Threads like this are my reason for lurking and reading. I love reading posts from some of you who are plugged into the hobby so directly. I've learned a ton here since I joined that I would have otherwise never had the opportunity to know
Thanks Mark for sharing your comments in the OP and to the rest who have shared their knowledge on the subject.
Since when does the Mint do any business without leaving a paper trail? And this was the Director on the Mint with these? And these coins don't even look the same. Look at these two. The top one is a 1964 1C SMS MS65 Red PCGS designated as SP65RD and the bottom one is a 1964 1C SMS MS66 Red PCGS designated as SP66, and it's apparent these are from two different dies. On the obverses, the top one has tie detail, while the bottom one doesn't. On the reverses, the top one has die polish lines, while the bottom one doesn't. This is questionable whether these are even the same dies. And this Mint Director didn't have any paper on same? What kind of Mint business is that? Who runs the Mint like that? For everything in these Mints, there's paper. Ah, I don't know. Somebody's taking somebody on a buggy ride. Or, sure seems like it. Count me in still as highly skeptical.
@Pizzaman said:
Since when does the Mint do any business without leaving a paper trail? And this was the Director on the Mint with these? And these coins don't even look the same. Look at these two. The top one is a 1964 1C SMS MS65 Red PCGS designated as SP65RD and the bottom one is a 1964 1C SMS MS66 Red PCGS designated as SP66, and it's apparent these are from two different dies. On the obverses, the top one has tie detail, while the bottom one doesn't. On the reverses, the top one has die polish lines, while the bottom one doesn't. This is questionable whether these are even the same dies. And this Mint Director didn't have any paper on same? What kind of Mint business is that? Who runs the Mint like that? For everything in these Mints, there's paper. Ah, I don't know. Somebody's taking somebody on a buggy ride. Or, sure seems like it. Count me in still as highly skeptical.
Your point is well taken.
If there isn't great similarity within and between denominations then the chances of them being mint products is low.
However one variation as you show here isn't really determinative especially in light of the fact that the "real" SMS's from 1965 also show large variations in appearance and production techniques. They certainly experimented with the later SMS's so they might have also experimented with the 1964 "SMS".
@Pizzaman said:
Since when does the Mint do any business without leaving a paper trail? And this was the Director on the Mint with these? And these coins don't even look the same. Look at these two. The top one is a 1964 1C SMS MS65 Red PCGS designated as SP65RD and the bottom one is a 1964 1C SMS MS66 Red PCGS designated as SP66, and it's apparent these are from two different dies. On the obverses, the top one has tie detail, while the bottom one doesn't. On the reverses, the top one has die polish lines, while the bottom one doesn't. This is questionable whether these are even the same dies. And this Mint Director didn't have any paper on same? What kind of Mint business is that? Who runs the Mint like that? For everything in these Mints, there's paper. Ah, I don't know. Somebody's taking somebody on a buggy ride. Or, sure seems like it. Count me in still as highly skeptical.
Your point is well taken.
If there isn't great similarity within and between denominations then the chances of them being mint products is low.
However one variation as you show here isn't really determinative especially in light of the fact that the "real" SMS's from 1965 also show large variations in appearance and production techniques. They certainly experimented with the later SMS's so they might have also experimented with the 1964 "SMS".
The minting of the real ones was in the millions, though. They had hundreds, possibly thousands of working dies, all varying, to one degree or other. There are but a handful of these 1964s extant, even at this late date. And they had different working dies, experimenting? I'm not saying that's impossible, but it seems implausible. Seems a little far fetched.
@Pizzaman said:
Since when does the Mint do any business without leaving a paper trail? And this was the Director on the Mint with these? And these coins don't even look the same. Look at these two. The top one is a 1964 1C SMS MS65 Red PCGS designated as SP65RD and the bottom one is a 1964 1C SMS MS66 Red PCGS designated as SP66, and it's apparent these are from two different dies. On the obverses, the top one has tie detail, while the bottom one doesn't. On the reverses, the top one has die polish lines, while the bottom one doesn't. This is questionable whether these are even the same dies. And this Mint Director didn't have any paper on same? What kind of Mint business is that? Who runs the Mint like that? For everything in these Mints, there's paper. Ah, I don't know. Somebody's taking somebody on a buggy ride. Or, sure seems like it. Count me in still as highly skeptical.
Your point is well taken.
If there isn't great similarity within and between denominations then the chances of them being mint products is low.
However one variation as you show here isn't really determinative especially in light of the fact that the "real" SMS's from 1965 also show large variations in appearance and production techniques. They certainly experimented with the later SMS's so they might have also experimented with the 1964 "SMS".
The minting of the real ones was in the millions, though. They had hundreds, possibly thousands of working dies, all varying, to one degree or other. There are but a handful of these 1964s extant, even at this late date. And they had different working dies, experimenting? I'm not saying that's impossible, but it seems implausible. Seems a little far fetched.
When you write “The minting of the real ones…” it implies that others being discussed aren’t real. All of the coins being discussed are real. Distinctions can be made and skepticism (or even incredulity) can be expressed without making it sound like not all of the coins are “real”.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
1964 Proof coins have a wide variety of appearances (which makes them interesting to collect, as you never know what you type of coin you will find [i.e. coins with heavily frosted devices and fields that have no mirrored appearance at all and instead look like they are sand blast, matte, satin or even non proof).
It would be interesting to see all of the 1964 coins that have been graded by TPGs as 1964 SMS (or SP) in hand at the same time under good lighting (i.e. like the 1913 nickels where all 5 coins were brought together and evaluated). Doing so would provide information about how similar or different they are in appearance.
The minting of the real ones was in the millions, though. They had hundreds, possibly thousands of working dies, all varying, to one degree or other. There are but a handful of these 1964s extant, even at this late date. And they had different working dies, experimenting? I'm not saying that's impossible, but it seems implausible. Seems a little far fetched.
Many processes varied with the SMS coins. The dies, their preparation, tonnage, and how they were treated after they went into production varied as did planchet preparation and even handling after strike. It seems as though they were experimenting with different processes to make a product the market wanted. Very few people wanted any of these sets and most of what caught peoples' attention were the frosted PL's. There's still very little attention paid to these coins except for those that are frosted.
Why the mint would be playing around with 1964 coinage is beyond me but if these sets have a "standard' appearance, if the coins generally look like they underwent the same production techniques then they quite probably were intentionally produced as sets. It is possible someone went through large numbers of mint bags looking for unusual finishes and early strikes but this would have been an herculean task because such coins are very rare. Sure you might find a few such coins in a bag but you'd have to check a large number of bags and for each denomination. It would be far easier to believe the mint made them up for some special and unknown purpose.
I haven't seen these sets but am going off professional description as being early strikes and high tonnage. Their very existence is far fetched yet they exist. If the descriptions are correct I must believe that the mint or someone at the mint had them made as sets. If no records exist then they were probably made "unofficially" like the WI quarter types or some of the Gem mint sets from the early clad years. There has always been "horseplay" and various unofficial production at the mints. There have been proof sets packaged by hand containing die caps. There have been proof set test packages mailed in lieu of proof sets. Many things seen at (from) the mint are not official. This might apply to '64 SMS's.
When you write “The minting of the real ones…” it implies that others being discussed aren’t real. All of the coins being discussed are real. Distinctions can be made and skepticism (or even incredulity) can be expressed without making it sound like not all of the coins are “real”.
Sorry for the confusion. I wrote "However one variation as you show here isn't really determinative especially in light of the fact that the "real" SMS's from 1965 also show large variations in appearance and production techniques." to highlight the fact it's not known as fact that the '64 sets are "SMS" or even necessarily packaged as a mint product.
Late to the party but can't help but wonder if there might be some overlap in the overall presentation of SMS coins and proof coins, even if many seem to come from more polished dies.... Sanction II seems to hint at this possibility.
Other countries such as Great Britain and Canada have some coins that bely "pigeonholing" in that they really don't fit in nice neat categories such as "Specimen", "Prooflike", or "Proof" and so then it seems to broach that [surprise, surprise] these borderline coins are considered by some be of one type and by others to be of another or possibly the same.
I just can't see the value of one of these in-between coins if there are not physically distinguishing characteristics or significantly varying dies from "ordinary" superior first-strike circulation coins on the one end, and then proof coins struck from beleaguered dies on the other.
Well, I am listening and hope to learn.
Love that Milled British (1830-1960) Well, just Love coins, period.
The minting of the real ones was in the millions, though. They had hundreds, possibly thousands of working dies, all varying, to one degree or other. There are but a handful of these 1964s extant, even at this late date. And they had different working dies, experimenting? I'm not saying that's impossible, but it seems implausible. Seems a little far fetched.
Many processes varied with the SMS coins. The dies, their preparation, tonnage, and how they were treated after they went into production varied as did planchet preparation and even handling after strike. It seems as though they were experimenting with different processes to make a product the market wanted. Very few people wanted any of these sets and most of what caught peoples' attention were the frosted PL's. There's still very little attention paid to these coins except for those that are frosted.
Why the mint would be playing around with 1964 coinage is beyond me but if these sets have a "standard' appearance, if the coins generally look like they underwent the same production techniques then they quite probably were intentionally produced as sets. It is possible someone went through large numbers of mint bags looking for unusual finishes and early strikes but this would have been an herculean task because such coins are very rare. Sure you might find a few such coins in a bag but you'd have to check a large number of bags and for each denomination. It would be far easier to believe the mint made them up for some special and unknown purpose.
I haven't seen these sets but am going off professional description as being early strikes and high tonnage. Their very existence is far fetched yet they exist. If the descriptions are correct I must believe that the mint or someone at the mint had them made as sets. If no records exist then they were probably made "unofficially" like the WI quarter types or some of the Gem mint sets from the early clad years. There has always been "horseplay" and various unofficial production at the mints. There have been proof sets packaged by hand containing die caps. There have been proof set test packages mailed in lieu of proof sets. Many things seen at (from) the mint are not official. This might apply to '64 SMS's.
Then I suppose there's some rationale for these. Thank you for providing it. I didn't know any of this and am seeing this issue clearer for it.
@Pizzaman said:
Since when does the Mint do any business without leaving a paper trail? And this was the Director on the Mint with these? And these coins don't even look the same. Look at these two. The top one is a 1964 1C SMS MS65 Red PCGS designated as SP65RD and the bottom one is a 1964 1C SMS MS66 Red PCGS designated as SP66, and it's apparent these are from two different dies. On the obverses, the top one has tie detail, while the bottom one doesn't. On the reverses, the top one has die polish lines, while the bottom one doesn't. This is questionable whether these are even the same dies. And this Mint Director didn't have any paper on same? What kind of Mint business is that? Who runs the Mint like that? For everything in these Mints, there's paper. Ah, I don't know. Somebody's taking somebody on a buggy ride. Or, sure seems like it. Count me in still as highly skeptical.
Your point is well taken.
If there isn't great similarity within and between denominations then the chances of them being mint products is low.
However one variation as you show here isn't really determinative especially in light of the fact that the "real" SMS's from 1965 also show large variations in appearance and production techniques. They certainly experimented with the later SMS's so they might have also experimented with the 1964 "SMS".
The minting of the real ones was in the millions, though. They had hundreds, possibly thousands of working dies, all varying, to one degree or other. There are but a handful of these 1964s extant, even at this late date. And they had different working dies, experimenting? I'm not saying that's impossible, but it seems implausible. Seems a little far fetched.
When you write “The minting of the real ones…” it implies that others being discussed aren’t real. All of the coins being discussed are real. Distinctions can be made and skepticism (or even incredulity) can be expressed without making it sound like not all of the coins are “real”.
Thank you, Mark, but I knew what he meant. By "real," he was referencing the documented ones. These require a leap of faith and are based on speculation and conjecture.
@Pizzaman said:
Since when does the Mint do any business without leaving a paper trail? And this was the Director on the Mint with these? And these coins don't even look the same. Look at these two. The top one is a 1964 1C SMS MS65 Red PCGS designated as SP65RD and the bottom one is a 1964 1C SMS MS66 Red PCGS designated as SP66, and it's apparent these are from two different dies. On the obverses, the top one has tie detail, while the bottom one doesn't. On the reverses, the top one has die polish lines, while the bottom one doesn't. This is questionable whether these are even the same dies. And this Mint Director didn't have any paper on same? What kind of Mint business is that? Who runs the Mint like that? For everything in these Mints, there's paper. Ah, I don't know. Somebody's taking somebody on a buggy ride. Or, sure seems like it. Count me in still as highly skeptical.
Your point is well taken.
If there isn't great similarity within and between denominations then the chances of them being mint products is low.
However one variation as you show here isn't really determinative especially in light of the fact that the "real" SMS's from 1965 also show large variations in appearance and production techniques. They certainly experimented with the later SMS's so they might have also experimented with the 1964 "SMS".
The minting of the real ones was in the millions, though. They had hundreds, possibly thousands of working dies, all varying, to one degree or other. There are but a handful of these 1964s extant, even at this late date. And they had different working dies, experimenting? I'm not saying that's impossible, but it seems implausible. Seems a little far fetched.
When you write “The minting of the real ones…” it implies that others being discussed aren’t real. All of the coins being discussed are real. Distinctions can be made and skepticism (or even incredulity) can be expressed without making it sound like not all of the coins are “real”.
Thank you, Mark, but I knew what he meant. By "real," he was referencing the documented ones. These require a leap of faith and are based on speculation and conjecture.
Ironically, not a single one of these coins on the market has any documentation.
The joy of researching the archives is looking for that a-ha piece that answers a question. The frustrating part of researching is knowing that not all of the documentation is there. Not all of the records end up at the archives. I don’t know who decides what is important and what isn’t to send to the archives from the Mint.
The Philadelphia Mint: making coins since 1792. We make money by making money. Now in our 225th year thanks to no competition.
@Pizzaman said:
Since when does the Mint do any business without leaving a paper trail? And this was the Director on the Mint with these? And these coins don't even look the same. Look at these two. The top one is a 1964 1C SMS MS65 Red PCGS designated as SP65RD and the bottom one is a 1964 1C SMS MS66 Red PCGS designated as SP66, and it's apparent these are from two different dies. On the obverses, the top one has tie detail, while the bottom one doesn't. On the reverses, the top one has die polish lines, while the bottom one doesn't. This is questionable whether these are even the same dies. And this Mint Director didn't have any paper on same? What kind of Mint business is that? Who runs the Mint like that? For everything in these Mints, there's paper. Ah, I don't know. Somebody's taking somebody on a buggy ride. Or, sure seems like it. Count me in still as highly skeptical.
Your point is well taken.
If there isn't great similarity within and between denominations then the chances of them being mint products is low.
However one variation as you show here isn't really determinative especially in light of the fact that the "real" SMS's from 1965 also show large variations in appearance and production techniques. They certainly experimented with the later SMS's so they might have also experimented with the 1964 "SMS".
The minting of the real ones was in the millions, though. They had hundreds, possibly thousands of working dies, all varying, to one degree or other. There are but a handful of these 1964s extant, even at this late date. And they had different working dies, experimenting? I'm not saying that's impossible, but it seems implausible. Seems a little far fetched.
When you write “The minting of the real ones…” it implies that others being discussed aren’t real. All of the coins being discussed are real. Distinctions can be made and skepticism (or even incredulity) can be expressed without making it sound like not all of the coins are “real”.
Thank you, Mark, but I knew what he meant. By "real," he was referencing the documented ones. These require a leap of faith and are based on speculation and conjecture.
Ironically, not a single one of these coins on the market has any documentation.
@Pizzaman said:
Since when does the Mint do any business without leaving a paper trail? And this was the Director on the Mint with these? And these coins don't even look the same. Look at these two. The top one is a 1964 1C SMS MS65 Red PCGS designated as SP65RD and the bottom one is a 1964 1C SMS MS66 Red PCGS designated as SP66, and it's apparent these are from two different dies. On the obverses, the top one has tie detail, while the bottom one doesn't. On the reverses, the top one has die polish lines, while the bottom one doesn't. This is questionable whether these are even the same dies. And this Mint Director didn't have any paper on same? What kind of Mint business is that? Who runs the Mint like that? For everything in these Mints, there's paper. Ah, I don't know. Somebody's taking somebody on a buggy ride. Or, sure seems like it. Count me in still as highly skeptical.
Your point is well taken.
If there isn't great similarity within and between denominations then the chances of them being mint products is low.
However one variation as you show here isn't really determinative especially in light of the fact that the "real" SMS's from 1965 also show large variations in appearance and production techniques. They certainly experimented with the later SMS's so they might have also experimented with the 1964 "SMS".
The minting of the real ones was in the millions, though. They had hundreds, possibly thousands of working dies, all varying, to one degree or other. There are but a handful of these 1964s extant, even at this late date. And they had different working dies, experimenting? I'm not saying that's impossible, but it seems implausible. Seems a little far fetched.
When you write “The minting of the real ones…” it implies that others being discussed aren’t real. All of the coins being discussed are real. Distinctions can be made and skepticism (or even incredulity) can be expressed without making it sound like not all of the coins are “real”.
Thank you, Mark, but I knew what he meant. By "real," he was referencing the documented ones. These require a leap of faith and are based on speculation and conjecture.
Ironically, not a single one of these coins on the market has any documentation.
The only documented ones are the 1965s and up.
Ah, ok. Yes, those are heavily documented.
@PhillyJoe - my research may be of interest to you. Do you want to read a draft?
@Pizzaman said:
Since when does the Mint do any business without leaving a paper trail? And this was the Director on the Mint with these? And these coins don't even look the same. Look at these two. The top one is a 1964 1C SMS MS65 Red PCGS designated as SP65RD and the bottom one is a 1964 1C SMS MS66 Red PCGS designated as SP66, and it's apparent these are from two different dies. On the obverses, the top one has tie detail, while the bottom one doesn't. On the reverses, the top one has die polish lines, while the bottom one doesn't. This is questionable whether these are even the same dies. And this Mint Director didn't have any paper on same? What kind of Mint business is that? Who runs the Mint like that? For everything in these Mints, there's paper. Ah, I don't know. Somebody's taking somebody on a buggy ride. Or, sure seems like it. Count me in still as highly skeptical.
Your point is well taken.
If there isn't great similarity within and between denominations then the chances of them being mint products is low.
However one variation as you show here isn't really determinative especially in light of the fact that the "real" SMS's from 1965 also show large variations in appearance and production techniques. They certainly experimented with the later SMS's so they might have also experimented with the 1964 "SMS".
The minting of the real ones was in the millions, though. They had hundreds, possibly thousands of working dies, all varying, to one degree or other. There are but a handful of these 1964s extant, even at this late date. And they had different working dies, experimenting? I'm not saying that's impossible, but it seems implausible. Seems a little far fetched.
When you write “The minting of the real ones…” it implies that others being discussed aren’t real. All of the coins being discussed are real. Distinctions can be made and skepticism (or even incredulity) can be expressed without making it sound like not all of the coins are “real”.
Thank you, Mark, but I knew what he meant. By "real," he was referencing the documented ones. These require a leap of faith and are based on speculation and conjecture.
Ironically, not a single one of these coins on the market has any documentation.
The only documented ones are the 1965s and up.
Ah, ok. Yes, those are heavily documented.
@PhillyJoe - my research may be of interest to you. Do you want to read a draft?
That’s just the type of confusion I anticipated when the words “real” and “documented” started getting tossed around, along with mention of sets from other years.😉
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
I’m completely uneducated about these beyond what I’ve read here, but I don’t think it is outside of the realm of possibility that the half dollars would actually be the “special” strikes, while the lower denomination coins were not. I can see a situation where some regular strike coins could be thrown in with a special strike half to make a set.
I keep getting held up on "Mr. Merkin told him that Eva Adams, who had been U.S. Mint Director from 1961-1969, had given him the sets and asked him to show them around to some people and ask what they thought of them." When the mint director shared these coins, there was no follow up statement or question? My first reaction would have been wow these are spectacular, what am I looking at or am I looking at a special strike?
@psuman08 said:
This is very interesting, thank you for sharing.
I keep getting held up on "Mr. Merkin told him that Eva Adams, who had been U.S. Mint Director from 1961-1969, had given him the sets and asked him to show them around to some people and ask what they thought of them." When the mint director shared these coins, there was no follow up statement or question? My first reaction would have been wow these are spectacular, what am I looking at or am I looking at a special strike?
If I had more details, I'd happily share them. But based on my conversation with Steve Blum, it was obvious that he was convinced the coins were specially made. And that Lester Merkin was proud of them/considered them to be something very special.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
As required by law, all United States coins are currently dated with the year of their issuance or minting.
In 1964, however, a coin shortage caused speculation in rolls and bags of 1964 coins. To prevent such speculation, Congress passed legislation declaring that the United States Mint could still use the 1964 date on coinage after the 1964 calendar year. So in 1965, all denominations of United States coins continued to be struck with the 1964 date.
In 1965, Congress mandated that the Mint continue to use the 1964 date on all 90 percent silver coins. However, because clad coins (which were not 90 percent silver) were not as likely to spark speculation, they would be dated no earlier than 1965.
This meant that all of the 90 percent silver coins (half-dollar, quarter-dollar, and 10-cent coins) that the Mint manufactured in 1964, 1965, and 1966 bore the date 1964. (The last of the 90 percent silver quarter-dollar coins was struck in January 1966, the last of the 10-cent coins in February 1966, and the last of the half-dollar coins in April 1966.)
All of the clad coins actually manufactured in 1965 bear the 1965 date. The clad coins were struck with the 1965 date through July 31, 1966. (The first clad 10-cent coin was struck in December 1965, the first clad quarter-dollar coin in August 1965, and the first clad half-dollar coin in December 1965.)
As one step toward catching up on normal coin dating, in December 1965, the 1964 date on five-cent coins and one-cent coins was changed to 1965. From December 1965 through July 31, 1966, all one-cent coins and five-cent coins were struck with the 1965 date. All denominations of United States coins minted from August 1 through December 31, 1966 carried the 1966 date.
Normal dating procedures resumed on January 1, 1967, and continued through 1974.
The Philadelphia Mint: making coins since 1792. We make money by making money. Now in our 225th year thanks to no competition.
and the last of the half-dollar coins in April 1966.)
Thank you. I had forgotten this.
It is always worth noting that this is 'mint speak" which bears relatively little relationship with English or numismatic terminology.
"As required by law, all United States coins are currently dated with the year of their issuance or minting."
This doesn't mean that the next year's coins aren't actually minted in November and December as test pieces and these often are placed into bags with the current year mintage. Sometimes collectors have gotten the next year's coinage before January 1st. Once midnight rolls around you can no longer "prove" the coin was minted early.
First let me apologize if this is answered above (I have not had time to read this bookmarked thread).
Please help. Proof 1964 halves come with Type 1 and Type 2 reverses. I looked at the reverse of a 1964 50c SMS coin on Heritage and it has a Type one reverse. Question: Do some normal MS 1964 50c exist with the Type 1 reverse with the broken ray?
@Insider3 said:
First let me apologize if this is answered above (I have not had time to read this bookmarked thread).
Please help. Proof 1964 halves come with Type 1 and Type 2 reverses. I looked at the reverse of a 1964 50c SMS coin on Heritage and it has a Type one reverse. Question: Do some normal MS 1964 50c exist with the Type 1 reverse with the broken ray?
If I was aware of the unusual dating of coins during the changeover to clad I had forgotten it. (I love this thread.) Was the mint able to keep the silver and clad planchets separate without any errors? I've not heard of any clad coins dated 1964 nor silver coins dated 1965, but I don't follow errors.
@oldabeintx said:
If I was aware of the unusual dating of coins during the changeover to clad I had forgotten it. (I love this thread.) Was the mint able to keep the silver and clad planchets separate without any errors? I've not heard of any clad coins dated 1964 nor silver coins dated 1965, but I don't follow errors.
Not completely separate, no. Both types of errors you mentioned are known (with more 1965 silver coins known than 1964 clad). These are called "transitional errors".
@oldabeintx said:
If I was aware of the unusual dating of coins during the changeover to clad I had forgotten it. (I love this thread.) Was the mint able to keep the silver and clad planchets separate without any errors? I've not heard of any clad coins dated 1964 nor silver coins dated 1965, but I don't follow errors.
There is a single '64 clad quarter and no dimes. There are quite a few known silver '65 dimes and quarters (<25 IMS).
@MFeld said: TomB Posts:
"Speaking of the early 90’s, I happened to be a grader at NGC from 1991-1998. And while I was there, (edited from “a handful”) several unusual 1964 sets were submitted to us for grading by a well known dealer who’d purchased them out of Stack’s auctions. I think that we at NGC, were the first graders to see the coins. Most, though not all of them looked quite distinctive/specially made. And as a result, if memory serves me correctly, not all of the coins were given special designations. I remember thinking it was a tough call to do that, seeing as how we were examining complete sets. But ultimately, we felt that each coin needed to stand on its own merits."
Thank you for this interesting post and discussion. I've quoted a small part of it, above, to ask if you think in hindsight the graders and management at NGC did the right thing by labeling some of these coins as SMS. It appears there really wasn't any corroborating evidence or paper trail to prove what they were, yet a new (for the mintage year) designation was created for them. I wonder if that was really the best strategy, after all, you can't unring a bell.
My reply:
Tom, I’ll try to be as objective as I can, considering the circumstances, both back then and now.
From what I recall, the coins that were designated SMS/Specimen (or whatever label was assigned back then) certainly looked conspicuously different/special. And if anything, the fact that they were dated 1964 was likely to have helped, rather than hurt their cause.
I also take comfort in the fact that PCGS later ended up crossing and/or certifying so many of them. That’s despite the fact that in general, I believe they tend to be more stringent than NGC in requiring official documentation, before labeling coins as special in some way.
Lastly, both NGC and PCGS have certified various other coins as “Specimen” or something similar, without “any corroborating evidence or paper trail to prove what they were”. Instead, they let the coins do the talking. That doesn’t mean it’s the right thing to do, but it’s what’s done. That said, if left to me, I’d require some type of documentation before I awarded any type of special designation.
.
This is a post from John Butler which seems to go with what MFeld recalls.
.
.
I don't really have an interest in the SMS but I guess just enough coin nerd there to read through some of this thread. As far as other Specimen coins I thought of the Morgans (imagine that) and the branch mint proofs (or sometimes called specimens). As I recall four date and mint marks have some form of 'documentation', some better than others, but other dates and mint marks have been graded as proof or specimen (might depend on service) and have no documentation. I think it is only the 1879 O that had/has a die pair not otherwise used. Other were also used to mint regular circulation strikes and some of the special strikes (proof / specimen) were used dies.
https://youtube.com/watch?v=2YNufnS_kf4 - Mama I'm coming home ...................................................................................................................................................................... RLJ 1958 - 2023
@lilolme said:
Lastly, both NGC and PCGS have certified various other coins as “Specimen” or something similar, without “any corroborating evidence or paper trail to prove what they were”. Instead, they let the coins do the talking.
The coins or the story? Which one's doing "the talking?" There's the question. Post hoc ergo propter hoc, here, no?
I have no pony in this race, just a comment on the lack of documentation and what it means:
Show me the complete U.S. Mint file on the 1964-D Morgan and Peace Silver Dollars, and then I will believe that the lack of documentation on the so-called 1964 SMS coins means that no such coins were ever made.
TD
Numismatist. 50 year member ANA. Winner of four ANA Heath Literary Awards; three Wayte and Olga Raymond Literary Awards; Numismatist of the Year Award 2009, and Lifetime Achievement Award 2020. Winner numerous NLG Literary Awards.
@CaptHenway said:
I have no pony in this race, just a comment on the lack of documentation and what it means:
Show me the complete U.S. Mint file on the 1964-D Morgan and Peace Silver Dollars, and then I will believe that the lack of documentation on the so-called 1964 SMS coins means that no such coins were ever made.
TD
There weren't 6.5 billion of these minted. Res ipsa loquitur, no? I mean, how is one getting these confused with anything?
@CaptHenway said:
I have no pony in this race, just a comment on the lack of documentation and what it means:
Show me the complete U.S. Mint file on the 1964-D Morgan and Peace Silver Dollars, and then I will believe that the lack of documentation on the so-called 1964 SMS coins means that no such coins were ever made.
TD
It seems what the mint does mostly fits into seven broad categories;
Official
Semi-official
Unofficial
Horse play
Shenanigans
Accidents on purpose
and
Accidents.
They do a great job but how many factories have millions of people watching every move, parsing the production reports, and scrutinizing every widget?
@CaptHenway said:
I have no pony in this race, just a comment on the lack of documentation and what it means:
Show me the complete U.S. Mint file on the 1964-D Morgan and Peace Silver Dollars, and then I will believe that the lack of documentation on the so-called 1964 SMS coins means that no such coins were ever made.
TD
Is complete the key word here? (Curiosity, not argument).
For the coins that were originally in Eva Adam’s possession (or with others) as “sets”, how were they stored? In envelopes? In plastic “SMS” holders (probably not)? In a Wayte Raymond holder?
@Connecticoin said:
For the coins that were originally in Eva Adam’s possession (or with others) as “sets”, how were they stored? In envelopes? In plastic “SMS” holders (probably not)? In a Wayte Raymond holder?
After reading your post, I contacted Steve Blum, asked how the coins were stored and let him know I'd post his reply here. He wrote: "Coins were in cellophane and kept in individual flips. Easily passed over by Lester’s widow as not being very important".
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
@CaptHenway said:
I have no pony in this race, just a comment on the lack of documentation and what it means:
Show me the complete U.S. Mint file on the 1964-D Morgan and Peace Silver Dollars, and then I will believe that the lack of documentation on the so-called 1964 SMS coins means that no such coins were ever made.
TD
Is complete the key word here? (Curiosity, not argument).
Since we do not know what would be in a complete file, no.
Numismatist. 50 year member ANA. Winner of four ANA Heath Literary Awards; three Wayte and Olga Raymond Literary Awards; Numismatist of the Year Award 2009, and Lifetime Achievement Award 2020. Winner numerous NLG Literary Awards.
@CaptHenway said:
I have no pony in this race, just a comment on the lack of documentation and what it means:
Show me the complete U.S. Mint file on the 1964-D Morgan and Peace Silver Dollars, and then I will believe that the lack of documentation on the so-called 1964 SMS coins means that no such coins were ever made.
TD
Is complete the key word here? (Curiosity, not argument).
Since we do not know what would be in a complete file, no.
@Connecticoin said:
For the coins that were originally in Eva Adam’s possession (or with others) as “sets”, how were they stored? In envelopes? In plastic “SMS” holders (probably not)? In a Wayte Raymond holder?
After reading your post, I contacted Steve Blum, asked how the coins were stored and let him know I'd post his reply here. He wrote: "Coins were in cellophane and kept in individual flips. Easily passed over by Lester’s widow as not being very important".
Now there's a coincidence. That is to say, I have coins stored that way, too. I suppose these weren't labeled by this Director of the Mint as anything special, though, I mean, given the theory, now, they were probably easily passed over as not being very important. That of course doesn't mean that they weren't very important, only that it hadn't occurred to this Director of the Mint to label the flips, as such. Funny. I label all my important coins, my varieties, my errors, even my die cracks, I put little arrows right on the flip, right adjacent to them. That way I know they're there when I look back on them later. Sometimes you can overlook a repunched date or mint mark when you look back on them later, if the flips aren't labeled. But anyway, that's why I do it. FWIW.
It seems in the coin realm or any other collectible area, there is nothing like a good controversy/uncertainty to help drive interest/value. 1913 nickels,$20 gold eagles etc.
Successful transactions:Tookybandit. "Everyone is equal, some are more equal than others".
Thanks Mark.
Perhaps it was Wondercoin who explained to me the SMS 68 > @BLUEJAYWAY said:
It seems in the coin realm or any other collectible area, there is nothing like a good controversy/uncertainty to help drive interest/value. 1913 nickels,$20 gold eagles etc.
Peacock Ikes and the Appalachian Hoard nickels would fit in that category.
@CaptHenway said:
I have no pony in this race, just a comment on the lack of documentation and what it means:
Show me the complete U.S. Mint file on the 1964-D Morgan and Peace Silver Dollars, and then I will believe that the lack of documentation on the so-called 1964 SMS coins means that no such coins were ever made.
TD
February 14, 1964
Miss Eva Adams
Director of the Mint
Washington, D.C. 20220
Dear Miss Adams,
Since we have been instructed to discontinue the special project of the "Morgan" dollar, we are forwarding to you today by registered mail the ten (10) silver dollars dated consecutively from 1879 to 1888 loaned to us, your letter of September 27, 1963.
Michael H. Sura
Superintendent, United States Mint, Philadelphia
Trust me when I say that is pretty much the entire file concerning the 1964 Morgan/Peace dollar project.
The Philadelphia Mint: making coins since 1792. We make money by making money. Now in our 225th year thanks to no competition.
Comments
Threads like this are my reason for lurking and reading. I love reading posts from some of you who are plugged into the hobby so directly. I've learned a ton here since I joined that I would have otherwise never had the opportunity to know
Thanks Mark for sharing your comments in the OP and to the rest who have shared their knowledge on the subject.
Mark
Since when does the Mint do any business without leaving a paper trail? And this was the Director on the Mint with these? And these coins don't even look the same. Look at these two. The top one is a 1964 1C SMS MS65 Red PCGS designated as SP65RD and the bottom one is a 1964 1C SMS MS66 Red PCGS designated as SP66, and it's apparent these are from two different dies. On the obverses, the top one has tie detail, while the bottom one doesn't. On the reverses, the top one has die polish lines, while the bottom one doesn't. This is questionable whether these are even the same dies. And this Mint Director didn't have any paper on same? What kind of Mint business is that? Who runs the Mint like that? For everything in these Mints, there's paper. Ah, I don't know. Somebody's taking somebody on a buggy ride. Or, sure seems like it. Count me in still as highly skeptical.
Your point is well taken.
If there isn't great similarity within and between denominations then the chances of them being mint products is low.
However one variation as you show here isn't really determinative especially in light of the fact that the "real" SMS's from 1965 also show large variations in appearance and production techniques. They certainly experimented with the later SMS's so they might have also experimented with the 1964 "SMS".
What is that supposed to mean? Regardless of how they’re labeled, they’re certainly genuine “mint products”. Please don’t take this thread off course.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
I'm referring to the sets.
Obviously the coins are mint products.
<->> @cladking said:
The minting of the real ones was in the millions, though. They had hundreds, possibly thousands of working dies, all varying, to one degree or other. There are but a handful of these 1964s extant, even at this late date. And they had different working dies, experimenting? I'm not saying that's impossible, but it seems implausible. Seems a little far fetched.
Thank you.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
When you write “The minting of the real ones…” it implies that others being discussed aren’t real. All of the coins being discussed are real. Distinctions can be made and skepticism (or even incredulity) can be expressed without making it sound like not all of the coins are “real”.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
1964 Proof coins have a wide variety of appearances (which makes them interesting to collect, as you never know what you type of coin you will find [i.e. coins with heavily frosted devices and fields that have no mirrored appearance at all and instead look like they are sand blast, matte, satin or even non proof).
It would be interesting to see all of the 1964 coins that have been graded by TPGs as 1964 SMS (or SP) in hand at the same time under good lighting (i.e. like the 1913 nickels where all 5 coins were brought together and evaluated). Doing so would provide information about how similar or different they are in appearance.
Many processes varied with the SMS coins. The dies, their preparation, tonnage, and how they were treated after they went into production varied as did planchet preparation and even handling after strike. It seems as though they were experimenting with different processes to make a product the market wanted. Very few people wanted any of these sets and most of what caught peoples' attention were the frosted PL's. There's still very little attention paid to these coins except for those that are frosted.
Why the mint would be playing around with 1964 coinage is beyond me but if these sets have a "standard' appearance, if the coins generally look like they underwent the same production techniques then they quite probably were intentionally produced as sets. It is possible someone went through large numbers of mint bags looking for unusual finishes and early strikes but this would have been an herculean task because such coins are very rare. Sure you might find a few such coins in a bag but you'd have to check a large number of bags and for each denomination. It would be far easier to believe the mint made them up for some special and unknown purpose.
I haven't seen these sets but am going off professional description as being early strikes and high tonnage. Their very existence is far fetched yet they exist. If the descriptions are correct I must believe that the mint or someone at the mint had them made as sets. If no records exist then they were probably made "unofficially" like the WI quarter types or some of the Gem mint sets from the early clad years. There has always been "horseplay" and various unofficial production at the mints. There have been proof sets packaged by hand containing die caps. There have been proof set test packages mailed in lieu of proof sets. Many things seen at (from) the mint are not official. This might apply to '64 SMS's.
When you write “The minting of the real ones…” it implies that others being discussed aren’t real. All of the coins being discussed are real. Distinctions can be made and skepticism (or even incredulity) can be expressed without making it sound like not all of the coins are “real”.
Sorry for the confusion. I wrote "However one variation as you show here isn't really determinative especially in light of the fact that the "real" SMS's from 1965 also show large variations in appearance and production techniques." to highlight the fact it's not known as fact that the '64 sets are "SMS" or even necessarily packaged as a mint product.
Late to the party but can't help but wonder if there might be some overlap in the overall presentation of SMS coins and proof coins, even if many seem to come from more polished dies.... Sanction II seems to hint at this possibility.
Other countries such as Great Britain and Canada have some coins that bely "pigeonholing" in that they really don't fit in nice neat categories such as "Specimen", "Prooflike", or "Proof" and so then it seems to broach that [surprise, surprise] these borderline coins are considered by some be of one type and by others to be of another or possibly the same.
I just can't see the value of one of these in-between coins if there are not physically distinguishing characteristics or significantly varying dies from "ordinary" superior first-strike circulation coins on the one end, and then proof coins struck from beleaguered dies on the other.
Well, I am listening and hope to learn.
Well, just Love coins, period.
Then I suppose there's some rationale for these. Thank you for providing it. I didn't know any of this and am seeing this issue clearer for it.
Thank you, Mark, but I knew what he meant. By "real," he was referencing the documented ones. These require a leap of faith and are based on speculation and conjecture.
Ironically, not a single one of these coins on the market has any documentation.
Coin Photographer.
The joy of researching the archives is looking for that a-ha piece that answers a question. The frustrating part of researching is knowing that not all of the documentation is there. Not all of the records end up at the archives. I don’t know who decides what is important and what isn’t to send to the archives from the Mint.
The only documented ones are the 1965s and up.
Ah, ok. Yes, those are heavily documented.
@PhillyJoe - my research may be of interest to you. Do you want to read a draft?
Coin Photographer.
Absolutely! Thank you.
That’s just the type of confusion I anticipated when the words “real” and “documented” started getting tossed around, along with mention of sets from other years.😉
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
I’m completely uneducated about these beyond what I’ve read here, but I don’t think it is outside of the realm of possibility that the half dollars would actually be the “special” strikes, while the lower denomination coins were not. I can see a situation where some regular strike coins could be thrown in with a special strike half to make a set.
@MFeld:
You must know Steve Blum well from his days as JA’s partner and later buddy for so many years?
Actually, I don't know Steve very well.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
Does anyone know what month the last 1964 silver coins were minted? I thought I read somewhere it went into 1966.
This is very interesting, thank you for sharing.
I keep getting held up on "Mr. Merkin told him that Eva Adams, who had been U.S. Mint Director from 1961-1969, had given him the sets and asked him to show them around to some people and ask what they thought of them." When the mint director shared these coins, there was no follow up statement or question? My first reaction would have been wow these are spectacular, what am I looking at or am I looking at a special strike?
Without looking it up I believe dimes were still being struck in February of '66.
If I had more details, I'd happily share them. But based on my conversation with Steve Blum, it was obvious that he was convinced the coins were specially made. And that Lester Merkin was proud of them/considered them to be something very special.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
From the US Mint
As required by law, all United States coins are currently dated with the year of their issuance or minting.
In 1964, however, a coin shortage caused speculation in rolls and bags of 1964 coins. To prevent such speculation, Congress passed legislation declaring that the United States Mint could still use the 1964 date on coinage after the 1964 calendar year. So in 1965, all denominations of United States coins continued to be struck with the 1964 date.
In 1965, Congress mandated that the Mint continue to use the 1964 date on all 90 percent silver coins. However, because clad coins (which were not 90 percent silver) were not as likely to spark speculation, they would be dated no earlier than 1965.
This meant that all of the 90 percent silver coins (half-dollar, quarter-dollar, and 10-cent coins) that the Mint manufactured in 1964, 1965, and 1966 bore the date 1964. (The last of the 90 percent silver quarter-dollar coins was struck in January 1966, the last of the 10-cent coins in February 1966, and the last of the half-dollar coins in April 1966.)
All of the clad coins actually manufactured in 1965 bear the 1965 date. The clad coins were struck with the 1965 date through July 31, 1966. (The first clad 10-cent coin was struck in December 1965, the first clad quarter-dollar coin in August 1965, and the first clad half-dollar coin in December 1965.)
As one step toward catching up on normal coin dating, in December 1965, the 1964 date on five-cent coins and one-cent coins was changed to 1965. From December 1965 through July 31, 1966, all one-cent coins and five-cent coins were struck with the 1965 date. All denominations of United States coins minted from August 1 through December 31, 1966 carried the 1966 date.
Normal dating procedures resumed on January 1, 1967, and continued through 1974.
and the last of the half-dollar coins in April 1966.)
Thank you. I had forgotten this.
It is always worth noting that this is 'mint speak" which bears relatively little relationship with English or numismatic terminology.
"As required by law, all United States coins are currently dated with the year of their issuance or minting."
This doesn't mean that the next year's coins aren't actually minted in November and December as test pieces and these often are placed into bags with the current year mintage. Sometimes collectors have gotten the next year's coinage before January 1st. Once midnight rolls around you can no longer "prove" the coin was minted early.
First let me apologize if this is answered above (I have not had time to read this bookmarked thread).
Please help. Proof 1964 halves come with Type 1 and Type 2 reverses. I looked at the reverse of a 1964 50c SMS coin on Heritage and it has a Type one reverse. Question: Do some normal MS 1964 50c exist with the Type 1 reverse with the broken ray?
http://varietyvista.com/12 Kennedy Halves/Reverse Design Varieties.htm
If I was aware of the unusual dating of coins during the changeover to clad I had forgotten it. (I love this thread.) Was the mint able to keep the silver and clad planchets separate without any errors? I've not heard of any clad coins dated 1964 nor silver coins dated 1965, but I don't follow errors.
Not completely separate, no. Both types of errors you mentioned are known (with more 1965 silver coins known than 1964 clad). These are called "transitional errors".
There is a single '64 clad quarter and no dimes. There are quite a few known silver '65 dimes and quarters (<25 IMS).
Thanks PhillyJoe for the refresher.
With the 'looseness' of mint production in 1964 through 1966, it leaves wide open to when these SMS coins were actually struck.
@IkesT
@cladking
Thank you both.
.
This is a post from John Butler which seems to go with what MFeld recalls.
.
.
I don't really have an interest in the SMS but I guess just enough coin nerd there to read through some of this thread. As far as other Specimen coins I thought of the Morgans (imagine that) and the branch mint proofs (or sometimes called specimens). As I recall four date and mint marks have some form of 'documentation', some better than others, but other dates and mint marks have been graded as proof or specimen (might depend on service) and have no documentation. I think it is only the 1879 O that had/has a die pair not otherwise used. Other were also used to mint regular circulation strikes and some of the special strikes (proof / specimen) were used dies.
https://youtube.com/watch?v=2YNufnS_kf4 - Mama I'm coming home ...................................................................................................................................................................... RLJ 1958 - 2023
The coins or the story? Which one's doing "the talking?" There's the question. Post hoc ergo propter hoc, here, no?
I have no pony in this race, just a comment on the lack of documentation and what it means:
Show me the complete U.S. Mint file on the 1964-D Morgan and Peace Silver Dollars, and then I will believe that the lack of documentation on the so-called 1964 SMS coins means that no such coins were ever made.
TD
There weren't 6.5 billion of these minted. Res ipsa loquitur, no? I mean, how is one getting these confused with anything?
It seems what the mint does mostly fits into seven broad categories;
Official
Semi-official
Unofficial
Horse play
Shenanigans
Accidents on purpose
and
Accidents.
They do a great job but how many factories have millions of people watching every move, parsing the production reports, and scrutinizing every widget?
Is complete the key word here? (Curiosity, not argument).
For the coins that were originally in Eva Adam’s possession (or with others) as “sets”, how were they stored? In envelopes? In plastic “SMS” holders (probably not)? In a Wayte Raymond holder?
After reading your post, I contacted Steve Blum, asked how the coins were stored and let him know I'd post his reply here. He wrote: "Coins were in cellophane and kept in individual flips. Easily passed over by Lester’s widow as not being very important".
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
Since we do not know what would be in a complete file, no.
Okay, I understood correctly, thanks.
Now there's a coincidence. That is to say, I have coins stored that way, too. I suppose these weren't labeled by this Director of the Mint as anything special, though, I mean, given the theory, now, they were probably easily passed over as not being very important. That of course doesn't mean that they weren't very important, only that it hadn't occurred to this Director of the Mint to label the flips, as such. Funny. I label all my important coins, my varieties, my errors, even my die cracks, I put little arrows right on the flip, right adjacent to them. That way I know they're there when I look back on them later. Sometimes you can overlook a repunched date or mint mark when you look back on them later, if the flips aren't labeled. But anyway, that's why I do it. FWIW.
It seems in the coin realm or any other collectible area, there is nothing like a good controversy/uncertainty to help drive interest/value. 1913 nickels,$20 gold eagles etc.
Thanks Mark.
Perhaps it was Wondercoin who explained to me the SMS 68 > @BLUEJAYWAY said:
Peacock Ikes and the Appalachian Hoard nickels would fit in that category.
peacockcoins
February 14, 1964
Miss Eva Adams
Director of the Mint
Washington, D.C. 20220
Dear Miss Adams,
Since we have been instructed to discontinue the special project of the "Morgan" dollar, we are forwarding to you today by registered mail the ten (10) silver dollars dated consecutively from 1879 to 1888 loaned to us, your letter of September 27, 1963.
Michael H. Sura
Superintendent, United States Mint, Philadelphia
Trust me when I say that is pretty much the entire file concerning the 1964 Morgan/Peace dollar project.