Options
Origins of the 1964 "SMS" Coins (Post Deleted for Errored Info)
FlyingAl
Posts: 2,893 ✭✭✭✭✭
Edited (deleted).
My post was mostly incorrect based on new info that came to light.
Coin Photographer.
27
FlyingAl
Posts: 2,893 ✭✭✭✭✭
Comments
Great article. I'm looking forward to reading Part 2
Dead Cat Waltz Exonumia
"Coin collecting for outcasts..."
Thank you!
Excellent read as usual…looking forward to the next update
Great research! It would be interesting to know what those sets sold for at Stack's in the 1990's.
An authorized PCGS dealer, and a contributor to the Red Book.
I did ask Stacks for the sale price of the set. Unfortunately, that page is the exact one that is missing from the records.
Coin Photographer.
Tag. Interesting stuff!
@FlyingAl,
Your post is most intriguing! And if your assertions are accurate, they dispel much of what’s been said about the 1964 SMS coins over a long period of time.
Now, I have a few questions for you and please feel free to consider this as my giving you a hard time.😉
1) Referring to the “broken rays reverse” seen on the half dollars, you stated that “This reverse is a transitional variety found only on half dollars struck early in 1964”. How do you know that the SMS coins weren’t struck from the same die sometime after 1964?
2) You wrote “Lester Merkin’s estate was sold on November 30th, 1994 by Stacks…” How do you know that other coins belonging to Lester Merkin weren’t auctioned by Stack’s prior to that sale?
3) In your subsequent post, you wrote “I did ask Stacks for the sale price of the set. Unfortunately, that page is the exact one that is missing from the records”. Did you ask them for the sale price of one of the sets or all of the sets? If the former, why not the latter?
Keep up the excellent work and hopefully that potential lead we discussed will help clear up some of the mystery.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
Amazing to see correspondence three weeks after the fateful day with plans well underway to honor JFK.
Makes you think that the 1964 Franklins were ready to go as in past years.
Great research.
Great reading! Thanks for the informative post!
.
.
Some of the catalogs on the Newman Numismatic Portal do have the prices realized, at least for 3 of the 5 I checked. If available they are usually scanned just inside the front cover. I have most or all of these prices realized and catalogs, though not handy at the moment. Perhaps some others do or can check the rest of the listings on NNP.
Here were some prices of the ones I checked:
5/2/1990 - Lot 1352 - - hammer price of $715.00 for a total of $786.50
PR page:
https://archive.org/details/unitedstatesgold1990stac/page/n9/mode/2up
6/19/1991 - Lot 591 - - No PR on NNP
1/19/1994 - Lot 526 - - hammer price of $475.00 for a total of $522.50
PR page:
https://archive.org/details/januarysaleunite1994stac/page/n5/mode/2up
3/22/1994 - Lot 956 - - hammer price of $230.00 for a total of $253.00
PR page:
https://archive.org/details/unitedstatescoin1994stac_q0k1/page/n7/mode/2up
5/2/1995 - Lot 430 - - No PR on NNP
"To Be Esteemed Be Useful" - 1792 Birch Cent --- "I personally think we developed language because of our deep need to complain." - Lily Tomlin
Maybe Omega man is the source.
Nice writeup. I always considered understanding these coins to be similar to Quantum Theory. You have simplified it greatly.
Are they really this stupid, or are they destroying the dollar on purpose?
Great post!
I was also looking at NNP..
12/2/1992 - Lot 1345
https://nnp.wustl.edu/library/auctionlots?AucCoId=3&AuctionId=516674
$160 hammer + 10% = $176
But this set was identified to have a 1960 proof nickel with it (missing the nickel).
.
This one does not have a price realized but identified the lot 430 to be from the Chesapeake Collection
(seems like I saw one other set identified but if so I lost it)
5/2/1995 - Lot 430
https://nnp.wustl.edu/library/auctionlots?AucCoId=3&AuctionId=516697
.
.
.
Did not check descriptions but wondered if any of these were a second time around for auction.
This description identified finger spotting on some cents.
6/16/1993 - 5 cents, 1 dime, 2 halves - Lot 1232
https://youtube.com/watch?v=2YNufnS_kf4 - Mama I'm coming home ...................................................................................................................................................................... RLJ 1958 - 2023
Yes, this is all really good research. I suspect that the Chesapeake set may be one of the earlier sets reauctioned (or it was perhaps thrown into that auction so they could finish off the group of sets).
@MFeld - here are my answers.
1) I checked a large chunk of 1965 and 1966 coins to verify this possibility. I came up empty, and I find it hard to believe that the mint would not use several dies for halves in 1964, when they were desperate to churn out as many as possible. Variety vista has not reported a single example with this reverse not paired with a 1964 obverse (which makes sense for my working theory). Essentially, I believe it is not logical that the mint would make more working dies early in the year so they could save some for 1965 when they were under a time crunch.
2) When going through the lots, each 1964 set was generally in a generic US Coins auction. While it is possible that Lester Merkin may have bought a few sets, they certainly weren’t sold in his estate sale like it is commonly claimed. I also have found more info today that guarantees Merkin was not the buyer (and this stems from our PM conversation).
3) I asked for all records available. They had info for only the 1990 set (and the lot of interest was missing for whatever reason). One of the posts above listed a few sales prices, but that is ultimately not of interest to me (although it is a cool tidbit).
Coin Photographer.
The Infamous 1964 SMS (Special Mint Set)
There have been several articles published on these so called 1964 Special Mint Sets over the past couple of decades since they surfaced in the early to mid 1990’s. For some reason, the authors seem to without question, assume they are linked to the 1965 - 1967 Special Mint Set Program of the United States Mint. Are their assumptions with or without merit? Understanding that when someone connects the dots, it may be a little fuzzy in places, but the evidence should be strong enough to show that point A is directly or indirectly connected to point D. As the Wendy’s commercial use to say back in the 1980’s, “Where’s the beef!”
Like most human beings, we are trusting by nature. Don’t just tell me your conclusions but show me how you arrived at them; what did you base your decision on. If someone tells us that we have clear blue skies overhead, I will believe them, but I will still look up at the sky to verify it for myself. Former President Ronald Reagan said it best, “Trust but verify.”
In the mid 1990’s, Professional Coin Grading Service (PCGS) started labeling a few 1964 coins as “SMS”. Was the decision to label these coins “SMS” based on facts, marketing ploy or hype? Do the 1964 so called “Special Mint Set(s)” pass the three “P” tests (Possible, Probable and Plausible)? In other words, realizing that almost anything is possible is it likely or even believable is what needs to be studied. Not only do we need to look at the timeline of events during that era, but also separate the facts from the myths.
First let us look at the facts, what is a “Special Mint Set”? Prior to 1966, the United States Mints only produced two types of coins, either Proofs or business strikes. In 1966 the United States Mints started producing the 1965 Special Mint Sets containing the new copper – nickel clad dime and quarter dollar plus the new less silver content half dollar.
With the issuance of the 1965 dated Special Mint Sets, there was a small card placed inside the envelope with the set from the Director of the Mint. Eva Adams was the Director of the United States Mint from 1961 – 1969.
The card clearly states, “These coins, (referring to the 1965 coins with the set) which constitute our first issue of United States Special Mint Sets, were struck at the U.S. Assay Office at San Francisco, California.” The card also clearly states that the coins in the “Special Mint Sets are made from specially prepared and polished blanks and struck on high tonnage presses with polished dies.” In reverse, if the coin is not struck from a specially prepared and polished blank and polished dies then it is not a Special Mint Set coin. With the die scratches so visible on these so called 1964 SMS coins and the absence of mirrors on the coins, were they struck with polished dies and on specially prepared and polished blank?
The coins that PCGS has labeled as “SMS” first showed up at a Stacks’ auction back in the early 1990’s. The cataloger for Stacks was the first to mention through speculation, a link to the Special Mint Set program and wrote up a description in their catalog as follows:
“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 reader must take into consideration that Stacks and their cataloger when selling a coin for a consigner has a fiduciary responsibility to put the coin in the best possible light to get the highest bids, especially when their commission is based on the finial price the auction reaches.
The Numismatic Guaranty Corporation (NGC) wanted a little bit more information before they started labeling any of these coins different then other 1964 coinage. Mr. David Lange researched the 1964 MS69 graded Kennedy half dollar that NGC was questioning by tracing it back to a Stacks auction and wrote an article in the September 11, 1995, issue of Coin World magazine. In examining the coin in hand, Mr. Lange wrote that:
“More important are the fine die-polishing lines, arranged in broad swirls, which are evident across its entire obverse and on much of its reverse. The depth of striking is superior to that of most Proofs. Both the inner and outer borders are sharply squared throughout, with the exception of the inner boarder at the lower reverse, which is very slightly beveled.”
During Mr. Lange’s research, he spoke with one of the numismatists at Stacks and learned that the cosigner of these special 1964 coins represented the estate of the late coin dealer Lester Merkin. There is speculation that Lester Merkin acquired these so called 1964 SMS coins from a U.S. Mint employee, possibly even Ms Eva Adams herself (but this is pure speculation, nobody has successfully utilized a crystal ball or Ouija board to talk with the late Mr. Merkin from beyond the grave to find out were he acquired the coins from). Reading Mr. Lange’s article, it is obvious that care was taken in the handling and storage of these coins but lacks evidence linking them to the Special Mint Set program with the exception of the allusion presented by the cataloger for the Stacks Auction House. NGC made the decision to label these coins as ‘Specimen’ and does not allow them in their competitive online set Registry.
Mr. Jamie Hernandez, an employee of PCGS and a member of the ‘PCGS Board of Experts’, wrote an article published on PCGS’ web site dated May 13, 2008, trying to glorify these so called 1964 SMS coins. Mr. Hernandez’s article has a few interesting theories put forth, but no definitive substance is presented in the article; unfortunately too much conjecture and misinformation is included. In all fairness, two of the theories Mr. Hernandez writes in his article have been mentioned before by others and need to be examined to see if they can pass the three “P” tests, especially if they can pass the third, ‘Plausibility’. Mr. Hernandez wrote in his article:
“There are many different theories on why the 1964 SMS coins were produced. These coins could have been produced as prototypes for the 1965 to 1967 SMS coins. The 1964 SMS coins could have also been produced as introductory pieces, possibly even intended to include a 1964-D Peace dollar.”
Let us discuss the second theory first, could the 1964 SMS coins been produced as introductory pieces, possibly even intended to include the 1964-D Peace dollar? The 1964-D Peace dollars were only produced from start to melt during a small two-week window in May 1965. The U.S. Mint was operating under the “Retention of 1964 on All Coins Act” trying to get ahead of the coin shortage (hence why the Peace dollars were dated 1964-D). Many in the government were blaming coin collectors for the shortage, some one had to be to blame and coin collectors were the “flavor of the day”. During the two-week life in May 1965 of the 1964-D Peace dollars, does anyone think it is plausible that the U.S. Mint or U.S. Treasury was thinking about producing an introductory set to include the cent – dollar? It would be just as ridiculous to believe a theory that I will start that the 1964 SMS so called coinage were manufactured by Martians for trade in commerce with the inhabitants of the planet Pluto.
Now let us look at the first theory Mr. Hernandez puts forth in his article, “These coins could have been produced as prototypes for the 1965 to 1967 SMS coins.” Why, for what purpose, when would they have been made? I agree the theory sounds nice, but does it hold up to scrutiny? Is it plausible? In examining the following timeline, where would these prototypes fit in?
a. In the beginning of 1964, the U.S. Mint was making amply supply of both 1964 Mint Sets and 1964 Proof Sets.
b. On September 3, 1964 the “Retention of 1964 on All Coins Act” was passed.
c. Towards the end of 1964 the U.S. Mint decided to suspend making Proof coinage so the machinery could be used to increase production of circulation strikes for use in commerce.
d. On June 3, 1965, President Lyndon Johnson proposed to Congress for authorization to replace silver in circulation coins with cheaper base metals (“Retention of 1964 on All Coins Act” still in effect).
e. On July 23, 1965, the “Coinage Act of 1965” is signed into law, some of the things it allowed was the removal of silver from the dime and quarter dollar, reduced the silver content of the half dollar to 40%, re-opens the San Francisco facility as a coinage production facility, allows the continuation of striking 90% silver coins dated 1964, suspends the use of mint marks or other distinguishing marks on coinage and banned the production of silver dollars for a five-year period.
f. One month later, on August 23, 1965, the Philadelphia Mint started production of the clad quarter dollars.
g. On November 1, 1965, The U.S. Mint released the new copper-nickel clad 1965 – dated quarter dollars into circulation. The U.S. Mint started production of the new copper/nickel clad dimes in December 1965 and on December 30, 1965, they started production of the new silver – copper/nickel clad 1965 – dated half dollars for circulation.
h. In February 1966, the Denver Mint ceased production of the ninety percent silver dimes dated 1964.
i. On March 8, 1966, after ample supply of the new 1965 dimes and half dollars had been produced, the U.S. Mint releases them into circulation.
j. In April 1966, the Philadelphia Mint ceased production of the ninety percent silver Kennedy half dollars dated 1964.
k. The first 1965 Special Mint Sets were not produced until the late spring of 1966.
l. The U.S. Mint continued to strike 1965 – dated coins until July 31, 1966.
m. On January 4, 1968, the Treasury Department issued a press release that mint marks would be restored to our coins and that proof coins struck at the San Francisco Assay Office will bear a small “S” mint mark.
Summary, during 1964 there would be no need for the U.S. Mint to produce Special Mint Set or prototype SMS coins because they were already making Proof and business strike coin sets that year plus with the passage of the “Retention of 1964 on All Coin Act” in September of that year, coins with a future date on them wasn’t even a glimmer in the U.S. Mint’s eyes. Also, one of the reasons that the U.S. Mint stopped the Proof production towards the end of 1964 was to free up the equipment so that it could be utilized in the production of circulation strike coinage. With the passage of “The Coinage Act of 1965” on July 23, 1965, until the release of the new clad coinage on March 8, 1966, the U.S. Mint was back logged trying to get ahead of the coin shortage in this country. Treasury and U.S. Mint officials blamed coin collectors in general for this shortage, so I doubt making a special set for collectors was much of a priority to the U.S. Mint during that time.
After the U.S. Mint got a handle on the coin shortage, probably in the early to mid spring of 1966, if they (the U.S. Mint) were going to make a trial run of prototype Special Mint Set (SMS) coins, why would they not use the new clad composition on the dime, quarter dollar and silver copper/nickel composition on the half dollar? Why would the U.S. Mint use the softer silver material for the dime and quarter dollar for a so-called prototype Special Mint Set? This makes no sense and really brings doubt to the plausibility or probability to the conclusion that PCGS has made that those coins that they classified as 1964 SMS had anything to do with the actual 1965 – 1967 Special Mint Set program.
When you remove the hype and speculation surrounding these so called 1964 SMS coin by PCGS, what do you have? Remember that the “Coinage Act of 1965” authorized the San Francisco Assay Office to produce coins for circulation. The San Francisco Assay Office had just gone through a major over-haul and had new high tonnage coin press installed. I could put forth a theory that these coins are nothing more then coins struck to test the new higher tonnage presses being installed at the San Francisco Assay Office and believe it would have more plausibility than PCGS’ conclusion of labeling them as 1964 SMS coinage. Does PCGS require other coins struck for ‘pressure adjustment’ in their online competitive Registry sets?
Are these coins that PCGS authenticated as 1964 “SMS” and NGC refers to as 1964 “Specimen” unique? The short answer, yes, but no more than the 1943 copper Lincoln cent, the 1944 steel Lincoln cent, the 1971-D forty percent silver Kennedy half dollar, the 1973-S copper – nickel business strike Eisenhower dollar, the 1976 (P) forty percent silver proof Kennedy half (referred to as the J2162 / P2086 which the U.S. Mint actually acknowledges producing), the many modern U.S. coins recently found within the Smithsonian’s National Collections and the 1977-D forty percent silver Kennedy half dollar; none of which are required in any of PCGS online Registry sets.
Are these coins that PCGS authenticated as 1964 “SMS” and NGC refers to as 1964 “Specimen” connected to the Special Mint Set program of 1965 – 1967? This has not been yet established or proven.
Bottom line is that we may never know why or under what circumstances these infamous so called 1964 SMS coins were produced. Most of the individual involved when they were created were deceased when they first surfaced in the 1990’s.
Thank you, @FlyingAl and I’m very much looking forward to any additional information you uncover.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
This is an area of Modern Numismatics that needs some serious investigation. Most information, as evidenced by the OP, is the same line of thought traced back to Adams/Merkin and an early 1990's Stack's auction. Judging only from the timeline, that has been inaccurate. It makes me think of the term "confirmation bias" wherein the answer is accepted and the proof is then plucked from any evidence in an attempt to prove that answer. Lazy cataloguers have followed that path. I'd suggest that @FlyingAl dismiss that thought-line and just do honest research to "follow the bullet" wherever it goes.
It looks as if that’s precisely what @FlyingAl is doing and has already made some good progress.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
The 1964 circulation strike Kennedy half dollars from both Philadelphia and Denver ODV-002 (Obverse Design Variety) was paired with both the RDV-001 (Straight G) and the RDV-002 (Flared G) (Reverse Design Variety). Both RDV for the 1964 circulation strikes are fairly common and the RDV-002 (Flared G) carried over for the years, 1965 – 1968 with also the 1969-D and 1970-D.
The 1968-S, 1969-D, and 1970-D also saw the RDV-003 (Straight G) along with the 1969-S and 1970-S.
I know this is highly unlikely, but hypothetically, if a mint document surfaced which unequivocally established there were no 64 SMS strikes, would PCGS continue to guarantee the existing SP grades or would it reclassify these as MS grades?
My Jefferson nickel registry
https://www.pcgs.com/setregistry/alltimeset/188986
My classic commemorative registry
https://www.pcgs.com/setregistry/alltimeset/255614
I think that scenario is well beyond “highly unlikely”. I don’t recall seeing or hearing about Mint documents unequivocally disproving something of that nature. But even if there were such a document, how would anyone know that there wasn’t any unofficial experimentation for such coins?
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
Many have searched the mint archives, and nothing exists regarding anything relating to the 1964 “SMS” coins.
There are, however, documents that state how tightly trial strikes were regulated by Eva Adams in 1964. I believe she wouldn’t let any true trial strikes outside the mint, period. The “SMS” theory said she let 20+ complete sets out.
The goal of my research is to present everything in a factual manner and let the reader draw their own conclusions. One conclusion we can all see is there are some large gaps in the “SMS” theory.
Coin Photographer.
Kudos, @FlyingAl, I think you have sort of relegated all future catalogue descriptions to read "There is no evidence to show exactly where these sets came from or how Lester Merkin obtained them" due to the timeline, unless other documentation can be found. And to think, Walter Breen is routinely criticized because he "made stuff up" in some of his writings.
Thanks!
I’m actually fairly confident that Lester Merkin never bought a set. I’m working on confirming that.
Coin Photographer.
You show above documentation of about a dozen lots sold, containing full "sets", from 1990-1995, and none before that, even though these were dated 1964. Were these "sets" in any kind of set holders, or all coins individually loose in paper or cardboard sleeves?
If they were struck sometime around 1964-1965 is VERY strange than none showed up for 25, not 15, lol, years and then magically a person or several people decide to sell a few complete sets of coins, they happen to have stashed or found starting in 1990, over a period of 5 years?
Is there any information about the estate sales of the Mint Superintendent or the Mint Assayer that were specifically mentioned by the Mint Director Adams as being responsible for additional striking of coins with experimental dies and their subsequent destruction?
Were all 1964 dated dies or die hubs 100% documented to have been destroyed? I assume the answer is yes, but it is one thing to prepare a "certificate of destruction", and another to actually destroy all test coin examples ever struck.
The 2000 Sacagawea quarter mule comes to mind where all examples were supposed to be destroyed (a few were not found and legitimately entered circulation), yet a couple of Mint employees were eventually found guilty of theft and selling a few they kept.
I really think you @FlyingAl have reopened Pandora's box and I can't wait to hear "The Rest of the Story".
National Commemorative Medals of the U.S. Mint:
https://www.pcgs.com/setregistry/u-s-coins/medals-tokens/national-commemorative-medals-united-states-mint-1940-present/alltimeset/195526
One of the things that I’ve often wondered is whether there was a political vector for these. Could this have ended up with a senator or congressman? The president? The Kennedy family as special gifts? If they all went to one place, then it may make sense that they were buried for 15 years. The Nixon presentation Ikes that recently surfaced come to mind as an example.
Since in the OP it states contacting the Smithsonian, is this to follow up on the possibility of them coming from there as noted in the NGC information on the half dollar specimen strike.
Link
https://www.ngccoin.com/coin-explorer/united-states/half-dollars/kennedy-half-dollars-1964-date/76045/1964-50c-sp/?des=sp
And screen shot of:
https://youtube.com/watch?v=2YNufnS_kf4 - Mama I'm coming home ...................................................................................................................................................................... RLJ 1958 - 2023
It appears that the coins didn’t start surfacing until 1990, which would mean they were “buried” for 25+ years.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
Yes, Mark, my math skills needed improvement, 25 years is a long time for sure. Thanks.
National Commemorative Medals of the U.S. Mint:
https://www.pcgs.com/setregistry/u-s-coins/medals-tokens/national-commemorative-medals-united-states-mint-1940-present/alltimeset/195526
I know no facts regarding the alleged 1964 Special Mint Set coins. I might offer a few observations and opinions.
First of all, I agree with the opinion expressed above that there is absolutely no connection between the alleged 1964 Special Mint Set coins and the 1964-D Peace dollars struck in May of 1965. The Treasury Dept. did everything it could to sabotage the reintroduction of the Standard Silver Dollar, and (IMHO) only struck the roughly 316,000 "trial strike" 1964-D Peace Dollars to cover LBJ's tuccus and/or promise to a certain Western Senator whose vote and support he needed to pass the Civil Rights Act of 1964. They showed that he "tried."
On Feb. 8, 1966, Eva Adams testified before Congress that the Mint had no plans to resume making sets of coins for collectors:
On March 8, 1966, the Mint began accepting orders for collector sets:
This would not be the first time, nor the last, that the right hand and the left hand at the Mint were in different time zones. That said, if the Mint did make 1964-dated Special Mint Set coins, this would be a plausible time frame.
Now note the comment in the Press Release about the coins in the 1965 collector set being in higher relief. Does this mean that they were made from hubs that were literally in higher relief than the regular issue coins? Or, were they just struck up better?
If there is a device that can accurately measure the relief of a coin, then I would suggest that all five coins in a 1965 Special Mint Set be measured against regular coins of all five denominations. If THEY show a difference in relief, then repeat the test with 1964 "SMS" and regular coins.
TD
I owned a 1964 "SMS" dime once.
I studied it.
I tried to believe it was special.
In the end, it looked like a regular dime to me with alot of die polish.
Dead Cat Waltz Exonumia
"Coin collecting for outcasts..."
This seems to describe the single characteristic which differentiates these coins from others. For all denominations the only diagnostic I recall seeing described is the the serif on the "4" of the Half-Dollar date.
How could any such document exist? As phrased, it's a negative assertion.
What you would need is documentation specific to those coins that specify then as something else. The problem is that no such document surfaces with those coins so there is a chain of custody problem if such a document surfaced: how would you know it was referring to those specific coins?
I don't know about the Merkin piece. However, it is not unusual to sell a collection (estate) while someone is still alive.
But if the whole Adams/Merwin connection is only the result of sloppy cataloging later, the only people who would know the answer are at Stack's.
Given Q David Bowers penchant for writing, has he ever weighed in on these?
If this is the case, where are the 'Sharper than SMS' coins for all the other years besides 1964?
Logically, in the Smithsonian.
I would love to see a sharply struck Franklin half.
The Smithsonian. There have been accounts of such coins existing.
Coin Photographer.
The mint made special specimens of coins all through this era that are now in the Smithsonian. I've not seen enough good pictures of any of these to know how they compare with the '64 issues.
Based on the fact that photos suggest the '64 issues are struck once under high pressure like the SMS coins of the era I would guess these were struck on the same presses. Whether they can really be called "SMS" would seem to depend on the intention of the coiner. Certainly the fact that each denomination was struck and they are specially made implies that "SMS" is "appropriate" terminology whether they are directly related to the later SMS's or not.
I believe the ANAs monthly magazine had an article on some of the modern coins found in the Smithsonian with some photos sometime between 2011 - 2015. NGC looked at them when they were holdering some of the coins in the collection and called them specimens.
Second time I read this today, and as good as the first. Thanks @FlyingAl for being such a great student of numismatics, and sharing your findings in the most thoughtful, humble ways. I really do appreciate you on the boards!
I am a newer collector (started April 2020), and I primarily focus on U.S. Half Cents and Type Coins. Early copper is my favorite.
Roger B. informs me that this device
https://www.keyence.com/landing/microscope/lp_video_vhx7000.jsp?ad_local=cta_428_01
could detect any difference in relief between the 1965 SMS coins and the 1965 regular issue coins, which the Treasury Dept. press release stated was going to occur, and logically any difference in relief between the alleged 1964 SMS coins and the regular 1964 coins.
Personally I like the suggestions above that the coins bound for the Smithsonian were simply well struck from brand new but ordinary dies and handled carefully. The so-called 1964 SMS coins may simply be excess such coins that somebody saved. After all, if you are making coins for a favored client you make a few of each and then send them the best one of each denomination.
TD
I read your posts and was wondering why I knew so much of the information contained in them.
It finally dawned on me that we had discussed this very topic both in text and over the phone. It was back in Oct of ‘22.
Glad to see that you are continuing your research.
I am still pursuing the Kennedys and still slowly adding the varieties.
Wayne
Kennedys are my quest...
@FlyingAl
Thanks for sharing your research. It is truly a labor of love and much appreciated.
I hope that someday, we will finally be able to trace the origins of these
“special coins”.
Wayne
Kennedys are my quest...
Interesting thread. This is the reason I'm here for these kind of discussions
Wow, looks like they were preparing the memorial new Half Dollars only 2-3 weeks after the JFK assasination.
A bit surprising, IMO.
Fantastic thread- thanks, everyone!
I must note - there are a few things in my OP that are factually incorrect based on subsequent research.
My OP was factually correct based on the info I had at the time, but the errors in it will be corrected in my final research.
Coin Photographer.
I take it that nobody is interested in checking the alleged "higher relief" that was mentioned in the clipping I posted?
I really hope you can update some of your recent preliminary findings as you work your way through this complex history, before a final result. I think nothing in history is really final, so don't keep us all in suspense for too long.
National Commemorative Medals of the U.S. Mint:
https://www.pcgs.com/setregistry/u-s-coins/medals-tokens/national-commemorative-medals-united-states-mint-1940-present/alltimeset/195526
I plan to publish an article in The Numismatist - which requires the findings aren't repeated anywhere else first.
Unfortunately, the last article I sent took over a year to be accepted for publication. It still hasn't been printed, and I sent it in June of 2022.
Coin Photographer.
I think it's a great idea.
Here is the citation for a study where this was actually done:
McCarthy, David. 2019. "1942 High-Relief Cent Pattern." The Numismatist (January): 53-56.
For this study, Ray Parkhurst created three-dimensional micrographs of 1942 1c Judd-2081, 1942 1c business strike and 1942 1c proof coins; relief measurements from these were used to prove that the pattern cent is higher in relief than the regular issue cents. The specific methods for making the micrographs were not described in the article, however. It requires an electron microscope, so if you are working with that kind of a facility, presumably the operator would know how to do it.