Are 1967 SMS coins REALLY proofs, despite what the mint called them?

lsica · December 6, 2006 12:56PM

Specially polished blanks

Specially polished dies

Struck twice

Isn't that what a proof is?

Gemineye · December 6, 2006 1:21PM

They were only struck once.......

garsmith · December 6, 2006 1:23PM

Only struck once, but very proof like!

CaptHenway · December 6, 2006 2:03PM

<< They were only struck once....... >>

I am quite sure that the 1967's were struck twice. I believe that the 1966's were struck twice, but it is possible that some early ones were not.
TD

Cam40 · December 6, 2006 2:15PM

waiting for cladking to chime in...

oldcameoproofsguy · December 6, 2006 2:30PM

SMS dies usually weren't prepared with the same care as a proof die.
SMS planchets were also not prepared with the same care as well.
Proof dies were replaced a lot more often than the SMS coins.
Very heavy DCAMs are a lot more difficult to find (especially for the cents) than any post 1950 proof.

If I was home I could actually look up the average strikes per die for Proof vs SMS. The info is in
Rick Tomaska's Modern Proof Coinage book.

Hoot · December 6, 2006 3:29PM

I've never read anything that suggests that SMS coins were struck twice during any of the years of their run. Indeed, everything I've ever read on their production has stated that these coins were struck but once, resulting in poor strikes on most. The master hub was re-worked in 1966-67 The steps of Monticello were rounded slightly, which resulted in better detail of the steps on the better-struck coins dated 1966 and 67. The overall result of re-working the dies led to some better strikes in those years, however the best struck coins still did not have the sharpness of proofs of the era. The technology of pickling the dies (an old technology) was paid more attention to in 1966 and 67, versus 1965, and dies were more readily maintained and more quickly recycled in 1966 and 1967 as the perceived coin shortage began to be relieved. Thus, there are more cameo and deep cameo pieces to be found dated 1966 and 1967 than 1965. Still, deep cameo SMS coins are rare.

If the SMS coins of 1967 (or previous years) had been struck twice, they would have had much better detail and would have more greatly resembled the proofs of 1968, which are vastly better quality, in general, and there are many more cameo pieces to be found from 1968-70.

BTW, Tomaska only comments on the proofs of the 1950-70 era as having been struck two to four times each; he makes no comment on the strikes of SMS coins.

Hoot

cladking · December 7, 2006 2:08AM

I've seen examples of SMS's which I was quite confident were struck twice. Most have
appeared to be very much proofs. There are some coins (especially in the '65) that would
be extremely difficult to believe were struck twice since they still have planchet defects
visible.

It is true that that many of the coins look extremely much like proofs. But to believe that
they are all struck twice leaves me grasping for explanations for some appearing far more
like proofs than others. From my experience the SMS's seem to lie on two continua with
respect to strike; one that ranges from nearly typical unc to nearly flawless PL (perhaps
proof), and one that ranges from nearly perfect strike to perfect strike.

I had assumed that only these latter coins were struck twice but can entertain other ex-
planations. Certainly these coins were all struck with sufficient care that the finest could
simply just bunch up around perfection.

Tough call. I'll anxiouly await more input of any sort on this.

Russ · December 7, 2006 3:59AM

<< I am quite sure that the 1967's were struck twice. I believe that the 1966's were struck twice, but it is possible that some early ones were not. >>

Not as a matter of practice. I'm sure there are examples that were struck twice, particularly for 1967. I own some that probably were. There was a lot of experimenting at the time. But, mint procedure was a single strike. They were, however, struck at higher pressure than business strike coins.

<< SMS dies usually weren't prepared with the same care as a proof die.
SMS planchets were also not prepared with the same care as well.
Proof dies were replaced a lot more often than the SMS coins.
Very heavy DCAMs are a lot more difficult to find (especially for the cents) than any post 1950 proof. >>

All correct. In addition, SMS coins were dumped in hoppers rather than the individual handling that proof coins received.

<< he makes no comment on the strikes of SMS coins. >>

Actually, he does. He states in his book that they were only struck once.

Russ, NCNE

Hoot · December 7, 2006 4:11AM

<< Actually, he does. He states in his book that they were only struck once. >>

Hmmm... Missed that. I re-read the section on manufacture last night and I took note of what he said about proof strikes, but didn't see anything on the number of times SMS pieces were struck. I also looked at his date-by-date analyses for the specific coins and missed it. Would appreciate knowing what page he mentions that on Russ, as I reckon I was in too much of a hurry.

Thanks, Hoot.

cladking · December 7, 2006 5:17AM

It's also probable that they were struck on the old proof presses. These were transferred
to San Francisco where the SMS coins were made. When the SMS's went out of production
proof coinage resumed with the "S" mintmark.

Mint set coins are normally struck under higher pressure than proof set coinage. Perhaps
it's possible they found these single strike versions to be tough on the dies so decreased
the pressure and struck them twice.

I believe the proof presses of that era could be run in manual or automatic. Perhaps there
were different procedures. It should be noted that planchet defects become much less com-
as these dates go on. I don't believe they used more than a few polished planchets and these
were for testing.

There are a lot of odd-balls through-out this series and an evolution over time. While I've al-
ways believed that there were a few proof coins perhaps they are actually common.

Russ · December 7, 2006 5:43AM

<< Would appreciate knowing what page he mentions that on Russ, as I reckon I was in too much of a hurry. >>

Page 93, item 4, second sentence: "However, proof planchets were double struck, while SMS planchets were struck only once."

Russ, NCNE

Hoot · December 7, 2006 5:47AM

Thanks Russ!

Hoot

nicknut12 · December 7, 2006 6:19AM

In reply to Hoot's message:

Speaking as a long time nickel nut and one who searched for
many years through the SMS nickels for full step specimens:

The 1965 & 1966 SMS nickels all seemed to come with the thicker
looking steps used on the dies pre 1967.
All the 1967 SMS nickels that I have seen, seem to have the thinner
looking steps from the the new die. (with sixth step showing on
better struck specimens.)
The 65/66 SMS nickels never have much of a sixth step showing.

Chasing the six step 1967 SMS nickels was a small passion of mine
for a number of years.

I would also agree the SMS coins seemed to be struck only once.

Reagrds, Steve.

Hoot · December 7, 2006 8:08AM

nicknut also makes some good points. It is clear that the production of SMS coinage was an evolutionary process and that techniques, technologies, and the resultant coins overlapped one another as the clock and production rolled. I've read that the hub was changed in 1967, but I've also seen 1966 SMS coins that exhibited the same qualities. That does not mean that the 1966 pieces were minted in 1966 - far from it. At that time, the Mint was infamous for producing coins dated one year or another during later years, or beginning to strike a certain year the year before (as they do now).So I don't think that there are any bright lines that can be drawn to suggest that "method A" was followed by "method B" in some chronological sequence. Rather, these transformations should be recognized by the outcome, i.e., the coins themselves. Placing the coins in a distinct array of character traits better represents their chronology and the progressions of technology/method than does the date on the face of any one of the coins. cladking's comment on the use of proof presses alongside business strike presses is one that had occurred to me also, and it greatly complicates the matters of unraveling the mysteries of the SMS coinage.

Personally, I'm fascinated by the SMS coinage and have owned coins dated 1964-67 that were considered SMS. I've often commented on the distinct difference of the early (1964- early 1965 methods) SMS coinage, versus that which came later. I believe that many of the differences that we can see in the coinage are reasonable reflections of what can be inferred and rationally deducted to the manufacture processes.

Hoot

koynekwest · December 7, 2006 8:16AM

Any coin that would have been struck twice would have the wide, flat rims associated with proof coins. I've never seen an SMS coin that shows such a characteristic; therefore I believe they were only struck once. Few SMS coins show the crisp detail that would be seen on a coin struck two (or more) times-i.e.-full steps on the nickels, etc.

cladking · December 7, 2006 8:38AM

<< Any coin that would have been struck twice would have the wide, flat rims associated with proof coins. I've never seen an SMS coin that shows such a characteristic; therefore I believe they were only struck once. Few SMS coins show the crisp detail that would be seen on a coin struck two (or more) times-i.e.-full steps on the nickels, etc. >>

There are some.

Now days they even appear in mint sets. Early '90's Denver cents and quarters are nearly common like this. They are usually PL but I don't believe they are struck twice.

Are 1967 SMS coins REALLY proofs, despite what the mint called them?

Comments

Leave a Comment