As I recall, the Mint suspended production of 1964 proof sets after around 3 million had been minted, comparable to the mintage of the 1961 to 1963 sets. When it appeared that no more sets would be made, speculators drove the price up from $2.10 to around ten dollars ($75 in today's money). Proof set production was resumed a few months later, due to continuing collector demand and supposedly to put an end to the speculation.
I think the 1965-67 special mint sets were struck to appease collectors who felt (with some justification) that they were being unfairly blamed for the coin shortage. Many collectors (myself included) responded to the lack of 1965 proof sets by ordering that year's Canadian proof-like sets, which included silver dimes through dollars.
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.
As I recall, there was considerable disagreement with that article, but the discussion ended badly.
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.
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.
As I recall, there was considerable disagreement with that article, but the discussion ended badly.
After some research, here are the prices realized added for the lots listed in the original post.
While not useful to understanding the origins of these 1964 sets, I find the prices realized helpful to indicating the perception of the sets when first showing up and possible reactions by the market back then to their continued availability at Stack's auctions. The prices show at least some bidders viewed them as very different than regular issues. There seemed to be a general down trend after a strong start in prices realized over time, perhaps indicating concern that more sets might keep on becoming available or a market losing interest in about how special they were.
They also might indicate clues as to whether their are differences among the sets that were offered. If any people saw all of them they may be able to answer if that last $33.00 set (assuming no mistake on Stack's PR list) was either not from the same dies as the other sets; or worse condition from the others; or just slipped through the cracks to sell so cheap.
5/2/1990 - Lot 1352 - - hammer price of $715.00 for a total of $786.50
6/19/1991 - Lot 591 - - hammer price listed of $1,000.00 for a total of $1,100.00
6/23/1992 - Lot 1230 - - Prices Realized shows as WITHDRAWN
9/10/1992 - Lot 1206 (3 sets) - - hammer price listed of $2,600.00 for a total of $2,860.00
12/2/1992 - Lot 1345 (missing the Nickel) - - hammer price of $160.00 for a total of $176.00 " (...set was identified to have a 1960 proof nickel with it (missing the nickel). - lilolme"
1/13/1993 - Lot 693 - - hammer price listed of $1,600.00 for a total of $1,760.00
3/18/1993 - Lot 2974 - - hammer price of $500.00 for a total of $550.00
5/5/1993 - Lot 1064 - - hammer price of $480.00 for a total of $528.00
6/16/1993 - 5 cents, 1 dime, 2 halves - Lot 1232 - - hammer price of $525.00 for a total of $577.50
9/8/1993 (not 10/13/1993 as labled on NNP) - Lot 635 - - hammer price of $220.00 for a total of $242.00
1/19/1994 - Lot 526 - - hammer price of $475.00 for a total of $522.50
3/22/1994 - Lot 956 - - hammer price of $230.00 for a total of $253.00
5/2/1995 - Lot 430 - - hammer price of $30.00 for a total of $33.00 (assuming no mistake on Stack's PR list)
= = = = = = =
As far as their origins:
Is there any way to rule in or out whether these sets may have had to do with presenting the newly issued Kennedy Half early in the year as opposed to a test for special striking to replace Proof and regular Mint Sets? Are there any other possible reasons they could have been struck for aside from an SMS test?
The typically higher than normal coin preservation and die polish for each denomination would seem to indicate a special situation of hand picking these 1964 sets right after striking rather than picking random examples. So there seems to be a plan and purpose rather than just a sample from regular production.
It may be helpful if someone has been able to compare the recently discovered (around 2013 - see link to thread) Smithsonian 'special strikes" from the 1950's to 1970's to see if the 1964's located there are from the same or different dies as these 1964 sets. Has anyone done this or if not, does anyone have access to both for comparison? I'm guessing they are different unless the occasion for additional 1964 sets coincided with producing issues for the Smithsonian. It doesn't seem any other year sets exist of early strikes outside of the Smithsonian for the date range.
.
.
Coin World - 8/5/2013 First Strikes in the Smithsonian National Numismatic Collection!
Saw this on ebay, reminded me of this topic. Could it be from the dies that struck the so-called SMS nickels? We should assume those dies went on to help strike a billion more. lol
Leo
The more qualities observed in a coin, the more desirable that coin becomes!
Comments
As I recall, the Mint suspended production of 1964 proof sets after around 3 million had been minted, comparable to the mintage of the 1961 to 1963 sets. When it appeared that no more sets would be made, speculators drove the price up from $2.10 to around ten dollars ($75 in today's money). Proof set production was resumed a few months later, due to continuing collector demand and supposedly to put an end to the speculation.
I think the 1965-67 special mint sets were struck to appease collectors who felt (with some justification) that they were being unfairly blamed for the coin shortage. Many collectors (myself included) responded to the lack of 1965 proof sets by ordering that year's Canadian proof-like sets, which included silver dimes through dollars.
My Adolph A. Weinman signature
As I recall, there was considerable disagreement with that article, but the discussion ended badly.
Interesting - I was not aware of that.
After some research, here are the prices realized added for the lots listed in the original post.
While not useful to understanding the origins of these 1964 sets, I find the prices realized helpful to indicating the perception of the sets when first showing up and possible reactions by the market back then to their continued availability at Stack's auctions. The prices show at least some bidders viewed them as very different than regular issues. There seemed to be a general down trend after a strong start in prices realized over time, perhaps indicating concern that more sets might keep on becoming available or a market losing interest in about how special they were.
They also might indicate clues as to whether their are differences among the sets that were offered. If any people saw all of them they may be able to answer if that last $33.00 set (assuming no mistake on Stack's PR list) was either not from the same dies as the other sets; or worse condition from the others; or just slipped through the cracks to sell so cheap.
5/2/1990 - Lot 1352 - - hammer price of $715.00 for a total of $786.50
6/19/1991 - Lot 591 - - hammer price listed of $1,000.00 for a total of $1,100.00
6/23/1992 - Lot 1230 - - Prices Realized shows as WITHDRAWN
9/10/1992 - Lot 1206 (3 sets) - - hammer price listed of $2,600.00 for a total of $2,860.00
12/2/1992 - Lot 1345 (missing the Nickel) - - hammer price of $160.00 for a total of $176.00 " (...set was identified to have a 1960 proof nickel with it (missing the nickel). - lilolme"
1/13/1993 - Lot 693 - - hammer price listed of $1,600.00 for a total of $1,760.00
3/18/1993 - Lot 2974 - - hammer price of $500.00 for a total of $550.00
5/5/1993 - Lot 1064 - - hammer price of $480.00 for a total of $528.00
6/16/1993 - 5 cents, 1 dime, 2 halves - Lot 1232 - - hammer price of $525.00 for a total of $577.50
9/8/1993 (not 10/13/1993 as labled on NNP) - Lot 635 - - hammer price of $220.00 for a total of $242.00
1/19/1994 - Lot 526 - - hammer price of $475.00 for a total of $522.50
3/22/1994 - Lot 956 - - hammer price of $230.00 for a total of $253.00
5/2/1995 - Lot 430 - - hammer price of $30.00 for a total of $33.00 (assuming no mistake on Stack's PR list)
= = = = = = =
As far as their origins:
Is there any way to rule in or out whether these sets may have had to do with presenting the newly issued Kennedy Half early in the year as opposed to a test for special striking to replace Proof and regular Mint Sets? Are there any other possible reasons they could have been struck for aside from an SMS test?
The typically higher than normal coin preservation and die polish for each denomination would seem to indicate a special situation of hand picking these 1964 sets right after striking rather than picking random examples. So there seems to be a plan and purpose rather than just a sample from regular production.
It may be helpful if someone has been able to compare the recently discovered (around 2013 - see link to thread) Smithsonian 'special strikes" from the 1950's to 1970's to see if the 1964's located there are from the same or different dies as these 1964 sets. Has anyone done this or if not, does anyone have access to both for comparison? I'm guessing they are different unless the occasion for additional 1964 sets coincided with producing issues for the Smithsonian. It doesn't seem any other year sets exist of early strikes outside of the Smithsonian for the date range.
.
.
Coin World - 8/5/2013 First Strikes in the Smithsonian National Numismatic Collection!
https://forums.collectors.com/discussion/894254/coin-world-8-5-2013-first-strikes-in-the-smithsonian-national-numismatic-collection
.
.
Guessing that the future article by FlyingAl will clarify or fully answer these issues regarding the 1964 sets.
"To Be Esteemed Be Useful" - 1792 Birch Cent --- "I personally think we developed language because of our deep need to complain." - Lily Tomlin
Any updates on the "new information"?
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
Yes, I’m working on getting the final touches added and will be contacting publishers here soon.
Coin Photographer.
Wanted to update this thread.
As of this time, a finished and reviewed article is slated to appear as the cover article in November's issue of The Numismatist.
Coin Photographer.
Alex, please tell them I said November isn’t soon enough.😉
I hope it’s OK to extend my congratulations, in advance.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
Mark, that's funny.
We did try for a bit earlier, but I'm not complaining. It's been a long time coming for this work to be published.
Thank you!
Coin Photographer.
Alex - Just one more feather in your cap to add to ALL of the others! And this time the COVER story!
WOW!
Steve
My collecting “Pride & Joy” is my PCGS Registry Dansco 7070 Set:
https://www.pcgs.com/setregistry/type-sets/design-type-sets/complete-dansco-7070-modified-type-set-1796-date/publishedset/213996
Saw this on ebay, reminded me of this topic. Could it be from the dies that struck the so-called SMS nickels? We should assume those dies went on to help strike a billion more. lol
Leo
The more qualities observed in a coin, the more desirable that coin becomes!
My Jefferson Nickel Collection
Congrats, Al! Quite an accomplishment
Dead Cat Waltz Exonumia
"Coin collecting for outcasts..."