GTG - 1964 50c - REVEALED - Is PCGS Recognizing a Status Change on 1964 "SMS" Coins?

MS64, DDO as well, but couldn't find it on Variety Vista. Despite the die chip (or gouge) at the end of the crossbar of the 4 and die polish, I don't believe it is an SMS coin. This is mainly because I don't think the known specimens have a DDO, at least from the 2 TrueViews in CoinFacts (and also, this coin isn't there).

Edit: After seeing the better closeups of the 2 SMS coins on Coinfacts, the DDO is visible on both coins and on the OP.

Hmmm...That close-up on the 4 is very interesting.

@cmerlo1 said:
MS64, DDO as well, but couldn't find it on Variety Vista. Despite the die chip (or gouge) at the end of the crossbar of the 4 and die polish, I don't believe it is an SMS coin. This is mainly because I don't think the known specimens have a DDO, at least from the 2 TrueViews in CoinFacts (and also, this coin isn't there).

You think those split serifs are enough?

Nice SMS Coin. The Close up gave it awat. I was going to guess SP63.

Ms 64

MS65+

MS66

@FlyingAl Thanks so much for sharing your discovery & detailed research; this is really impressive. You've definitely nailed the die marriage. 👍

Regarding your final point, I am not convinced from the photos that there is a die progression in the four coins shown; they all actually look to me like they are probably the same die state. These are pretty fine details, so some variation in appearance due to strike and/or lighting may perhaps be expected.

On the line extending from the "1", there appears to be a little knob at the end (red arrows added below). The connection to the line isn't clear in every photo, however the line is very fine and might just not show up equally well. I do see the knob in every photo.

On the line through the "O", I can see at least the beginning of it in every photo (red arrows also added below). The amount of the full line that I can see varies from photo to photo, with the first and last photos showing the most (again, this could be a striking and/or lighting issue).

I have long been skeptical of undocumented specimen coins and special proof coins that are undocumented. That includes the 1964 SMs coins. That said, it was very common to use retired proof dies from this era to subsequently strike business strike coins. It would not be surprising to see the same dies used to strike the SMS coins also used to strike business strike coins. Your counter argument is interesting, but I agree with @IkesT that you are not accounting for lighting or striking differences (including the possibility of different striking pressures).

I’m not convinced your research discredits the 1964 SMS coins entirely, but I do agree it raises a lot of questions worthy of additional study. It does confound the analysis for circulated SMS specimens as contemplated by Ron Guth though. Coin Facts should remove that statement.

Ron Guth’s quote isn’t (and I don’t think ever was) the sole requirement for PCGS to designate the prefix.

I would imagine to be called SP it would have to present the correct die markers, and also look like an SP

@FlyingAl said:
This coin is a fun one, the grade as it sits now is MS65. Several of you have caught on to me - this one comes from the same die pair as the "SMS" examples.

That also makes it unique and causes intense consequences for the tale of the “SMS” coins of this date, but we will discuss that later.

To start, we must begin with defining how the 1964 “SMS” coins are attributed. Most of the TPG statements on these coins are rather vague, but for the halves things get a little clearer. PCGS states in the CoinFacts description from Ron Guth that “One of the interesting diagnostic features of the Specimen Strike 1964 Half Dollars is a small, raised defect that appears to hang from the crosslet of the 4. This defect has been seen on all examples except one. In an admittedly rare hypothetical situation where one of these remarkable coins was spent, the defect can be used to confirm the original status of the coin.”

This is the clearest direct quote of how PCGS attributes these coins - based on die pair. Even if a half is spent, the dangling 4 diagnostic can confirm the status, regardless of what the example looks like. To further support that die pairs are used to attribute these coins, we can pull a couple more quotes from major auction descriptions, which shows how the numismatic community at large expects the attribution process to go.

1) Heritage Auctions, 1964 SMS 50c, “The 1964 SMS Kennedy half dollar die markers readily confirm the identity of known examples: Reverse. An especially heavy die polishing line runs from the bottom right tip of the small middle serif in (O)F to A(MERICA). Another heavy die polishing line runs from the lower-right tip of the small lower serif of the F in HALF to the rim near the D in DOLLAR. Obverse. A tiny teardrop-shaped (or apostrophe-shaped) lump of metal hangs down from the underside of the crosslet on the 4, just right of the intersection with the upright of that digit.”

2) Heritage Auctions, another 1964 SMS 50c, “The 1964 SMS Kennedy half dollar is struck on a 90% silver planchet, from a single pair of dies, showing much sharper detail than the regular issue and having a satiny surface texture. Die markers include: on the obverse, a tiny apostrophe-shaped lump of extra metal protruding from the bottom edge of the crosslet of the 4 in the date; on the reverse, a discernible die polishing line connecting the bottom tip of the lower crossbar of the (O)F to the A(MERICA), and another connecting the same crossbar of the (HAL)F to the rim near the D(OLLAR). This Superb Gem example exhibits all of those markers clearly”

3) Another Heritage auctions half “All 1964 SMS half dollars show various die markers that identify a single die pair. Die Markers: Reverse. An especially heavy die polishing line runs from the bottom right tip of the small middle serif in (O)F to A(MERICA). Another heavy die polishing line runs from the lower-right tip of the small lower serif of the F in HALF to the rim near the D in DOLLAR. Obverse. A tiny teardrop-shaped (or apostrophe-shaped) lump of metal hangs down from the underside of the crosslet on the 4, just right of the intersection with the upright of that digit.”

4) Stacks Bowers, another half (this description is repeated for two coins) “The surfaces also show clear evidence of extensive and purposeful die preparation work. This preparation is most clearly observed by the discernible die polishing lines on the reverse connecting the bottom tip of the lower crossbar of the F in OF to the A in AMERICA and another prominent polishing line leading from the tip of the lower crossbar of the F in HALF extending all the way to the rim just near the D in DOLLAR. The principal diagnostic marker is on the obverse in the form of the so-called "Dangling 4" - a small but clearly defined protrusion hanging from the tip of the right crossbar in the 4 in the date that is evident on all but one known specimen. These dies appear to have been specifically prepared for just these few coins and have not been observed on any other 1964 half dollar.“

Virtually every description of a “SMS” half dollar comes with an explanation of the die diagnostics for the type - a detail only necessary if die matching could be used to attribute such coins. If you can't match them based on die pair, why do we even consider die diagnostics? The answer is obvious - the die markers are the way that these are attributed by the graders and the market.

Therefore, can we establish that this coin is indeed a match to that die pair? As it turns out, it’s rather easy.

1) Diagnostic 4 at date and doubled die obverse.

MS65:

PCGS SP68:

.
.
2) Diagnostic die polish in the obverse fields:

MS65:

SP68:

.
.
3) Diagnostic polish from OF on reverse:
MS65:

SP68:

4) Diagnostic reverse polish:
MS65:

SP68:

5) And many others, with one more posted below.

With a match confirmed, we can now get into the fun questions.

1) If die pair matching is how these coins are attributed, why was this coin improperly graded?

2) If it was properly graded, is PCGS officially walking back its statements on the uniqueness of the 1964 “SMS” coins?

For the first question, the only possibility here would be a mechanical error. If the coin is not a mechanical error on the label, question one does not apply and we can turn to question two. I cannot answer if this is a mechanical error, but PCGS might be able to.

Let’s assume that this is not a mechanical error for now, and then turn to the question of if PCGS is walking back their statements on these coins. If die pair matching cannot be used, then it becomes clear that special dies were not used to strike these coins - if they were special, then we would be able to use die pair matching. Otherwise, the story of all of these coins as seen in the auctions and statements above is wrong (some of which outright say that special preparation was used for the dies). It also becomes a wild guessing game of what the graders want to see to call a coin "SMS", but that's another discussion for a different day.

Rather, what PCGS would be attributing is not a Specimen strike, but rather a very good state of preservation. I.e., if die pair matching cannot be used, then the “SMS” coins are simply high grade, very well preserved examples of a 1964 set of MS coinage since the dies used and their preparation is not a factor in the attribution (status of preservation and appearance is what is important). If that is the case, then PCGS would have to walk back the last 30 years of attributions on these coins due to a change in status (any mention of die polish/markers must go, and the descriptions must be changed to reflect that only high grade examples will be attributed).

Lastly, a final counter to a potential argument of “Well, what if they struck circulation coins right after the “SMS” coins?” Each “SMS” half bears a small die crack off of the 1 in the date, which the MS65 OP example also bears. The OP coin bears a crack that is between the progression of the other “SMS” coins, which means that it must have been struck in between those examples, not after. This coin also happens to be unique in this slab - as the only known non-”SMS” example from these dies. The following images show the progression of the crack, and the end of the crack is denoted by the red line. The line is parallel with the upright of the 1 and moved rightwards until it meets the end of the crack. Unedited images are on the Coinfacts page for the 1964 "SMS" coins if you wish to verify the end of the crack for yourself.

Earliest die state (SP69):

MS65:

No red line to prove it is not hiding the end of the crack:

Later die state (SP68):

Latest die state, note cracks that appear to be forming in GOD (SP68):

.
.
Based on this, we can conclude that these coins were struck in series, and unless the Mint stopped special strike production to strike a single business strike coin, there's a problem with the grade of this MS65 example or there's a problem with the story of the "SMS" coins.

So the question becomes - is PCGS finally overturning a multi-million dollar market with this half, or is it a mechanical error? It is of note I would be happy to let PCGS have another look at the OP MS65 coin, provided I'm not the one bearing the cost of shipping etc.

@PCGS_Hy @PCGS_Marketing @pcgs_education @PCGS_Cheyne @PCGS_Moderator

I don’t know, can you provide a little more info?
J/K
What a great job on the research!!

@cameonut2011 said:
Maybe you can get them to attribute this as a discovery coin - struck from SMS dies.

At the very least, it's a new doubled die.

It’s also interesting that you managed to eat around all the parts of the CoinFacts commentary that would debunk your
coin like (this is direct copy and paste):

“ The 1964 Special Strike Kennedy Half dollars display very unique characteristics unseen on any other coins of the era. First of all, the strike is very sharp as it displays very clear details on both the obverse and the reverse. The coins also contain a smooth satin like appearance with the rims being very square and sharp. There are die polishing lines throughout the coins surfaces. These coins also tend to lack contact marks unlike business strike coins, indicating that they were struck and handled under extreme care.”

Seems to me like you’re just trying to use some outdated non-authoritative 20 year blip tucked away at the bottom of a CoinFacts page to strong-arm a very not-SP-looking coin into an SP holder

It really depends on the definition of SMS. I think that up until now, it was largely assumed that every coin struck from those specific dies was SMS and that they all had the "look". Even if one was worn down to VF, but still had the die markers, it would be SMS. Now we have an uncirculated example from SMS dies that does not look like the others. This changes things.

@OwenSeymour said:
It’s also interesting that you managed to eat around all the parts of the CoinFacts commentary that would debunk your
coin like (this is direct copy and paste):

“ The 1964 Special Strike Kennedy Half dollars display very unique characteristics unseen on any other coins of the era. First of all, the strike is very sharp as it displays very clear details on both the obverse and the reverse. The coins also contain a smooth satin like appearance with the rims being very square and sharp. There are die polishing lines throughout the coins surfaces. These coins also tend to lack contact marks unlike business strike coins, indicating that they were struck and handled under extreme care.”

Seems to me like you’re just trying to use some outdated non-authoritative 20 year blip tucked away at the bottom of a CoinFacts page to strong-arm a very not-SP-looking coin into an SP holder

That certainly is nebulous. The coins in Coin Facts look to be well within the spectrum of what business strike production could produce from an early strike. They don’t appear that special to me.

I agree having something like that up for 20 years is a bad look, I hope they fix it soon.

That quarter doesn’t look SP and was probably a simple, but costly and unfortunate, mech error, I’m glad PCGS corrected it. It was corrected to MS because it doesn’t look SP, so I’m not sure I’m following you on this one. It’s just an example of exactly what I’m saying.

The SP coins are definitely SP, there’s no utility in squashing or rearranging the nomenclature.

I like that you tried to isolate when the coin was struck. Let's assume for a minute that SMS strikes exist. Could this have been intended to be struck as an SMS coin, but was tossed into the circulation bin because it wasn't good enough? That brings up the question... Which determines strike type, intent or appearance?

@cameonut2011 said:

@OwenSeymour said:

@cameonut2011 said:

@OwenSeymour said:
It’s also interesting that you managed to eat around all the parts of the CoinFacts commentary that would debunk your
coin like (this is direct copy and paste):

“ The 1964 Special Strike Kennedy Half dollars display very unique characteristics unseen on any other coins of the era. First of all, the strike is very sharp as it displays very clear details on both the obverse and the reverse. The coins also contain a smooth satin like appearance with the rims being very square and sharp. There are die polishing lines throughout the coins surfaces. These coins also tend to lack contact marks unlike business strike coins, indicating that they were struck and handled under extreme care.”

Seems to me like you’re just trying to use some outdated non-authoritative 20 year blip tucked away at the bottom of a CoinFacts page to strong-arm a very not-SP-looking coin into an SP holder

That certainly is nebulous. The coins in Coin Facts look to be well within the spectrum of what business strike production could produce from an early strike. They don’t appear that special to me.

I’ve handled a nauseating amount of UNC 1964 coins, many hundreds of thousands.

I’ve also handled SP-designated 1964 halves, and other denoms, and they’re unlike any business strike coin I’ve ever encountered in a roll or bag, by a long ways. They have a very striking and unique appearance in hand. The market, TPGs, and practically all experts have considered these SPs for decades. I think grading companies (PCGS in this case) understand and designate them correctly.

There’s a semantics argument to be had about what to call the unique looking 1964 coins, I like SP.

Materially how are they different from well struck early strikes from a die? I also collect proof like coins including from the 19th and early 20th century. I could make the same arguments about many of them including the unique or near unique PL buffalo nickel I made several years ago as well as a PL half cent. Had I labeled them as “specimen” strikes no one would have taken me seriously. Just as PL coinage, while special, is within the normal range of quality from normal production business strikes so are the 1964 SMS coins IMHO. I could be convinced otherwise, but the Coin Facts images aren’t helping.

Edited: About the only undocumented specimen coin I could justify the designation for was Bruce’s 1794 specimen Flowing Hair Dollar.

Have you seen any of the 1964 SMS halves in hand?