Options
Whats next!
Coinstudy
Posts: 287 ✭
Hello. What dose one do next.Several months ago I came across a dime in a wine bottle that I have been puttingeye catching change in for years.I now have been researching and studying this one dime.I'm no expert but I am capable of reseach myself.Where I wound up or what I wound up with is a 1964sms test trike on a type I pclad planchet dated1965.If I understand correctly there are only about fifty or so known to exist. My problem is who's the authority in this subject.
Where dose one go when so few people have seen these coins?If anyone can help I would appriciate it.
Thanks
Where dose one go when so few people have seen these coins?If anyone can help I would appriciate it.
Thanks
Mark Anderson
0
Comments
OTOH, knowing an SMS coin from that date is something else.
How are your picture taking skills?
<< <i>it doesn't take an expert to see a clad planchet on a 1964 coin.
OTOH, knowing an SMS coin from that date is something else.
How are your picture taking skills? >>
Fingers crossed, better than his writing skills.
I joke!
I'm joking!!
Welcome Coinstudy. Here's hoping your new found dime turns out to be a winner.
peacockcoins
Hoard the keys.
CONECA
The name is LEE!
SanFran would be testing both for B.U.'s and SMS's for 1965.
I'm sorry,I have taken a few scans but my scanner is not the best I'll get them posted.
I was reading that both proof coins and SMS coins are struck on specially prepaired planchets.Its funny but the B.U. is struck on a type and the Proofs and SMS are struck on a type II.guess what the difference is.....The TYPEII Is plated! It turns out when the plateing is double struck with the special dies that's what gives it shine!
Seeing that my dime is a test strike and they needed to observe the effects of the dies strikeing clad they needed to seethe clad core.You can't do this with plateing on it.So to resolve this problem they did an SMS strike on a typeI planchet.My dime is dark in color and lacks the plate on both obv and rev.
How do you find a needle in a haystack when you dont know what the needle looks like.
Thanks
<< <i>The SanFrancisco in 1964 was designated as an assayers office and ceased minting proof coins.The minting of proof coins was moved to Philly for 1964.It is the Job of an assayers office(SanFran) to do all the testing and metalurgy studies when a major transition(silver/clad) is takeing place.In early 1964 a request with contractors to produce clad blanks for testing.I know because I now own 6 of these blanks and these blanks are even rare.
SanFran would be testing both for B.U.'s and SMS's for 1965.
I'm sorry,I have taken a few scans but my scanner is not the best I'll get them posted.
I was reading that both proof coins and SMS coins are struck on specially prepaired planchets.Its funny but the B.U. is struck on a type and the Proofs and SMS are struck on a type II.guess what the difference is.....The TYPEII Is plated! It turns out when the plateing is double struck with the special dies that's what gives it shine!
Seeing that my dime is a test strike and they needed to observe the effects of the dies strikeing clad they needed to seethe clad core.You can't do this with plateing on it.So to resolve this problem they did an SMS strike on a typeI planchet.My dime is dark in color and lacks the plate on both obv and rev.
How do you find a needle in a haystack when you dont know what the needle looks like.
Thanks >>
As long as you know what hay looks like, you will do just fine.
peacockcoins
You can always send it to CONECA.
Coneca it is
Sean Reynolds
EDIT to change the date to 1965 in my original reply.
Reading back over your posts, you say you have a half-dozen unstruck dime planchets that were for testing the new alloy and that they are rare. There is no way to date a clad dime planchet, they have been escaping the Mint in bags and rolls since 1965 and are decidedly not rare or even scarce.
"Keep in mind that most of what passes as numismatic information is no more than tested opinion at best, and marketing blather at worst. However, I try to choose my words carefully, since I know that you guys are always watching." - Joe O'Connor
"rim error" 'dark surface' generally
turns out to be a damaged coin.
The dark surface could be from corrosion,
or any number of things that happen on
coins after they are in circulation.
Without good clear scans of both sides of
the coin, it's impossible to know what you
might have.
We'll all help diagnose the coin after you
can post some good photos/scans.
This is just my opinion.While Philly was striking the proof coins for 1964 the SanFrancisco assayers office was doing all the testing and setting up the mint to produce the new 1965 special mint sets in clad to come.This dime is just the result of this transition.We will never know how it made it out of the mint. It's darker color is mystery enough.I think its the nickle alloy myself.I'll keep working on pics that will fit.I keep getting the file size to large.
"Jesus died for you and for me, Thank you,Jesus"!!!
--- If it should happen I die and leave this world and you want to remember me. Please only remember my opening Sig Line.Take care.
<< <i>are you saying you have a 1964 SMS die coin with a 1965 date on it? >>
Rather, could it be a 1965 SMS dime with a 1964 date on it?
peacockcoins
The more qualities observed in a coin, the more desirable that coin becomes!
My Jefferson Nickel Collection
I'm not sure the person is even correctly describing it.
The blank it's self was1/2 copper1/2 nickle and had not been upset.It is my opinion that these blanks were intended as or examples to demenstrate clading and annealing abilities.I just bought 5 more.The nice lady selling these only had 100 of these......all in these coin holders (not in tubes or bags).
6 out of 100 thats rare in my opinion.She is selling these at 4.00 a peice.I will be perchaseing more of these......dont care weather anybody else dose.
This dime is no error......it was struck intentionally.There is a difference.
I know the seller well and I've bought some great error coins from her for years, and she is correct the mint was preparing clad planchets in 1964 for use in producing 1965-dated coins. In many cases the blanks were sent out to vending machine companies to make sure their equipment would still function when the new clad coins hit circulation in 1965. In other words, they are not rare, experimental, or particularly special, as indicated by the seller's $4 per blank asking price.
In addition, any "experimentation" the Mint did with respect to the SMS coins was done in 1964, as the existence of 1964-dated SMS coins in all denominations attests. By 1965 the Mint was ready for full production. Assuming the 1965 dime you pulled from your wine bottle is struck on a clad planchet, it is either a circulated (impaired) regular SMS issue or it is a normal business strike.
The story you are trying to tell contains many factual inaccuracies and unreasonable leaps of logic. I really believe that Occam's razor applies to the situation and the coin is not as special as you have been led to believe. Of course this is just one man's opinion, and you are free to send the coin to Fred Weinberg or CONECA for their opinions as well.
Sean Reynolds
"Keep in mind that most of what passes as numismatic information is no more than tested opinion at best, and marketing blather at worst. However, I try to choose my words carefully, since I know that you guys are always watching." - Joe O'Connor
You think the coin is an SMS coin.
you think it is a trial strike from 1964.
if the coin is not worn down too much, proving it is a SMS coin is possible.
proving it is a 1964 trial strike will be impossible.
Having a little lip on the rim is nothing. I find those all the time roll searching.
However, you are convinced it is what it is. You sound pretty down that people are not agreeing with you.
My suggestion would be just to go ahead and send it to CONECA. That will settle it for everyone.
The coin is a 1965P.
On the obverse it is deeply struck resembleing a proof or SMS strike.There is a slight rim error in the 10:00-11:00 area by Rosevelts forehead and made me think off center strike. (Something that may require die adjustment) or adjustment strike.
On the reverse it is much more lightly struck with a full torch with the lower band barely visable. Being so lightly struck on the rev and heavily stuck on the obv indicate again (the dies may require adjustment) or an adjustment strike.
The thing most will take issue with is that there is a difference between the terms " clad" and " plateing".
If you take a type I planchet/blank and take a sight glass an actually look at it and then take B.U. dime trough a sight glass it's very simple to see that B.U.'S are struck on type I planchets .
I have read that The SMS dimes, quarters, halves are struck on specialy prepaired planchets.I actually bought a few dimes that whrere termed "clad errors".Thi through me off for along time. What I started to notice was these "clad errors" had an outside finish that sometimes was absent or flakeing and flecking off the coin.I also began to notice that this was occuring on the SMS coins and not the B.U's.
I thought" specially prepaired planchets?" I went and grabbed my sight glass , my type II planchet, and an SMS dime.I looked at the edge of both and could see this layer lapping over the edge of the dime and the planchet . Guess whtat?....... a type II is a type I with plateing!........Lol!
With my 1965 dime it is darker in color and is actually missing the plate on both sides.My opinion says they struck this 1965 dime on a type I planchet.Why would they do this? If they where test in the new clad coinage they would half to have the ability to visably inspect the effects of the dies strikeing the clad.You could not do this if the coin is covered with plateing.Thus a SMS strike on a type I planchet to create a dime dated 1965,......the first year of clad coins and Special Mint Sets
What is the function of the assayers office at SanFrancisco in 1964?.....I could be wrong but God gave me a brain and eye's to.
it is possible that it is not a trial strike, but simply an off planchet strike.
But while san fran may have been an assayer's office, I doubt philly would have shipped a SMS die of all dies to san fran for a test strike when it could have been performed at philly just as well with a BU/production die.
why strike a BU planchet with a non-BU die???
why must they see the core? What difference would that make?
<< <i>Question.Why was SanFrancisco mint re designated assayers office in 1964? What is the function of a assayers office vs being a mint? >>
San Francisco has been an Assay Office since 1852 and it has never not been an assay office since that time. When no coinage operations are occurring, an Assay Office simply loses it's 'Mint' status and can only perform assay operations and strike bullion. All mints are Assay Offices but not all Assay Offices are mints (e.g. West Point before the Commemoratives).
Good luck with your research on your piece.
Dang splellin errrors
<< <i>
<< <i>Question.Why was SanFrancisco mint re designated assayers office in 1964? What is the function of a assayers office vs being a mint? >>
San Francisco has been an Assay Office since 1852 and it has never not been an assay office since that time. >>
Actually in 1988, public law 100-274 changed 31 USC 5131 to make west point and san fran official mints.
In short, San fran was an assayer's office that was striking production coins in the late 60's to early 70's
Where's he been lately?
peacockcoins
my advice is still the same.
write it all up asnd send it to coneca.
<< <i>Auction link
I know the seller well and I've bought some great error coins from her for years, and she is correct the mint was preparing clad planchets in 1964 for use in producing 1965-dated coins. In many cases the blanks were sent out to vending machine companies to make sure their equipment would still function when the new clad coins hit circulation in 1965. In other words, they are not rare, experimental, or particularly special, as indicated by the seller's $4 per blank asking price.
In addition, any "experimentation" the Mint did with respect to the SMS coins was done in 1964, as the existence of 1964-dated SMS coins in all denominations attests. By 1965 the Mint was ready for full production. Assuming the 1965 dime you pulled from your wine bottle is struck on a clad planchet, it is either a circulated (impaired) regular SMS issue or it is a normal business strike.
The story you are trying to tell contains many factual inaccuracies and unreasonable leaps of logic. I really believe that Occam's razor applies to the situation and the coin is not as special as you have been led to believe. Of course this is just one man's opinion, and you are free to send the coin to Fred Weinberg or CONECA for their opinions as well.
>>
I should never open threads without clear titles... ...argh.
I'm in close agreement with your posts here.
However there does appear to be quite a bit of "experimenting" continuing into 1965 and even 1966
with the SMS production processes. Or at the very least one can say these processes varied within
each year.
Since no one has mentioned it yet; circulation strikes are on type II planchets.
Welcome aboard.
<< <i>The SanFrancisco in 1964 was designated as an assayers office and ceased minting proof coins.The minting of proof coins was moved to Philly for 1964.It is the Job of an assayers office(SanFran) to do all the testing and metalurgy studies when a major transition(silver/clad) is takeing place.In early 1964 a request with contractors to produce clad blanks for testing.I know because I now own 6 of these blanks and these blanks are even rare.
SanFran would be testing both for B.U.'s and SMS's for 1965.
I'm sorry,I have taken a few scans but my scanner is not the best I'll get them posted.
I was reading that both proof coins and SMS coins are struck on specially prepaired planchets.Its funny but the B.U. is struck on a type and the Proofs and SMS are struck on a type II.guess what the difference is.....The TYPEII Is plated! It turns out when the plateing is double struck with the special dies that's what gives it shine!
Seeing that my dime is a test strike and they needed to observe the effects of the dies strikeing clad they needed to seethe clad core.You can't do this with plateing on it.So to resolve this problem they did an SMS strike on a typeI planchet.My dime is dark in color and lacks the plate on both obv and rev.
How do you find a needle in a haystack when you dont know what the needle looks like.
Thanks >>
Huh? What?
Where do people get this stuff anyway??
The name is LEE!
Isn't whats commonly referred to as a Type 1 planchet, simply a blank which has not been through the upsetting mill and is actually a "blank" while what is commonly referred to as a Type 2 planchet, a blank which HAS been through the upsetting mill and now can be referred to as a "planchet"?
The name is LEE!
<< <i>Someone correct me if I'm wrong.
Isn't whats commonly referred to as a Type 1 planchet, simply a blank which has not been through the upsetting mill and is actually a "blank" while what is commonly referred to as a Type 2 planchet, a blank which HAS been through the upsetting mill and now can be referred to as a "planchet"? >>
Essentially.
A type I planchet has a larger diameter and I don't believe it could be struck and ejected normally.
Early clad dimes often look like they weren't upset but I believe they "all" were. They often have
very flat rims.
you're going to have to say either those special planchets exist or not. forget about calling them "type" anything.
Then what needs addressing is the claim by the OP that the San Fran assayer's office had a 1965 SMS die that they used for trial strikes where they struck a 1965 SMS Dime on a non-special (business strike, see above) planchet.
The name is LEE!
However, a claim that a trial strike was made (in 1964) on a clad planchet (1965) with a 1965 dated SMS die is being made, and that the planchet wasn't the special double plated one.
I'm not sure why the mint would purposefully strike a SMS die onto a plain planchet as a trial.
<< <i>oops, wikipedia says they were minted in SF. I thought Philly handled them. So, that's one thing down. SF did have a SMS die.
However, a claim that a trial strike was made (in 1964) on a clad planchet (1965) with a 1965 dated SMS die is being made, and that the planchet wasn't the special double plated one.
I'm not sure why the mint would purposefully strike a SMS die onto a plain planchet as a trial. >>
I've never heard of a strike on a plated planchet for '64 and 5. There were different processes
used for planchets in '64 and '65 with polishing or other special surfaces for some SMS coins. This,
no doubt includes the '64 SMS. "All" SMS coins were struck and shipped from CA and the dies were
then, apparently, usually used to strike circultion issues in San Francisco without a mint mark for
all five denominations.
There have always been strange coins coming out of the mint and these often get issued like nor-
mal coins or escape in mint sets. Many of these are intentional and others just happen to be made
when the stars are aligned.
<< <i>
<< <i>Someone correct me if I'm wrong.
Isn't whats commonly referred to as a Type 1 planchet, simply a blank which has not been through the upsetting mill and is actually a "blank" while what is commonly referred to as a Type 2 planchet, a blank which HAS been through the upsetting mill and now can be referred to as a "planchet"? >>
Essentially.
A type I planchet has a larger diameter and I don't believe it could be struck and ejected normally.
Early clad dimes often look like they weren't upset but I believe they "all" were. They often have
very flat rims. >>
And the type I in this auction refers to the plain planchet --> without the upset rim
perhaps the OP could measure the diameter of his blank planchets to confirm the larger diameter, slightly larger than a dime.
Auction link
After the dies where set up and adjusted bring in the type II planchet and start production of 1965 SMS coins.But then again I wasn't their at the mint/assayers office.
I' m more amazed that the 1964 proofs where minted at Philly and I think that Is the only year philly did so......proof sets with no mint mark.Sort of unique in a way.
And then the 65, 66, 67 SMS sets technically minted at SanFrancisco with no mint mark.Ha, ha, ha, ha,....Lol.This should confuse collectors.
And for the error people I was looking at a 1966 dime I have and think I have found a DDO on the "ER" in liberty.Who would have thought a DDO on a SMS COIN.
(no 66 SMS dimes on the master list.....yet).
<< <i>From what I had read the concern was the effectsof the dies strikeing clad.Clad was a complete new process.They simply did'nt know the effects and had to visually inspect.Another concern was the annealing and nickle alloy would hold up to the die strikes under normal production.It is just my silly logic that they could not visually inspect when covered with plating on the planchet.So why not take some type I planchets and strike them with 1965 SMS dies.
After the dies where set up and adjusted bring in the type II planchet and start production of 1965 SMS coins.But then again I wasn't their at the mint/assayers office.
I' m more amazed that the 1964 proofs where minted at Philly and I think that Is the only year philly did so......proof sets with no mint mark.Sort of unique in a way.
And then the 65, 66, 67 SMS sets technically minted at SanFrancisco with no mint mark.Ha, ha, ha, ha,....Lol.This should confuse collectors.
And for the error people I was looking at a 1966 dime I have and think I have found a DDO on the "ER" in liberty.Who would have thought a DDO on a SMS COIN.
(no 66 SMS dimes on the master list.....yet). >>
It's not impossible they'd strike on type I planchets but it's not likely. Are you sure your coin isn't
simply a broadstruck SMS? It would be an unusual error and if the planchet were in some way special
it might make it even more interesting but it doesn't sound like a presentation piece from the little
we know about it.
The proof presses from Philly were shipped to San Francisco for use in manufacturing the SMS coins.
The special processes for striking SMS's were then retained nearly in their entirety for regular mint
sets starting in 1968. Mint set coins still have more in common with SMS than with regular production
issues which is why most Gems each year come from mint sets. There's also the simple fact that al-
most no one set aside modern coins and those few who did did not spend a lot of effort seeking Gems.
Well made and well preserved coins made since 1965 probably wouldn't be too common even if peo-
ple had tried to set them aside since they were so elusive even in year of issue.
<< <i>I' m more amazed that the 1964 proofs where minted at Philly and I think that Is the only year philly did so......proof sets with no mint mark. Sort of unique in a way.
And then the 65, 66, 67 SMS sets technically minted at SanFrancisco with no mint mark.Ha, ha, ha, ha,....Lol.This should confuse collectors. >>
Ha ha ha LOL! Ha ha ha!
Ahem.......no coins produced between 1965 and 1967 had mintmarks. None as it was mandated by law.
Ahem...........Proof Coins were ALWAYS minted in Philadelphia (with a few specific exceptions) "until" 1968 when mintmarks were restored and regularly put onto Proof coins.
As noted by the 2011 Redbook, Pg 339, NO Special Mint Set coins were produced at the San Francisco facility during 1965 as the 1965 Special Mint Set coins were not manufactured until 1966. Upto then, all the US Mints were busy creating 1964 coins to make up for the coin shortages which existed in 1964. Congressional authorization allowed the minting of 1964 coins WELL into 1966.
The name is LEE!
<< <i>I've never heard of a strike on a plated planchet for '64 and 5. There were different processes
used for planchets in '64 and '65 with polishing or other special surfaces for some SMS coins. >>
book list
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>Someone correct me if I'm wrong.
Isn't whats commonly referred to as a Type 1 planchet, simply a blank which has not been through the upsetting mill and is actually a "blank" while what is commonly referred to as a Type 2 planchet, a blank which HAS been through the upsetting mill and now can be referred to as a "planchet"? >>
Essentially.
A type I planchet has a larger diameter and I don't believe it could be struck and ejected normally.
Early clad dimes often look like they weren't upset but I believe they "all" were. They often have
very flat rims. >>
And the type I in this auction refers to the plain planchet --> without the upset rim
perhaps the OP could measure the diameter of his blank planchets to confirm the larger diameter, slightly larger than a dime.
Auction link >>
auction for a type 1 and type 2 planchet
note the type 2 has the upset rim and the type 1 is a bit larger without the upset rim(completely flat)
type 1 and 2
2) When I look at the surfaces of both type's they are completely different..........Why?
?...
?...
First is the 1965 that the redbook said dose not exist.If you look at the image you can clearly see the coins in their original cello.You can clearly see the envelope addressed "Assayers office" and "SanFrancisco".I will note that the 65 is in an envelope and the 66& 67 are in plastic holders and a box.Why I don't know.
I like mystery! Ha, ha, ha.
<< <i>Also due to researching this subject matter, last week I purchased from Ebay Item#251233943733.As a three year set of 65, 66, 67 special mint sets.
First is the 1965 that the redbook said dose not exist.If you look at the image you can clearly see the coins in their original cello.You can clearly see the envelope addressed "Assayers office" and "SanFrancisco".I will note that the 65 is in an envelope and the 66& 67 are in plastic holders and a box.Why I don't know.
I like mystery! Ha, ha, ha. >>
You know, I was about to rebut some of your statements again, but instead I'll just recuse myself from this discussion, wish you years of enjoyment from this hobby, and hope that you don't end up making any expensive mistakes based on your unique understanding of the minting process.
Sean Reynolds
"Keep in mind that most of what passes as numismatic information is no more than tested opinion at best, and marketing blather at worst. However, I try to choose my words carefully, since I know that you guys are always watching." - Joe O'Connor
``https://ebay.us/m/KxolR5
1964 proof sets in philly
Move equipment to SanFrancisco for testing for SMS coins
1965 Special mint sets in SanFrancisco
1966Special mint sets in SanFrancisco
1967Special mint sets in SanFrancisco
1968 proof sets in SanFrancisco
As far as the movement of the equipment from philly to SanFrancisco. How about the blunt tail/pointed tail 9 in 1964 as an indicator of the change over of mints?
Just a thought.All with no mint marks or "plain"