The 1975s dimes were not all proofs

Coinstudy · May 28, 2014 12:41AM

San Francisco and West Point Mint Marks

The "S" Mint mark was used on San Francisco coins until 1955, when production there was suspended. Operations were resumed in 1965, but on a limited basis. A supplemental coinage of cents for circulation was produced from 1968 through 1974; nickels were struck in 1968, 1969 and 1970. All bore the letter "S," as did a coinage of dimes in 1975.

I'm just curious if anyone here has seen a 1975s business and where are they?

Overdate · May 28, 2014 1:34AM

Haven't ever heard that before, can you give us a link?

Susan B. Anthony dollars with "S" mintmarks were also struck for circulation in 1979 and 1980, and for mint sets in 1981. More recently, some non-proof national parks quarters have been struck with "S" mintmarks for sale at a premium to collectors.

SamByrd · May 28, 2014 1:39AM

please show proof of that. I have never read anywhere at any time that dimes were made in San Fransisco other then proof for the 1975 production year.

Do you have a link , can you quote a reference book that states that? I am curious and would like to learn more of this.

If dimes were produced for circulation at San Fransisco they would of been no mint mark. There have been other times that's been done west point has at time struck coins for circulation I am told among them cents with no mint mark.

PRIZ430 · May 28, 2014 1:56AM

All I could find on this subject is......."When the first mint closed up, they opened up a new one in 1937 which struck coins for general circulation. It wasn't until 1955 that they closed up operations for 13 years, but they started up again in 1968 when they started taking over proof coin production responsibilities from the Philadelphia mint. They also created some supplemental circulated coins up until 1974. When 1975 came along, San Francisco was almost exclusively a proof coin mint which created proof sets and ultra mirror-like shiny coins typically meant for collectors. They did product regular circulating coins again from 1979 to 1981 for the Susan B. Anthony dollar. All coins coming out of San Francisco include the "S" mintmark. Although, some circulating Lincoln Memorial Small Cents were minted in San Francisco in the early 1980s but do not have the "S" mintmark on them. This mint was also officially an assay office through 1962 and 1988 and once again became mint status on March 31 of 1988. The building itself is located on 155 Hermann Street and no visitors are allowed here."

oih82w8 · May 28, 2014 2:00AM

I have not heard of this either...what is your source?

I know that there are two known 75-No S Proofs Dimes.

1975 No S Proof Roosevelt

Coinstudy · May 28, 2014 2:35AM

http://www.usmint.gov/about_the_mint/collectors_corner/?action=Mint_marks

I have seen the nickles in mint sets.

Coinstudy · May 28, 2014 2:53AM

It states "as did a coinage of dimes in 1975".It maybe nothing but this was why I asked.I also purchased a 1975s from Hawaii that lacks the the shine of a proof strike and more resembles a business strike.

ProofArtworkonCircs · May 28, 2014 3:02AM

I suspect an error in that mint document. If it really happened, I think it would be quite well known by today.

CaptHenway · May 28, 2014 6:08AM

<< It states "as did a coinage of dimes in 1975".It maybe nothing but this was why I asked.I also purchased a 1975s from Hawaii that lacks the the shine of a proof strike and more resembles a business strike. >>

You are correct. The page on the Mint's website that you linked to does say that. However, the page is incorrect. THey did not make business strike dimes in 1975.

TD

19Lyds · May 28, 2014 7:03AM

<< 

<< It states "as did a coinage of dimes in 1975".It maybe nothing but this was why I asked.I also purchased a 1975s from Hawaii that lacks the the shine of a proof strike and more resembles a business strike. >>

You are correct. The page on the Mint's website that you linked to does say that. However, the page is incorrect. THey did not make business strike dimes in 1975.

TD >>

That is a VERY confusing paragraph!

"San Francisco and West Point Mint Marks

The "S" Mint mark was used on San Francisco coins until 1955, when production there was suspended. Operations were resumed in 1965, but on a limited basis. A supplemental coinage of cents for circulation was produced from 1968 through 1974; nickels were struck in 1968, 1969 and 1970. All bore the letter "S," as did a coinage of dimes in 1975. Cents were manufactured at San Francisco for general circulation, as well as the West Point Bullion Depository, under auxiliary authority of the Congress in the early 1980's. However, in order to assure maximum circulation of this small production, no mint marks were used. Special Mint Sets were produced for collectors at San Francisco during 1965, 1966 and 1967. Due to the restrictions on coin identification in force at that time, no mint marks were used. Proof coin operations were moved from the Philadelphia Mint to San Francisco in 1968, and the letter "S" identifies that special numismatic coinage. In addition, all proof coinage produced by West Point carries a "W" mint mark."

Coinstudy · May 28, 2014 9:35AM

yeah its almost like they slipped that in there to go unnoticed. my line of thought is why not a suplimentery supply of dimes for Hawaii, its a group of islands.Who's going to know the difference on the mainland.Lol,ha,ha.Just a hunch.

DaveG · May 28, 2014 9:43AM

I don't have a copy of either the FY75 or FY76 Mint annual reports, however, they are summarized in the Secretary of the Treasury's annual report, which is available online.

In the FY76 summary, it says:

"In fiscal 1976 the Philadelphia Mint manufactured, for general circulation, 4,912,622,000 coins; the Denver Mint 6,001,278,032 pieces; the West Point Depository 1,701,709,196 1-cent pieces; and the U.S. Assay Office, San Francisco, 2,251,312 dimes."

Since it would have been big numismatic news at the time, I can only conclude that neither the West Point Depository nor the San Francisco Mint used their distinctive mint marks.

The summary's tables only show total production, and I haven't compared the mintage figures in the Red Book to see which Mint got the "credit" for the West Point and SF coins.

Just in case you're wondering - the tables in the summary clearly distinguish between coins for "General Circulation" and coins for "Numismatic" purposes.

So, the answer is: yes, the SF mint struck dimes in 1975 (or 1976), but without the 'S' mintmark.

CaptHenway · May 28, 2014 10:06AM

Well, Dang! The 1976 Mint Report says that in calendar year 1975 the SFAO struck 71,991,900 dime for circulation!

It does not say whether they were no mint mark or D, but looking at the Redbook figures it must have been no mint mark.

DaveG · May 28, 2014 11:41AM

I also purchased a 1975s from Hawaii that lacks the the shine of a proof strike and more resembles a business strike.

Coinstudy,

It's not uncommon to find recent proof coins that have been broken out of proof sets and spent.

Even if the coin has lost its proof luster, look for the other signs of a proof coin: very sharp strike and square rims.

Overdate · May 31, 2014 3:25AM

I'll bet they are all sitting in a vault somewhere, next to the 12 bags of 1895 Philly Morgan dollars!

tychojoe · May 31, 2014 11:21AM

What is the relationship between the 2.25 million struck for general circulation, and the 71.99 million struck for circulation? Are the two figures for distinct coinages? Is the smaller figure included in the larger? Very curious footnote to 1975. Thanks for posting! John

LanceNewmanOCC · May 31, 2014 11:53AM

.

<< I'll bet they are all sitting in a vault somewhere, next to the 12 bags of 1895 Philly Morgan dollars!

>>

just to be clear. the implication being they are B.S. 1895 $1 right? technically wouldn't philly have produced the proofs and B.S is why i ask?
.

BaronVonBaugh · May 31, 2014 12:18PM

<< I'll bet they are all sitting in a vault somewhere, next to the 12 bags of 1895 Philly Morgan dollars!

>>

Quit talking about my storage facility! People will want to hunt it down and start digging around in it!

DMWJR · May 31, 2014 12:33PM

I think it is just a poorly worded paragraph.

MsMorrisine · May 31, 2014 12:50PM

<< I also purchased a 1975s from Hawaii that lacks the the shine of a proof strike and more resembles a business strike.

Coinstudy,

It's not uncommon to find recent proof coins that have been broken out of proof sets and spent.

Even if the coin has lost its proof luster, look for the other signs of a proof coin: very sharp strike and square rims. >>

It is possible a run of business strike were done off the proof dies.

CaptHenway · May 31, 2014 2:10PM

<< 

<< I also purchased a 1975s from Hawaii that lacks the the shine of a proof strike and more resembles a business strike.

Coinstudy,

It's not uncommon to find recent proof coins that have been broken out of proof sets and spent.

Even if the coin has lost its proof luster, look for the other signs of a proof coin: very sharp strike and square rims. >>

It is possible a run of business strike were done off the proof dies. >>

I don't think so, because they they would have the S mint mark, unless it was the one S-less obverse.

This revelation does help explain where the un-mintmarked die came from that got Proofed and used to make at least two Proof strikes.

MsMorrisine · May 31, 2014 2:21PM

<< 

<< 

<< I also purchased a 1975s from Hawaii that lacks the the shine of a proof strike and more resembles a business strike.

Coinstudy,

It's not uncommon to find recent proof coins that have been broken out of proof sets and spent.

Even if the coin has lost its proof luster, look for the other signs of a proof coin: very sharp strike and square rims. >>

It is possible a run of business strike were done off the proof dies. >>

I don't think so, because they they would have the S mint mark, unless it was the one S-less obverse.

This revelation does help explain where the un-mintmarked die came from that got Proofed and used to make at least two Proof strikes. >>

Oh yes, S on the obverse business strikes. This would explain the one business strike example sold from Hawaii. These just would never have been seen in the 48 because of the relatively low circulation from Hawaii to the other states. An isolated island probably needed large bulk shipments of coins to make it cost effective to ship over 350,000 pounds of dimes amounting to 8% of the total struck that year. It appears the mint's poor record keeping back then led the red book to include these in the no mint mark numbers. It's only 70,000,000+ dimes, which is nothing -- $7,000,000 and take up only 10 ft x 10 ft x 10 ft or so. Plus they would get spread out all over the many islands. 70,000,000 coins are easily spread out and no one would notice until a sharp witted coin collector spots one recently. One might call it the Hawaiian Islands Hoard, and 70,000,000 more are just waiting to be found if they weren't all worn down and recycled!

19Lyds · May 31, 2014 2:28PM

<< 

<< 

<< I also purchased a 1975s from Hawaii that lacks the the shine of a proof strike and more resembles a business strike.

Coinstudy,

It's not uncommon to find recent proof coins that have been broken out of proof sets and spent.

Even if the coin has lost its proof luster, look for the other signs of a proof coin: very sharp strike and square rims. >>

It is possible a run of business strike were done off the proof dies. >>

I don't think so, because they they would have the S mint mark, unless it was the one S-less obverse.

This revelation does help explain where the un-mintmarked die came from that got Proofed and used to make at least two Proof strikes. >>

My exact thought.

The 1975s dimes were not all proofs

Comments

Leave a Comment