modern type and SMS

keets

i was just looking at the set composition for the proof and circulation modern type sets. they don't seem to specify where we can use the mid 60's SMS coins. it makes sense to use them in the circ. set but then they designate CAM and DCAM. did i miss something or can someone answer the ????? for me? also, what's your own take on where they get listed and if we have achoice of sets where are yours at. thanks all for your continued knowledge and suggestions.

al h.

merz2

al
This has been heatedly argued back and forth.I like you seem to think they should be in the business strikes.Even with the CAM & DCAM designation.The mint intended the Proof Sets for collectors.Some argue that the SMS coins also were intended for the Collectors,so they should be included in the Proof Sets.I'm not sure how it will turn out in the end.

itsnotjustme

I put mine in the CS & PR mixed set! No argument there.

CarlWohlforth

For Jefferson nickels even PCGS can't make up its mind. The '65-'67 are in the proof jeff set while the '94 and '97 are in the MS set. I think it is as simple as the first batch can look like proofs while the second don't because the have the matte finish. But to me they were all specially minted for collectors so are all proofs.

keithdagen

Carl,

The 94 & 97 Jeffersons and the 98 Kennedy all have a matte-like finish that is the same as the finishes on the MS modern commems. That's why they are classified as MS coins by PCGS. Once you put them side by side with a real proof coin, you can tell that there is no similarity.

Keith

cosmicdebris

I thought they had their own designation "SMS" not proof but not MS either as they are not business strikes they are collector coins.

CarlWohlforth

Keith, I have some nice Kennedys now and bought a nice SMS Jeff from Cosmic. I like the matte finish. It is not like the cameo proofs at all. I imagine it is somewhat like the early 1900s matte proofs but haven't had a good look at an early matte proof.

I always thought those MS commems sure were well made for non-proof coins So I'm comfortable with what Cosmic says "they have their own designation, SMS".

Hoytogle

I say it should be obvious PCGS lists the coin holder with SMS "SPECIAL MINT SET" Not SPS "Special PROOF Set". Also the grade starts with MS "Mint State" Not PR "Proof" But in PCGS Land SMS coins are listed as Proof Coins. Although I believe the majority of the 65-67 SMS coins grade just MS.

dpoole

I guess technically they are matte proofs. Don't see where CAM/DCAM comes into it. But you're right. The Mint apparently intended them to be consider MS coins because of teh names of the set, and the services have always called them MS.

BNE

Not that it makes a whole lot of sense, but my guess is that PCGS includes the '65-'67 SMS Jeffersons in the '65 to date proof registry set so there won't be a "gap" in the years between '64 to '68. The '94 and '97 (apart from the fact they are matte and don't look "prooflike") already have proof counterparts, so there is no "need" to include them. I agree it is inconsistent.

littlewicher