So do all 1964’s have the same extent of artwork all over them I have never seen one this clear and detailed so I assumed it must be different. Lots of detail but I guess that is all over the business strikes not he SMS.
@Ballmrb said:
So do all 1964’s have the same extent of artwork all over them I have never seen one this clear and detailed so I assumed it must be different. Lots of detail but I guess that is all over the business strikes not he SMS.
The only thing you need to worry about is putting the 1964 cents in your Whitman folder.
Over many years there have been multiple threads posted by multiple persons who claim that they have a 1964 SMS coin. They post photos of their coin and ask for opinions on whether or not their coin is an SMS.
Opinions are given that the poster's coin is not an SMS. The posters disagree and assert their coin is an SMS.
The poster is advised to submit their coin to our host for grading and to announce the results.
To my knowledge this advice has never been followed, either because the poster never submits their coin for grading; or because they do submit their coin and it comes back not graded an SMS (and the poster never announces the grade result).
Wash and repeat.
The poster of this thread is encouraged to submit their coin for grading and reveal the results in this thread.
@Steven59 said:
The odds of finding any 1964 SMS coin in circulation is..............let's just say........ZERO.
The odds are certainly not zero.
,
Untill anybody finds one they are certainly zero.........
PM to be sent.
If anyone else would like proof please feel free to PM me.
If you have photographed an unknown specimen that was found in the wild, that would confirm your statement. Until then, I do not accept that there are any to be discovered out there.
@Steven59 said:
OK - Is any of this correct and can be collaborated??
According to "Flying Al": The SMS coins were included in commercial mint sets.
I have researched these extensively and published award winning research on them.
Finding them in a mint set is circulation.
“Collaborated is the past tense and past participle of the verb collaborate, meaning to work jointly with others on an activity, project, or goal.”
On the other hand, “corroborated means to back up, support, or prove that a statement, story, or theory is true by using new facts, evidence, or a witness.”
“Coin circulation is the journey of money moving from the U.S. Mint through banks and into everyday pockets and cash registers.”
Mint sets aren’t typically considered to be coins in circulation.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
Well, thank you very much to @Steven59 for posting our PM conversation here publicly. Would have been nice if you asked first.
@MFeld - as I see it, Mint Sets are an official distribution channel for circulation coins, and therefore I consider coins in those sets as “in circulation”. Perhaps “in the wild” is a better term, but it feels like a grey area that has very little impact on the actual point being made.
@FlyingAl said:
Well, thank you very much to @Steven59 for posting our PM conversation here publicly. Would have been nice if you asked first.
@MFeld - as I see it, Mint Sets are an official distribution channel for circulation coins, and therefore I consider coins in those sets as “in circulation”. Perhaps “in the wild” is a better term, but it feels like a grey area that has very little impact on the actual point being made.
@FlyingAl, unfortunately, not everyone treats PM conversations as private.
Regarding the choice of a term, rather than “in circulation” or “in the wild” how about “other than in TPG holders”? 😉
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
@Steven59 said:
OK - Is any of this correct and can be collaborated??
According to "Flying Al": The SMS coins were included in commercial mint sets.
I have researched these extensively and published award winning research on them.
Finding them in a mint set is circulation.
I have seen no facts to support that there are any true 1964 SMS coins nor that any were produced. It is my opinion that those examples currently designated as SMS are simply early strikes from brand new dies. I think it is also very likely those dies which produced these early strikes were then put to use and produced many thousands of coins for circulation.
Mint sets are simply made up of coins that were produced for circulation, these received (then or now) no special handling or care before being placed into the mint sets. As far as I know the coins placed into mint sets are not chosen specifically from early strikes, simply pulled out of production runs as needed. It is therefore possible that EDS coins from those dies may have been distributed in mint sets. Perhaps that is why Flying Al thinks SMS coins would have been or could be found in mint sets; this theory may be covered in his article which I have not read.
Mint sets are simply made up of coins that were produced for circulation, these received (then or now) no special handling or care before being placed into the mint sets.
I don't believe this is accurate. I have always understood that mint set coins are struck at a slower rate on different presses than circulation coins.
Mint sets are simply made up of coins that were produced for circulation, these received (then or now) no special handling or care before being placed into the mint sets.
I don't believe this is accurate. I have always understood that mint set coins are struck at a slower rate on different presses than circulation coins.
I think it depends on the time period.
All comments reflect the opinion of the author, even when irrefutably accurate.
Mint sets are simply made up of coins that were produced for circulation, these received (then or now) no special handling or care before being placed into the mint sets.
I don't believe this is accurate. I have always understood that mint set coins are struck at a slower rate on different presses than circulation coins.
Mint sets are simply made up of coins that were produced for circulation, these received (then or now) no special handling or care before being placed into the mint sets.
I don't believe this is accurate. I have always understood that mint set coins are struck at a slower rate on different presses than circulation coins.
@FlyingAl said:
Well, thank you very much to @Steven59 for posting our PM conversation here publicly. Would have been nice if you asked first.
@MFeld - as I see it, Mint Sets are an official distribution channel for circulation coins, and therefore I consider coins in those sets as “in circulation”. Perhaps “in the wild” is a better term, but it feels like a grey area that has very little impact on the actual point being made.
@FlyingAl, unfortunately, not everyone treats PM conversations as private.
Regarding the choice of a term, rather than “in circulation” or “in the wild” how about “other than in TPG holders”? 😉
@Steven59 said:
OK - Is any of this correct and can be collaborated??
According to "Flying Al": The SMS coins were included in commercial mint sets.
I have researched these extensively and published award winning research on them.
Finding them in a mint set is circulation.
I have seen no facts to support that there are any true 1964 SMS coins nor that any were produced. It is my opinion that those examples currently designated as SMS are simply early strikes from brand new dies. I think it is also very likely those dies which produced these early strikes were then put to use and produced many thousands of coins for circulation.
Mint sets are simply made up of coins that were produced for circulation, these received (then or now) no special handling or care before being placed into the mint sets. As far as I know the coins placed into mint sets are not chosen specifically from early strikes, simply pulled out of production runs as needed. It is therefore possible that EDS coins from those dies may have been distributed in mint sets. Perhaps that is why Flying Al thinks SMS coins would have been or could be found in mint sets; this theory may be covered in his article which I have not read.
There are clearly many people who share your view. But other than official documentation, what would suffice as “facts”?
I believe the dealer I’ve known for more than 40 years, who told me that his dealer-friend, Lester Merkin, had been given some of these sets by Mint Director Eva Adams, to show around and see what people thought of them.
He also told me that Lester Merkin (who was no ordinary dealer) was very proud of the special looking sets. After he died, his widow consigned some or all of those sets to Stack’s. I believe that Lester Merkin and others would know the difference between early strikes and specially made coins.
And yes, I realize that my above comments amount to hearsay, not facts. So I can certainly understand why there are many skeptics.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
@FlyingAl said:
Well, thank you very much to @Steven59 for posting our PM conversation here publicly. Would have been nice if you asked first.
@MFeld - as I see it, Mint Sets are an official distribution channel for circulation coins, and therefore I consider coins in those sets as “in circulation”. Perhaps “in the wild” is a better term, but it feels like a grey area that has very little impact on the actual point being made.
@FlyingAl, unfortunately, not everyone treats PM conversations as private.
Regarding the choice of a term, rather than “in circulation” or “in the wild” how about “other than in TPG holders”? 😉
Mark, that works for me!
Done deal, Alex.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
From Annual Report of the Director of the Mint for the Fiscal Year Ended June 30, 1964...
"The Mint accepted orders from the public for the purchase of "Mint sets" of uncirculated coins commencing on May 1, 1964. The unprecedented volume of orders was so great that it was necessary to discontinue their acceptance at the end of one week. A single 10-coin "Mint set" includes one of each denomination (50^, 25^, lO'r, 5^, and 1<^ ) manufactured during the calendar year 1964 by the Philadelphia and Denver Mints. The sets are assembled and packaged at the San Francisco Assay Office."
@MasonG said:
From Annual Report of the Director of the Mint for the Fiscal Year Ended June 30, 1964...
"The Mint accepted orders from the public for the purchase of "Mint sets" of uncirculated coins commencing on May 1, 1964. The unprecedented volume of orders was so great that it was necessary to discontinue their acceptance at the end of one week. A single 10-coin "Mint set" includes one of each denomination (50^, 25^, lO'r, 5^, and 1<^ ) manufactured during the calendar year 1964 by the Philadelphia and Denver Mints. The sets are assembled and packaged at the San Francisco Assay Office."
I forget if it was in @FlyingAl 's original article or not, but did the Smithsonian have an acquisition date (if at all) well before or near to when the 1964 annual Mints Sets were offered?
"To Be Esteemed Be Useful" - 1792 Birch Cent --- "I personally think we developed language because of our deep need to complain." - Lily Tomlin
@MFeld said:
There are clearly many people who share your view. But other than official documentation, what would suffice as “facts”?
I believe the dealer I’ve known for more than 40 years, who told me that his dealer-friend, Lester Merkin, had been given some of these sets by Mint Director Eva Adams, to show around and see what people thought of them.
He also told me that Lester Merkin (who was no ordinary dealer) was very proud of the special looking sets. After he died, his widow consigned some or all of those sets to Stack’s. I believe that Lester Merkin and others would know the difference between early strikes and specially made coins.
And yes, I realize that my above comments amount to hearsay, not facts. So I can certainly understand why there are many skeptics.
I am not disputing that you and others believe the individuals and the stories that were relayed to you. But human nature is well documented in cases like this, information becomes muddied as it passes from one person to the next, to the next. Like a story about an event that grows or is further embellished every time it is told until at some point the story no longer resembles the original event. Not saying anyone lied or intentionally embellished, but without any formal documentation to corroborate the story it is just a story.
Without any mint documentation to substantiate the process or reason why these coins were produced all that can be proven is that they are visibly different than the normal production coins from 1964. So to answer your question I think that there would need to be the proper documentation from the mint before these could or ever should have been described as SMS coins, that is the facts and proof I would like to see.
@MFeld said:
There are clearly many people who share your view. But other than official documentation, what would suffice as “facts”?
I believe the dealer I’ve known for more than 40 years, who told me that his dealer-friend, Lester Merkin, had been given some of these sets by Mint Director Eva Adams, to show around and see what people thought of them.
He also told me that Lester Merkin (who was no ordinary dealer) was very proud of the special looking sets. After he died, his widow consigned some or all of those sets to Stack’s. I believe that Lester Merkin and others would know the difference between early strikes and specially made coins.
And yes, I realize that my above comments amount to hearsay, not facts. So I can certainly understand why there are many skeptics.
I am not disputing that you and others believe the individuals and the stories that were relayed to you. But human nature is well documented in cases like this, information becomes muddied as it passes from one person to the next, to the next. Like a story about an event that grows or is further embellished every time it is told until at some point the story no longer resembles the original event. Not saying anyone lied or intentionally embellished, but without any formal documentation to corroborate the story it is just a story.
Without any mint documentation to substantiate the process or reason why these coins were produced all that can be proven is that they are visibly different than the normal production coins from 1964. So to answer your question I think that there would need to be the proper documentation from the mint before these could or ever should have been described as SMS coins, that is the facts and proof I would like to see.
Your stance is completely reasonable as far as I’m concerned.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
@FlyingAl said:
Well, thank you very much to @Steven59 for posting our PM conversation here publicly. Would have been nice if you asked first.
@MFeld - as I see it, Mint Sets are an official distribution channel for circulation coins, and therefore I consider coins in those sets as “in circulation”. Perhaps “in the wild” is a better term, but it feels like a grey area that has very little impact on the actual point being made.
Just trying to learn if your Opinions are Facts - I never asked for your PM's so if you don't like me posting them then keep them to yourself? Were you scared to post your opinions where the Experts can decipherer them?
"When they can't find anything wrong with you, they create it!"
@FlyingAl said:
Well, thank you very much to @Steven59 for posting our PM conversation here publicly. Would have been nice if you asked first.
@MFeld - as I see it, Mint Sets are an official distribution channel for circulation coins, and therefore I consider coins in those sets as “in circulation”. Perhaps “in the wild” is a better term, but it feels like a grey area that has very little impact on the actual point being made.
Just trying to learn if your Opinions are Facts - I never asked for your PM's so if you don't like me posting them then keep them to yourself? Were you scared to post your opinions where the Experts can decipherer them?
Well, you won/t be getting many more PMs, so the problem is self-correcting.
He PUBLICLY PUBLISHED his opinions previously. Doesn't sound like he was scared at all.
All comments reflect the opinion of the author, even when irrefutably accurate.
@FlyingAl said:
Well, thank you very much to @Steven59 for posting our PM conversation here publicly. Would have been nice if you asked first.
@MFeld - as I see it, Mint Sets are an official distribution channel for circulation coins, and therefore I consider coins in those sets as “in circulation”. Perhaps “in the wild” is a better term, but it feels like a grey area that has very little impact on the actual point being made.
Just trying to learn if your Opinions are Facts - I never asked for your PM's so if you don't like me posting them then keep them to yourself? Were you scared to post your opinions where the Experts can decipherer them?
And @FlyingAl was just trying to provide information to you. Your attitude serves as a great example for others
(to deplore).
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
Comments
There's an old Steven Wright joke:
"I'm planning on living forever...so far, so good."
All comments reflect the opinion of the author, even when irrefutably accurate.
Please, DO NOT rush 👍
So do all 1964’s have the same extent of artwork all over them I have never seen one this clear and detailed so I assumed it must be different. Lots of detail but I guess that is all over the business strikes not he SMS.
The only thing you need to worry about is putting the 1964 cents in your Whitman folder.
Over many years there have been multiple threads posted by multiple persons who claim that they have a 1964 SMS coin. They post photos of their coin and ask for opinions on whether or not their coin is an SMS.
Opinions are given that the poster's coin is not an SMS. The posters disagree and assert their coin is an SMS.
The poster is advised to submit their coin to our host for grading and to announce the results.
To my knowledge this advice has never been followed, either because the poster never submits their coin for grading; or because they do submit their coin and it comes back not graded an SMS (and the poster never announces the grade result).
Wash and repeat.
The poster of this thread is encouraged to submit their coin for grading and reveal the results in this thread.
Will that happen? I do not think so.
Well - maybe until you piss off the wrong person.........
(Public service announcement: No intent was referred to in this general statement!)
So..........................
"When they can't find anything wrong with you, they create it!"
OK - Is any of this correct and can be collaborated??
According to "Flying Al": The SMS coins were included in commercial mint sets.
I have researched these extensively and published award winning research on them.
Finding them in a mint set is circulation.
"When they can't find anything wrong with you, they create it!"
If you have photographed an unknown specimen that was found in the wild, that would confirm your statement. Until then, I do not accept that there are any to be discovered out there.
“Collaborated is the past tense and past participle of the verb collaborate, meaning to work jointly with others on an activity, project, or goal.”
On the other hand, “corroborated means to back up, support, or prove that a statement, story, or theory is true by using new facts, evidence, or a witness.”
“Coin circulation is the journey of money moving from the U.S. Mint through banks and into everyday pockets and cash registers.”
Mint sets aren’t typically considered to be coins in circulation.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
Well, thank you very much to @Steven59 for posting our PM conversation here publicly. Would have been nice if you asked first.
@MFeld - as I see it, Mint Sets are an official distribution channel for circulation coins, and therefore I consider coins in those sets as “in circulation”. Perhaps “in the wild” is a better term, but it feels like a grey area that has very little impact on the actual point being made.
Coin Photography
@FlyingAl, unfortunately, not everyone treats PM conversations as private.
Regarding the choice of a term, rather than “in circulation” or “in the wild” how about “other than in TPG holders”? 😉
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
I have seen no facts to support that there are any true 1964 SMS coins nor that any were produced. It is my opinion that those examples currently designated as SMS are simply early strikes from brand new dies. I think it is also very likely those dies which produced these early strikes were then put to use and produced many thousands of coins for circulation.
Mint sets are simply made up of coins that were produced for circulation, these received (then or now) no special handling or care before being placed into the mint sets. As far as I know the coins placed into mint sets are not chosen specifically from early strikes, simply pulled out of production runs as needed. It is therefore possible that EDS coins from those dies may have been distributed in mint sets. Perhaps that is why Flying Al thinks SMS coins would have been or could be found in mint sets; this theory may be covered in his article which I have not read.
My Collection of Old Holders
Never a slave to one plastic brand will I ever be.
I don't believe this is accurate. I have always understood that mint set coins are struck at a slower rate on different presses than circulation coins.
I think it depends on the time period.
All comments reflect the opinion of the author, even when irrefutably accurate.
Okay, how about back in 1964?
I'm not sure.
https://www.thesprucecrafts.com/us-uncirculated-mint-set-values-4051532
According to this site, no special treatment.
In modern times (post 2010) they have claimed higher strike pressures for mint sets.
All comments reflect the opinion of the author, even when irrefutably accurate.
Mark, that works for me!
Coin Photography
There are clearly many people who share your view. But other than official documentation, what would suffice as “facts”?
I believe the dealer I’ve known for more than 40 years, who told me that his dealer-friend, Lester Merkin, had been given some of these sets by Mint Director Eva Adams, to show around and see what people thought of them.
He also told me that Lester Merkin (who was no ordinary dealer) was very proud of the special looking sets. After he died, his widow consigned some or all of those sets to Stack’s. I believe that Lester Merkin and others would know the difference between early strikes and specially made coins.
And yes, I realize that my above comments amount to hearsay, not facts. So I can certainly understand why there are many skeptics.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
Done deal, Alex.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
From Annual Report of the Director of the Mint for the Fiscal Year Ended June 30, 1964...
"The Mint accepted orders from the public for the purchase of "Mint sets" of uncirculated coins commencing on May 1, 1964. The unprecedented volume of orders was so great that it was necessary to discontinue their acceptance at the end of one week. A single 10-coin "Mint set" includes one of each denomination (50^, 25^, lO'r, 5^, and 1<^ ) manufactured during the calendar year 1964 by the Philadelphia and Denver Mints. The sets are assembled and packaged at the San Francisco Assay Office."
https://nnp.wustl.edu/library/book/514149?page=15
I forget if it was in @FlyingAl 's original article or not, but did the Smithsonian have an acquisition date (if at all) well before or near to when the 1964 annual Mints Sets were offered?
"To Be Esteemed Be Useful" - 1792 Birch Cent --- "I personally think we developed language because of our deep need to complain." - Lily Tomlin
I am not disputing that you and others believe the individuals and the stories that were relayed to you. But human nature is well documented in cases like this, information becomes muddied as it passes from one person to the next, to the next. Like a story about an event that grows or is further embellished every time it is told until at some point the story no longer resembles the original event. Not saying anyone lied or intentionally embellished, but without any formal documentation to corroborate the story it is just a story.
Without any mint documentation to substantiate the process or reason why these coins were produced all that can be proven is that they are visibly different than the normal production coins from 1964. So to answer your question I think that there would need to be the proper documentation from the mint before these could or ever should have been described as SMS coins, that is the facts and proof I would like to see.
My Collection of Old Holders
Never a slave to one plastic brand will I ever be.
Your stance is completely reasonable as far as I’m concerned.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
Just trying to learn if your Opinions are Facts - I never asked for your PM's so if you don't like me posting them then keep them to yourself? Were you scared to post your opinions where the Experts can decipherer them?
"When they can't find anything wrong with you, they create it!"
Well, you won/t be getting many more PMs, so the problem is self-correcting.
He PUBLICLY PUBLISHED his opinions previously. Doesn't sound like he was scared at all.
All comments reflect the opinion of the author, even when irrefutably accurate.
And @FlyingAl was just trying to provide information to you. Your attitude serves as a great example for others
(to deplore).
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.