 1964 SMS has only added to the “Hype” and requiring them in a “Competitive Set” has compounded the “Hype” even more.
Jaime Hernandez wrote an article that can be found in the PCGS Library on these 1964 “Special Mint Set” coins. Mr. Hernandez eludes in his article that these coins and the 1964-D Peace Dollars were produced in 1964 and further puts forth the theories that “the 1964 SMS coins could have been produced as introductory pieces, possibly even intended to include a 1964-D Peace dollar” and that “these coins could have been produced as prototypes for the 1965 to 1967 SMS coins.” I find both of these theories very speculative and hard to believe. I suppose that I could start a theory that the 1964 SMS coinage were made by elves on the former plant Pluto for commerce trading with the Martians on Mars (which would be just a plausible as the two theories put forth previously).
First, in 1964 the U.S. Mint would have had no reason to make experimental SMS strikes because they were issuing regular proof sets along with uncirculated sets plus by request of President Johnson, Congress enacted in September 1964 the “Retention of 1964 on All Coins Act”. With this date freeze, 1965 dated coins weren’t even on the front burner let alone producing a new coin type.
Second, the 1964-D Peace Dollars were minted in 1965, not 1964. Production started on May 15, 1965, and ten days later U.S. Mint Director Eva Adams ordered the destruction of all recently made 1964 dated silver dollars. (Remember the U.S. Mint was still under the date freeze passed in September 1964 during this entire time from conception to destruction of the 1964 Peace Dollar production.) The theory put forth speculating that “the 1964 SMS coins could have been produced as introductory pieces, possibly even intended to include a 1964-D Peace dollar” makes no sense with the time line.
Third, in July 1965, President Johnson signed into law the “Coinage Act of 1965” which caused a few things to happen, some I will list here.
1. Changed the composition of the dime and quarter to the current clad coinage we have today.
2. Reduced the composition of the half dollar from 90% to 40%.
3. Allowed striking of 1964 dated coins and 1965 dated coins into 1966.
4. Suspended use of mint marks or other distinguishing marks on coinage for five years.
Fourth, production of the new coins produced under the “Coinage Act of 1965” started in the later part of August 1965 for the quarter, December 1965 for the dime and the last two days of December 1965 for the new 40% half dollar composition. Again, remember that the “Coinage Act of 1965” suspended the use of mint marks or other distinguishing marks, and proof coins would be distinguishable from business strikes. All 1965 SMS were produced in 1966.
Question, if the U.S. Mint had made a proto – type (specimen, test or what ever word you want to use) strike for the new coinage dated 1965, why would they not have used planchets of the new material (i.e. copper – nickel for the dime & quarter and copper – silver for the half dollar)? Why would the U.S. Mint experiment with a planchet of a softer metal (silver) for a new strike when they knew that the finish product would be on a harder substance? Remember the date freeze of 1964 made it unnecessary for the U.S. Mint to worry about proof production after 1964 proof sets, and the fact that they were producing 1964 proof sets would lead any intelligent person to believe that any so called proto type SMS coinage produced in 1964 is just a myth or “hype”.
Further more, anyone can look at the little cardboard insert that was included with the 1965 Special Mint Sets which the Mint Director, Eva Adams clearly states that these coins are the “first” Special Mint Sets.
I honestly doubt any consideration was given by the U.S. Mint or U.S. Treasury Officials to produce the Special Mint Sets until some time in 1966 and while they were still producing coinage dated 1965, that is what they used.
Now I don’t want to rain on anyone’s parade, people should be able to collect what they like. These 1964 dated coins that PCGS has attributed as SMS are no more then nice examples of “business strike” coins, well preserved and cared for. If a person wants to build a collection by “die marriage”, then knock yourself out. But to say that these so called 1964 SMS coins belong in a “competitive set” above and beyond all other “die marriages” is just foolish and has no merit without documentation that they were produced for a special purpose.
I guess someone can call a thing anything they want to but we have a saying in New England that applies here, “If your cat has kittens in the oven, you don’t call them biscuits do ya.”
What are these coins that PCGS certified as 1964 SMS? I don’t know and nobody else does either but I think it is safe to say that they are not SMS coins. Coins should be attributed and authenticated based on “facts” not “speculation” and until the “facts” can be established and confirmed then they should be held in limbo.
This is just my humble opinion from a student of history,
WS
<< <i>
<< <i>Thanks Georgio11. At least your reply gets me closer to understanding the "why's" as it sounds as if you're saying that it's called an SMS simply because it was initially mis-labeled by Stacks and at this point in time they don't know what else to call it (them)? Right? >>
19Lyds,
The “Hype” trying to hock the set in the Stack’s auction catalog stated that the strike is far sharper than is seen even on the Special Mint Sets, not that these were Special Mint Sets.
By PCGS attributing these coins as 1964 SMS has only added to the “Hype” and requiring them in a “Competitive Set” has compounded the “Hype” even more.
Jaime Hernandez wrote an article that can be found in the PCGS Library on these 1964 “Special Mint Set” coins. Mr. Hernandez eludes in his article that these coins and the 1964-D Peace Dollars were produced in 1964 and further puts forth the theories that “the 1964 SMS coins could have been produced as introductory pieces, possibly even intended to include a 1964-D Peace dollar” and that “these coins could have been produced as prototypes for the 1965 to 1967 SMS coins.” I find both of these theories very speculative and hard to believe. I suppose that I could start a theory that the 1964 SMS coinage were made by elves on the former plant Pluto for commerce trading with the Martians on Mars (which would be just a plausible as the two theories put forth previously).
First, in 1964 the U.S. Mint would have had no reason to make experimental SMS strikes because they were issuing regular proof sets along with uncirculated sets plus by request of President Johnson, Congress enacted in September 1964 the “Retention of 1964 on All Coins Act”. With this date freeze, 1965 dated coins weren’t even on the front burner let alone producing a new coin type.
Second, the 1964-D Peace Dollars were minted in 1965, not 1964. Production started on May 15, 1965, and ten days later U.S. Mint Director Eva Adams ordered the destruction of all recently made 1964 dated silver dollars. (Remember the U.S. Mint was still under the date freeze passed in September 1964 during this entire time from conception to destruction of the 1964 Peace Dollar production.) The theory put forth speculating that “the 1964 SMS coins could have been produced as introductory pieces, possibly even intended to include a 1964-D Peace dollar” makes no sense with the time line.
Third, in July 1965, President Johnson signed into law the “Coinage Act of 1965” which caused a few things to happen, some I will list here.
1. Changed the composition of the dime and quarter to the current clad coinage we have today.
2. Reduced the composition of the half dollar from 90% to 40%.
3. Allowed striking of 1964 dated coins and 1965 dated coins into 1966.
4. Suspended use of mint marks or other distinguishing marks on coinage for five years.
Fourth, production of the new coins produced under the “Coinage Act of 1965” started in the later part of August 1965 for the quarter, December 1965 for the dime and the last two days of December 1965 for the new 40% half dollar composition. Again, remember that the “Coinage Act of 1965” suspended the use of mint marks or other distinguishing marks, and proof coins would be distinguishable from business strikes. All 1965 SMS were produced in 1966.
Question, if the U.S. Mint had made a proto – type (specimen, test or what ever word you want to use) strike for the new coinage dated 1965, why would they not have used planchets of the new material (i.e. copper – nickel for the dime & quarter and copper – silver for the half dollar)? Why would the U.S. Mint experiment with a planchet of a softer metal (silver) for a new strike when they knew that the finish product would be on a harder substance? Remember the date freeze of 1964 made it unnecessary for the U.S. Mint to worry about proof production after 1964 proof sets, and the fact that they were producing 1964 proof sets would lead any intelligent person to believe that any so called proto type SMS coinage produced in 1964 is just a myth or “hype”.
Further more, anyone can look at the little cardboard insert that was included with the 1965 Special Mint Sets which the Mint Director, Eva Adams clearly states that these coins are the “first” Special Mint Sets.
I honestly doubt any consideration was given by the U.S. Mint or U.S. Treasury Officials to produce the Special Mint Sets until some time in 1966 and while they were still producing coinage dated 1965, that is what they used.
Now I don’t want to rain on anyone’s parade, people should be able to collect what they like. These 1964 dated coins that PCGS has attributed as SMS are no more then nice examples of “business strike” coins, well preserved and cared for. If a person wants to build a collection by “die marriage”, then knock yourself out. But to say that these so called 1964 SMS coins belong in a “competitive set” above and beyond all other “die marriages” is just foolish and has no merit without documentation that they were produced for a special purpose.
I guess someone can call a thing anything they want to but we have a saying in New England that applies here, “If your cat has kittens in the oven, you don’t call them biscuits do ya.”
What are these coins that PCGS certified as 1964 SMS? I don’t know and nobody else does either but I think it is safe to say that they are not SMS coins. Coins should be attributed and authenticated based on “facts” not “speculation” and until the “facts” can be established and confirmed then they should be held in limbo.
This is just my humble opinion from a student of history, >>
Caleb, I don't know how many SMS coins you have personally looked at, but it doesn't sound like many. I have examined about fifteen different examples over the years from cent through half dollar, and they all have satiny, nonreflective surfaces and a strike far bolder than business strikes, with squared-off railroad rims. Each denomination has unique die markers NOT FOUND on business strikes. Any discerning numismatist can spot them across the room if they know what to look for. I have bought and/or sold eight SMS coins during the past year. I have tracked unique die lines and die markers that are unique to each denomination. For someone who doesn't approve of speculation, you seem fond of supplying more and more of it. The Stack's writeups were not hype, and the coins are clearly different to any numismatist with good eyes and an open mind who examines the pieces. Regardless of what you call them or how much you try to deny their existence, they are very much a part of the set that you collect. They exist, and they are rare.
<< <i>Caleb, I don't know how many SMS coins you have personally looked at, but it doesn't sound like many. I have examined about fifteen different examples over the years from cent through half dollar, and they all have satiny, nonreflective surfaces and a strike far bolder than business strikes, with squared-off railroad rims. Each denomination has unique die markers NOT FOUND on business strikes. Any discerning numismatist can spot them across the room if they know what to look for. I have bought and/or sold eight SMS coins during the past year. I have tracked unique die lines and die markers that are unique to each denomination. For someone who doesn't approve of speculation, you seem fond of supplying more and more of it. The Stack's writeups were not hype, and the coins are clearly different to any numismatist with good eyes and an open mind who examines the pieces. Regardless of what you call them or how much you try to deny their existence, they are very much a part of the set that you collect. They exist, and they are rare. >>
I have looked at a lot of “SMS” coins! All dated 1965 – 1967, but none dated 1964. I have seen and examined a few coins that PCGS has labeled 1964 SMS, so what is your point. If you look at our “showcase” set you will see that we have all of the 1966 SMS double dies both obverses and reverses, there is no way a person could acquire the complete set without looking at probably thousands of “SMS” coins.
You may want to look in a mirror before you accuse me of speculating, I’m just trying to draw a plausible conclusion based on the facts. Please give examples where I supplied “more and more” speculation.
Your arguments so far lack both, facts and logic. In an earlier post of yours in this thread, you elude that the “so called” 1964 SMS coins should be treated the same as the 1913 Liberty Head nickel. Could you please point out to me where the 1913 slot is in the Liberty Nickels Complete Variety Set, Proof (1883 - 1912)? Imagine that, it is not required.
I believe in the K.I.S.S. principle (Keep It Simple Stupid) and keeping to this principle the U.S. Mint only made two types of coins before 1966, Business Strikes and Proofs. If the U.S. Mint made a coin and it is not a proof then by default it is a “Business Strike”. Your statement
<< <i> Each denomination has unique die markers NOT FOUND on business strikes. >>
makes no sense, every die may have a different unique die marker to distinguish it from all other dies but it is still either a proof or business strike.
Not hype? What are you talking about? Of course a company trying to sell to the public in an auction format will try to put the item in the best possible light in order to get the highest price when their commission is based on the finial value, which is their job. When Stack’s wrote
<< <i>strike on all the coins is far sharper than is seen even on the Special Mint Sets. We suspect that these were struck as an experiment to determine the sort of finish the Mint would use from 1965 to 1967. >>
that was pure hype. Stack’s didn’t say the strike was sharper than is seen on some or most Special Mint Sets but implied all. Then Stack’s went further by saying
<< <i> We suspect that these were struck as an experiment to determine the sort of finish the Mint would use from 1965 to 1967. >>
, if that is not hype then what is it?
The only statement that you made that I agree with is
<< <i>… the coins are clearly different to any numismatist with good eyes and an open mind who examines the pieces. >>
, when and if I decide to collect by die marriage then I may want to pick up an example but until then I will focus on the basic set with legitimate varieties.
Your statement that
<< <i> Regardless of what you call them or how much you try to deny their existence, they are very much a part of the set that you collect. They exist, and they are rare. >>
, just for the record, they are not part of my set nor will they and if you polled everyone that collects Kennedy half dollars I would be willing to wager that less then 10% of the collectors think or believe that the so called 1964 SMS coin belongs in a “competitive” set (It is probably less then 2% but I want the margin).
It does matter what you call them? If someone produced a document from the Treasury department or US Mint official explaining that these were indeed “pattern” strike for the upcoming new SMS coinage, then where would they go? Probably with all the other sets of “Patterns” but not in the appropriate series of the denomination similar to the 1955 Flying Eagle Cent or the six or so 1916 Walking Liberty “patterns”.
I may be “wet” behind the ears, but one thing I am gathering from your posts, you think it should be listed in the set because of the uniqueness of the strike itself and not necessarily the die? If this is the case, where would you drawn the line for what is included and what is omitted? I have a 1968-D and 1969-D Kennedy that looks better then some of the 1965 – 1967 SMS coins with more mirrors and reflection, which I would classify as “proof like”, should these be required in a “competitive” set? How about the Morgan dollars, should they be required to not only have each date but also an example of DM and DMPL in their sets? How about if the 1976 Kennedy (J-2162), there were two of these coins “official” made and presented to President Ford and one of his Secretaries, should they be required in a “competitive” set? I also know of one member here on these boards that bought a 1966 SMS Kennedy half dollar in a PCGS holder graded MS66 which just happened to be a “business strike” double die (PCGS has corrected the error and chanced the label), this coin evidentially has the characteristics of a SMS coin, should it be required in the “complete variety” competitive set?
To me a “competitive” set should be something that a majority can agree with. “Fantasy”, “errors”, “patterns”, and “test” strikes should augment a personal collection not necessarily be added to the core “competitive” set.
It might be best to just call this that we agree to disagree. I don’t think that I will change your mind and you won’t change mine. Collect what you like and have fun.
<< <i>I obviously meant that you have not looked at any of the 1964 SMS or Specimen coins before closing your mind. Yes, let's just agree to disagree and I wish you all the best. >>
I apologize for my previous “rant”; it is obvious that you are just as passionate on one side of the debate as I am on the other side.
PCGS could address this issue if they wanted to in order to make everyone happy. All PCGS would have to do is the same thing they did with the basic proof Liberty Head nickels, have one set with the 1913 and one set without. This way the collector could choice which way they wanted to assemble their variety set, with and without the 1964 SMS coinage.
<< <i>
<< <i>I obviously meant that you have not looked at any of the 1964 SMS or Specimen coins before closing your mind. Yes, let's just agree to disagree and I wish you all the best. >>
I apologize for my previous “rant”; it is obvious that you are just as passionate on one side of the debate as I am on the other side.
PCGS could address this issue if they wanted to in order to make everyone happy. All PCGS would have to do is the same thing they did with the basic proof Liberty Head nickels, have one set with the 1913 and one set without. This way the collector could choice which way they wanted to assemble their variety set, with and without the 1964 SMS coinage. >>
No apology needed. PCGS has already addressed the issue. And as I pointed out to your collecting partner recently, I have skin in this game. You don't. I have no interest in seeing the issue removed from the "complete complete" set, the only one where I believe it truly belongs. Now I'm done, Caleb.
<< <i>Ever heard of a "pattern"? How many were made? Ever seen such a low mintage on an SMS, proof, or, regular issue? >>
Ray,
I think, not sure, but doesn't the coin need to be "off metal", different design or a different date (like the 1955 Flying Eagle Cent) to be considered a "Pattern"? I would like to call them this but I don't think it matches the defination.
Especially after reading this thread.
<< <i>Yes 19lyds I think there is no adequate term, to me they are a variety in both strike and finish, and I think Specimen Strike is the closest to accurate. >>
But..............doesn't this actually bring them more inline with the SMS coins currently in the the Proof Sets Registry? Those coins are currently being labelled by PCGS as SP.
Which is the original question. BTW, what does SP stand for anyway?
The name is LEE!
<< <i>According to the PCGS website it means Specimen strike. And yes you are right, but the 1964 SMS or Specimen coins are extremely distinctive in strike and surfaces compared to the 1965-67 SMS coins. Those are the hamburgers, BTW.
That goes without saying otherwise you'd never be able to tell them apart.
Hamburgers?
The name is LEE!
<< <i>From the discussion ATS about ordering hamburgers >>
Ahhhh!
No. They're not hamburgers.
But then they're not Business Strikes either (as you've stated).
They are Specimen Strikes (SP) which do belong in the Proof Coin Registry with the other Specimen (SP) Strikes.
The name is LEE!
<< <i>According to the PCGS website it means Specimen strike. And yes you are right, but the 1964 SMS or Specimen coins are extremely distinctive in strike and surfaces compared to the 1965-67 SMS coins. Those are the hamburgers, BTW.
The above quote is not quite accurate as to what “SP” stands for.
When the change was made at PCGS to switch from MS to SP on the labels, we had an order in to PCGS for grading and the email dialog clearly states that “SP” would stand for “Special Strikes”. The emails are dads so I will ask him I get home if I could post them in their entirety.
Lee,
The 1965 – 1967 Special Mint Set(s) while not proofs, were “regular issue” coins from the US Mint and can be found with CAM or DCAM appearances. While they are somewhat orphan coins (with a “Special Strike”) I believe most collectors associate them more with the proof side of the series mostly because they were issued as a replacement for the true proofs for those years and with the mirrors found on some of the coins with the possibilities of finding one that would make the CAM or DCAM designation, where else would they go?
The infamous 1964 SMS coinage were not “regular issues” from the US mint and none of them have the mirror finish found on the 1965 – 1967 Special Mint Sets. There are no characteristics on these (1964 SMS) to justify being placed in a “proof set” either Mattie, Satin or traditional, they just have a dull finish and this could be just from long term storage for all we know (anything else is pure speculation). Heck, everything about these things is just “pure speculation”, no facts.
I also agree with you that these 1964 SMS should not be in the “business strike” side of the Registry either, like I stated before, “To me a ‘competitive’ set should be something that a majority can agree with. ‘Fantasy’, ‘errors’, ‘patterns’, and ‘test’ strikes should augment a personal collection not necessarily be added to the core ‘competitive’ set.”
Heck, if you look in the Mint and Proof Year Sets part of the Registry, you will notice a 1964 business strike set, a 1964 Proof strike set, a 1965 Special Mint Set, a 1966 Special Mint Set, a 1967 Special Mint Set even a 1965 – 1967 Special Mint Set but you will not find a 1964 Special Mint Set.
I am a firm believer that the only reason PCGS added these 1964 SMS coins to the sets is because they erroneously labeled them as such and they had to find a home somewhere to keep someone happy. Where is the consistency? I notice that the 1913 Liberty Head nickel is not required in that series proof set, the five or six 1916 Walking Liberty ‘patterns’ are not required in that series complete set, the 1976 no ‘S’ proof Ike or Kennedy is not even required in the complete sets.
If PCGS would reverse their policy and treat the 1964 SMS in the Registry the same way they treat the 1913 Liberty Head nickel by having two sets listed in the Registry (one with the 1964 SMS and the other without) PCGS could address the concerns of many participants and everyone would be happy or at lest the super majority would be happy.
JMHO
SP
Short for Specimen Strike.
Link
From the PCGS Grading Guide
SMS Special Mint Set
SP Specimen
Another Link
<< <i>From the PCGS Glossary
SP
Short for Specimen Strike.
Link
From the PCGS Grading Guide
SMS Special Mint Set
SP Specimen
Another Link >>
Specimen was in the PCGS glossary long before they changed the designation from MS to SP on the SMS labels. If you wanted to know what the SP stood for on the new labels, maybe you should have asked instead of assuming, we did.
From the Graders’ Supervisor:
<< <i>From: Araceli Diaz
Sent: Thursday, July 30, 2009 7:46 PM
To: 'taclough'
Subject: PCGS sub#9107656-20318523
Hello Timothy
In reference to submission #9107656, we have recently changed the way we designate SMS. Going forward PCGS will be calling these coins SP apposed to MS. I need to confirm that you are ok with us crossing your SMS coins into PCGS SP holders and not MS holders. Please let me know if this is ok with you.
If you have any questions feel free to call me at 1-800-447-8848 ext 168 or email me at ADiaz@collectors.com
Thank you,
Araceli Diaz
PCGS
Phone: 949-567-1168
Fax: 949-567-1231
ADiaz@collectors.com
From: Timothy A. Clough
Sent: Thursday, July 30, 2009 5:35 PM
To: Araceli Diaz
Subject: RE: PCGS sub#9107656-20318523
Dear Araceli Diaz,
Thank you for your note. It would be fine with me if you labeled the "Special Mint Set" SP instead of MS. Will the label still say SMS on it? I hope that I don't sound stupid, but what does the SP stand for (Special / Specimen or something that I haven't thought of yet)?
Sincerely,
Timothy A. Clough
From: Araceli Diaz
Sent: Thursday, July 30, 2009 8:54 PM
To: 'Timothy A. Clough'
Subject: RE: PCGS sub#9107656-20318523
Hi Timothy
SP stands for "Special Strike" and yes the label will read out SMS or Satin Finish as well.
If you have any questions feel free to call me at 1-800-447-8848 ext 168 or email me at ADiaz@collectors.com
Thank you,
Araceli Diaz
PCGS
Phone: 949-567-1168
Fax: 949-567-1231
ADiaz@collectors.com >>
The name is LEE!
<< <i>Why is the 1964 SMS Kennedy Half Dollar in the Kennedy Half Dollars Complete Variety Set, Circulation Strikes (1964-Present) and NOT in the Kennedy Half Dollars Complete Variety Set, Proof (1964-Present) along with its 1965, 1966, and 1967 counterparts?
All 4 coins come with Normal, CAM, and DCAM attributes. >>
Sorry, I misread the original post. The 'so called' 1964 SMS is no were near the same as the 1965 - 1967 SMS coinage. The 1964 thingies have no mirrors or CAM or DCAM appearances to them at all, just a dull flat finish.
The name is LEE!
<< <i>But where oh where does the other MS/SP go?????????
Is your question where it has gone?
or
Where it should go?
To answer the second question, first it must be determined what it is. Either a 'business strike' or a 'mattie proof'. But under either scenario it is a basic coin and not a variety. It is either the one an only ‘business strike’ for the given year and mint mark (1998-S) or it is the Type 3 for the ‘proof’ issues for the same year (1998-S).