Options
Has anyone heard of 1964 proof coins that are matte in appearance instead of brilliant?
SanctionII
Posts: 13,048 ✭✭✭✭✭
esterday I picked up some proof sets, including a 1964. I picked up the 1964 set since the silver coins are not brilliant in appearance. They have surfaces that are not mirrored. The dealer said they look like a matter proof. It is possible that the coins have simply developed haze that hides the mirrors, however my experience has been that if you look closely at the coins with a loupe in good lighting you can see mirrored surfaces under the haze. Not so in this case.
Any thoughts or comments? Has anyone heard of 1964 proof coins that are matte in appearance?
Any thoughts or comments? Has anyone heard of 1964 proof coins that are matte in appearance?
0
Comments
Russ, NCNE
Here is a thread on that topic:
Link to 1964 Specimen coins discussion
Also, on some occasions you can find so-called brilliant Proofs which are other than "brilliant".
What type of packaging were the 1964 Specimen Sets issued in? Was it the proof set packaging for 1964 or was it something else?
<< <i>Thanks for the input and the link to the prior thread. The 1964 set I picked up yesterday is enclosed in the cello flat pack used in 1964 for proof sets and has the Silver and Blue US Mint Philadelphia seal used in proof sets of that era.
What type of packaging were the 1964 Specimen Sets issued in? Was it the proof set packaging for 1964 or was it something else? >>
As Coinguy1 said, the odds are against it, but it's not unusual for processes and
methods to vary widely even within a year. Nor is it unusual for coins or dies in-
tended for one purpose to be used for another.
It's at least a little unusual to find an entire set that looks different.
<< <i>What type of packaging were the 1964 Specimen Sets issued in? Was it the proof set packaging for 1964 or was it something else? >>
Sorry, I don't have the answers, but the ones I know of were sold in auction without any original packaging, to the best of my recollection.
These experimental specimen sets were not intended for the public, so they probably weren't packaged like regular sets, if they were even packaged at all.
<< <i>My grandpa brought home a 1964 set from when he worked at the mint, He left them to me last year. It had a 1964 peace dollar in it too. I can't find any info on that one. Anyone know what those sell for?? >>
Sure he did....
<< <i>My grandpa brought home a 1964 set from when he worked at the mint, He left them to me last year. It had a 1964 peace dollar in it too. I can't find any info on that one. Anyone know what those sell for?? >>
Nothing unless it's cameo.
Worry is the interest you pay on a debt you may not owe.
"Paper money eventually returns to its intrinsic value---zero."----Voltaire
"Everything you say should be true, but not everything true should be said."----Voltaire
and it sets us apart from practitioners and consultants. Gregor
Several years ago, I was very curious about these coins, and a fellow board member was good enough to put me in touch with the gentleman who purchased them originally from the Lester Merkin estate. His recollection was that there were a dozen sets, of which 8 contained somewhat unique halfs, and four had common halves that went into his silver bin. All the other coins were also of the unusual finish. I started chasing information regarding their production from the mint directors journal, but had no luck. Most of the information regarding production from that period was destroyed by later mint director "Stella Hackel-Simms". Thats also a great story for those inclined to read old posts. Maybe PhillyJoe will find something. (hint, hint)
Lester Merkin was a big band musician of some renown, and later a coin dealer and auctioneer. His discovery coin was the 1922 Matte Proof Peace dollar. Lester represented the Helfenstein Large cent collection, the Oscar Schilke, Al Overton, and Alfred Ostheimer collections, played in the NY Philharmonic, and jammed with Gene Krupa. David Spink asked him to serve as the go between for the King of Siam set when it was sold to an American collector after its discovery in London. Quite an interesting guy.
Stacks Nov 30, 1994 catalog is a great bit of reading. Right there on page 68 (lot 921), immediately before the 1975 Bolender 5 dollar in AU, is this coin; "1964 Very Choice Brilliant Proof - pale grey with a trace of an old fingerprint". I always got a kick out of the idea Mr.Merkin owned a 64 Kennedy.
and it sets us apart from practitioners and consultants. Gregor
Who knew JFKs could be so interesting?
Realized $10,637.50
I was the underbidder, a day I'll never forget.
Joe
<< <i>1964 50C MS69 Specimen NGC. Any skepticism one might have about this coin's status is immediately dispelled once its surfaces are examined under magnification--and we strongly encourage close examination. It may be useful to first state what this coin is not. It is not a 1964 proof, it is not a 1964 Special Mint Set piece, and its texture suggests a different method of production from a regular business strike 1964 half.
So, what do we know from examination of the coin's surfaces? First, it is definitely a business strike. Second, it has uncommonly sharp definition; in fact, the striking details rival that of a proof, which would indicate the coin was struck multiple times. The fields also show innumerable die polishing marks on each side. This usually produces a prooflike or at least semi-prooflike coin. On this piece, though, the fields are bright but there is no reflectivity present. The luster is also quite different from all other 1964 halves we have seen. The finish varies from the soft mint frost often seen on most Philadelphia coinage to a flashy, cartwheel luster seen on many 1964 halves. On this coin, the surface texture has a definite satiny finish. When one adds up all these characteristics, it seems that the intent on the Mint's part was to produce the ultimate business strike 1964 half dollar. But why?
The only clue we have about the production of any special business strike 1964 halves comes from a short quote in the Breen Encyclopedia, page 418: "On Feb. 11, simultaneous ceremonies were held at both mints in the presence of a variety of Treasury officials, celebrating the new design; but coins were not available to the general public until March 5..." This February 11 special striking would seem to provide the occasion as well as the means of striking such a coin as is represented here. It would also at least suggest the possibility of the existence of a similar coin(s) from the Denver mint.
Magnification fails to reveal any trace of coin-to-coin contact on either side. The only interruption in the surfaces are a couple of microscopic abrasions along the highpoint of the truncation of the neck, and a few others on the raised, vertical shield lines on the reverse. These tiny marks could easily be produced by the piece coming in contact with a table or other hard surface--not an unlikely scenario for a 39-year old coin that was probably owned for most of that time by a non-collector. Kennedy's face is smooth and unblemished, as are the fields. The strike is also uncommonly sharp, the only coin to compare it to being a proof (again, reinforcing the multiple strike theory). As for pedigree identifiers, there are very few and none can be seen without a magnifier. On the lower reverse, a very thin, vertical toning streak extends from the lower left (facing) wing of the eagle down to the rim running alongside the upright of the L in HALF. A tiny grease stain can also be seen just below the eagle's left (facing) talon, and another, larger grease stain is located on Kennedy's nose (this one may actually be viewable without magnification). Most of the original mint brilliance is still present, but there is just the lightest bit of golden toning present around the margins.
There are a great many collectors of this series. Some collect because they remember the thousand days of Camelot, some because of the beauty of the design, others want only the finest Registry set. Whatever one's motivation for collecting Kennedy halves, it will be difficult to resist the allure of this specially struck coin. >>
Russ, NCNE
Experience the World through Numismatics...it's more than you can imagine.
I could not resist the urge to look at the coins out of the mint cello so I cut out the half, quarter and dime. They all look the same. I have never seen proof coins that look like these. The brilliant mirrors of a typical 1964 proof coin are not present. Looking at the coins through a loupe is revealing. Toning and haze that develops on proofs seem to float on the surface of the coin and you can see the mirrors underneath. Not on these coins. Toning and haze also appears to be splotchy and uneven. Not on these coins. The coins for the most part appear to be uniform in appearance across the entirety of the coins.
One part of me thinks that the coins have simply developed uniform toning/haze across the entirety of the coins and that a dip would remove same (I even thought about giving the dime a bath to see if it is toning/haze, but chose not to). Another part of me thinks (and frankly hopes) that the coins have not toned/hazed and that what I see is the original look of the coins.
The coins look a little like the first half pictured by Don and a lot like the second half pictured by Don (the Heritage photo).
In summary, I think the three coins are uber cool. They look nothing like any 1964 proof set silver coins I have ever seen. I am going to put them into a capital holder for display.
Experience the World through Numismatics...it's more than you can imagine.
Russ, NCNE
The pictured quarter looks like similar in appearance to the 1964 quarter I picked up yesterday.
Carl, thanks.
and it sets us apart from practitioners and consultants. Gregor
<< <i>Russ, just checked this trhead again and saw the picture of the quarter you posted. Is it slabbed as a proof? Does is have an attribution noted on the slab (i.e. 1964 SMS quarter)?
The pictured quarter looks like similar in appearance to the 1964 quarter I picked up yesterday. >>
ANACS PR65.
Russ, NCNE