I know it's probably a dumb quesiton but what is "SMS"?

notlogical · March 2, 2007 12:37AM

I see people write about it all the time but what is it?

DNADave · March 2, 2007 12:37AM

Special Mint Set

WinPitcher · March 2, 2007 12:39AM

For 3 years the mint did not make proof sets, instead they made what is called SMS. 1965, 66 and 67.

Steve

RickMilauskas · March 2, 2007 12:40AM

SMS is for Special Mint Set.

That is what they called the proof-like coins made from 1965 - 1967 instead of proof sets and mint sets.

DeusExMachina · March 2, 2007 12:42AM

Great question, I have always wondered the same thing.

notlogical · March 2, 2007 12:44AM

Thanks every body. Proof like? Did these special mint sets have special finishes too?

jmski52 · March 2, 2007 12:48AM

The SMS sets of 1965, 1966 and 1967 had finishes which were better than the Uncirculated Set finishes, but not quite Proof finishes. After the dust settled, you could see that some of the SMS coins were indeed, very nice finishes - almost Prooflike, and so the hunt began for the best of the SMS coins.

I have always liked the finishes on the SMS coins. They are a quality finish.

notlogical · March 2, 2007 12:51AM

Thanks!

Russ · March 2, 2007 1:08AM

<< Did these special mint sets have special finishes too? >>

Some have very special finishes.

Russ, NCNE

lkrarecoins · March 2, 2007 1:17AM

Rumors have it that "Special Ed" made the Special Mint Sets...But you ain't heard that from me

MrEureka · March 2, 2007 1:21AM

Are there any cases where we know that the SMS dies were used for non-SMS coins? Or were the SMS dies discarded after the SMS coins were struck?

RichieURich · March 2, 2007 2:23AM

This is not a dumb question. Someone had posted in another thread that at the time, the mint was blaming coin collectors for the coin shortage throughout the country. One reason theorized for the SMS sets was to provide a product inferior to the proof sets and thereby reduce the demand and thus the popularity of coin collecting. The strategy worked, as nearly 4 million 1964 proof sets were sold, then the SMS sets had 2.4 million (1965), 2.3 million (1966) and 1.9 million (1967). The price increase from $2.10 in 1964 to $4 for 1965 - 1967 might also have contributed to this reduction. To my view, except for a precious few, (like the beauty Russ posted!), the quality of the coins in the SMS sets is vastly inferior to the proof coins.

commoncents05 · March 2, 2007 2:31AM

There are also a VERY small number of 1964 SMS sets as well.

-Paul

lonelyp · March 2, 2007 3:08AM

I think I have seen SMS on some newer coins. On a TPG label,
NOT big 3.
In fact I think it was a very new coin, maybe even a SATIN finish mint set coin from last year. Or it may have been 82 or 83, when they didn't make the "real" mint sets.

May have only been a marketing ploy.

Or maybe I'm just wrong, but I don't think so.

lonelyp · March 2, 2007 4:31AM

I went to ebay/coins and paper money, and searched sms.
It brought up NGC 2006 coins.

I think I saw these labels on coin vault.

Why they mark them SMS I don't know.

jmski52 · March 2, 2007 4:39AM

Not bad, Russ. I don't think I've ever seen full frosting obv and rev like that on an SMS before. While not the same as Proof finishes, the SMS finishes are nice. They weren't meant to be Proof.

BobGreene · March 2, 2007 4:49AM

My 1998 Kennedy Matte half is marked SMS on the PCGS label.

cladking · March 2, 2007 4:52AM

<< Are there any cases where we know that the SMS dies were used for non-SMS coins? Or were the SMS dies discarded after the SMS coins were struck? >>

The SMS coins were made in San Francisco which also produced all five
denominations for circulation during this era. Some of these coins were
apparently struck with SMS dies. There used to be quite a few quarters
made from basined dies in more advanced die states than mint set coins
in circulation. Most have so much wear that it's no longer visible but they
are still seen once in a while.

Russ · March 2, 2007 4:58AM

<< My 1998 Kennedy Matte half is marked SMS on the PCGS label. >>

They also label the 1994 and 1997 matte finish Jeffersons as such.

Russ, NCNE

ccr · March 2, 2007 5:01AM

Pretty good question actually. When grading, they can come in CAM and DCAM as well. Kinda, in my understanding, in the fuzzy gray areas where it`s not exactly a proof or a business/circulation strike. But, special dies and special rinse ( if I remember right but, searching through the forums I`m sure there is a diffinitive answer on the rinsing ) where used and not intended for circulation.

notlogical · March 2, 2007 6:07AM

thanks every body, I really learned a lot. I'm glad I asked.

Russ, that looks like a proof. Do all SMS coins look like that or what does one normally look like so I know?

NowhereMan · March 2, 2007 7:37AM

While we're on the topic of SMS, I also really liked the package and presentation on the 66 and 67 sets -- they have an understated elegance, and the blue looks really nice against the bright shine of the metals. They were also the first hard shell plastic -- all cello up to that point, I think. The 68-72 proof set packages, on the other hand, look dreadful in my opinion, and the switch to Red in 73, was better, but still not as elegant as the slim blue cases. I like them alot!

...oh, and cool coins too!

Rex

airedale · March 2, 2007 8:24AM

<< thanks every body, I really learned a lot. I'm glad I asked.

Russ, that looks like a proof. Do all SMS coins look like that or what does one normally look like so I know? >>

There are many that look like pocket change. I brought up on another thread how the grading companies could tell the difference between a business strike and a SMS? No one had a definite answer but someone said that PCGS says they have a secret way to tell the difference.

Russ · March 2, 2007 8:29AM

<< Do all SMS coins look like that or what does one normally look like so I know? >>

No. In fact, very, very few look like that. They can range at the tippy top looking like that one, all the way down to looking like bagmarked to death business strikes. Most come in between the two extremes with many having mirrored surfaces but no cameo contrast.

Russ, NCNE

itsnotjustme · March 2, 2007 8:35AM

SMS is just a dash away from SOS

Dot-Dot-Dot
Dash-Dash-Dash-Dash
Dot-Dot-Dot

Really.

DieClash · March 2, 2007 1:04PM

There is no such thing as a dumb question. And this has the potential to be a very educational thread. As an ANA member I am happy to contribute to the greater education of the public with a picture post.

The images below are pretty typical of the quality of the coins in an SMS set. Nothing spectacular, but some fairly nice specimens here and there.

In 1965 the mint packaged them in the flat-pack cello wraps typical of the early "modern" proof sets. The 1966 and 1967 sets were packaged in unique hard plastic containers, which some consider to be the precursors of the modern hard plastic containers of contemporary proof sets.

For many reasons, but also because the mint believed erroneously that the coinage shortage of the early '60s was a result of collector activities, the Mint determined that no coin from 1965 thru 1967 would bear a mint mark so as to prevent hoarding; even though the coins were produced at Philadelphia, Denver and San Francisco. As a result the SMS sets from 1965 thru 1967 bear no mint mark.

airedale · March 2, 2007 1:15PM

<< There is no such thing as a dumb question. And this has the potential to be a very educational thread. As an ANA member I am happy to contribute to the greater education of the public with a picture post.

The images below are pretty typical of the quality of the coins in an SMS set. Nothing spectacular, but some fairly nice specimens here and there.

In 1965 the mint packaged them in the flat-pack cello wraps typical of the early "modern" proof sets. The 1966 and 1967 sets were packaged in unique hard plastic containers, which some consider to be the precursors of the modern hard plastic containers of contemporary proof sets.

For many reasons, but also because the mint believed erroneously that the coinage shortage of the early '60s was a result of collector activities, the Mint determined that no coin from 1965 thru 1967 would bear a mint mark so as to prevent hoarding; even though the coins were produced at Philadelphia, Denver and San Francisco. As a result the SMS sets from 1965 thru 1967 bear no mint mark.

>>

The last 5 cent piece should be a winner. I can see nothing else specular in this mixture.
Thank You very much for this nice educational post.

BAJJERFAN · March 2, 2007 1:20PM

Then FMJ would be Full Mint Jacket?

airedale · March 2, 2007 2:06PM

<< Then FMJ would be Full Mint Jacket?

>>

Your post is a waste of time on an educational post. Hawk your Morgans elsewhere.

dizzyfoxx · March 2, 2007 2:09PM

I thought it stood for, "Stupid Meaningless Set".

DieClash · March 2, 2007 2:36PM

<< I thought it stood for, "Stupid Meaningless Set". >>

Why would you say that John?

I suppose in the Grand Scheme of things (i.e. price-wise) they are kind of insignificant. I suppose not many collectors choose to collect them for price appreciation. But in the grand scheme of numismatic history I believe they are hugely significant in that they represent the era where U.S. coins shifted from an intrinsic species value of money to the current valuation model that has been in operation for the past 40+ years. The "Special Mint Sets" were as much a result of the controversy of our changing monetary policy as they were the contemporary perceptions of people of that time. The sets may not be valuable numismatic investment holdings, but they are emblematic of an era of a changing monetary policy in the United States of significant historic proportions. And for that reason they represent a collectible "value" that is more than worthy IMHO.

cladking · March 2, 2007 2:55PM

There are not only several important and scarce varieties in these sets and some
very rare cameo coins but perhaps more importantly there are several different meth-
ods of manufacture. The differences are not subtle. There even appear to be a hand-
full of proofs among these coins.

Even the typical varieties and types are of interest even if they do tend to the common.
They are really a part of the four year run of '64- '67 special sets. They were made with-
out mintmarks and initially with a date freeze to discourage collectors. The sets were an
after thought and were widely disdained by collectors. Sales were about half of the pre-
vious mint and proof set totals. Except for the cents, nickels, and halfs from Philadelphia
(if memory serves) these coins were all made at all three mints. These sets are represent-
ative not only of these but of the numerous varieties that never appeared in the sets. A
complete set of all possible varieties and production techniques for '64 and '65 coinage is
a very extensive set with a dozen rare and important coins. Throw in the '66 and '67 is-
sues and these are some of the most enigmatic and difficult to obtain of all US coins.

If you think the typical example doesn't matter than you should consider that uncirculated
rolls of some of these coins are pretty difficult to obtain and are pretty tough in attractive
condition as are the bulk of the SMS's. Also consider that these sets have never been pop-
ular with collectors and large numbers have been destroyed. While hardly rare, they are
readily available only because of light demand.

Coxe · March 2, 2007 3:02PM

I know there is an awesome superb set out there, but here is my 1964 SMS cent. Got the quarter too. Hope to finish the set sometime.

I think the '64 SMS set has huge potential.

cladking · March 2, 2007 3:05PM

<< 

I think the '64 SMS set has huge potential. >>

I agree.

People just don't realize how many varieties and scarce or rare issues were generated by the transition to clad coinage and the simultaneous coinage of different dates.

DieClash · March 2, 2007 3:11PM

<< I know there is an awesome superb set out there, but here is my 1964 SMS cent. Got the quarter too. Hope to finish the set sometime.

I think the '64 SMS set has huge potential. >>

Cladking, Coxe, I didn't realize that 1964 mint issues were considered SMS. But looking at Coxe's 1964 PCGS slab it must be so! I've always followed the traditional history that 1965 thru 1967 coins were "SMS" sets exclusively. Can either of you elaborate on the historical context that would justify the inclusion of 1964 coins in the SMS designation for the educational aspect of this post?

Thanks!

grabba · March 2, 2007 3:14PM

Very very few 1964 SMS are known to exist. I think I recall Russ saying that maybe less than 20 sets or maybe 50 sets are known.

I never realized they existed either until I was reviewing the PCGS price guides for SMS sets.

That is a very nice 1964 SMS Lincoln though!

cladking · March 2, 2007 3:15PM

They are assumed to be a prototype for the later SMS's. I don't believe this has
been confirmed by the mint. It may be a little more complicated than this but they
were made about the same time.

Coxe · March 2, 2007 3:22PM

They turned up years back at a show. I think between 14 and 20 sets were produced as prototypes using dies that were in reserve for production but not used in 1964. I think they were made in early 1965.

I showed my pieces to a serious Lincoln cent collector (and former TPG grader) who was not even aware of their existence, much less that the cent alone constituted an extreme key to the series he collected. The reason I said they have huge potential is not just based on the overall rarity but the very fact that they are largely unknown to the collector and dealer communities. That won't last forever. 14 to 20 possible sets? Competition for them will alone drive the valuations to the moon.

DieClash · March 2, 2007 3:23PM

<< They are assumed to be a prototype for the later SMS's. I don't believe this has
been confirmed by the mint. It may be a little more complicated than this but they
were made about the same time. >>

This is truly an informative and educational thread. Thank you grabba Cladking and Coxe!

Edited to include props to Coxe too.

airedale · March 2, 2007 4:58PM

<< I know there is an awesome superb set out there, but here is my 1964 SMS cent. Got the quarter too. Hope to finish the set sometime.

I think the '64 SMS set has huge potential. >>

A tough rarity. Congrats for having this!

airedale · March 2, 2007 7:11PM

<< 

<< I know there is an awesome superb set out there, but here is my 1964 SMS cent. Got the quarter too. Hope to finish the set sometime.

I think the '64 SMS set has huge potential. >>

A tough rarity. Congrats for having this! >>

But still I must wonder how did PCGS distinguish this SMS from a business strike. The coins are so similar?

jmski52 · March 2, 2007 7:11PM

Interesting. The prototypes showed up years later? Kinda makes you wonder what else is out there, floating around......

airedale · March 2, 2007 7:25PM

<< Interesting. The prototypes showed up years later? Kinda makes you wonder what else is out there, floating around...... >>

Who were the original sellers of these rarities? Any in NGC holders?

airedale · March 2, 2007 7:36PM

<< 

<< Interesting. The prototypes showed up years later? Kinda makes you wonder what else is out there, floating around...... >>

Who were the original sellers of these rarities? Any in NGC holders? >>

Back to the old question, how do you tell a business strike from a SMS?

TwoSides2aCoin · March 2, 2007 7:45PM

<< 

<< Did these special mint sets have special finishes too? >>

Some have very special finishes.

Russ, NCNE >>

Hi Samuel....

I don't know if anyone mentioned this, but when Russ said "very special finishes", in addition to a specially polished die for manufacture of these coins, a limited few had this "birthmark" in the temple area of JFK.

Also, just for your information, there are a few coins manufactured since the SMS coins, with "special" finishes on the die. In 1994 and in 1997, specially designed and highly polished dies were used for a few Jefferson nickels. These coins have a very "frosty" look and are also PROOFLIKE. They were packaged in Prestige Sets, I believe. The Botanical Gardens set (1997) and the 1994 Prestige sets had those "SPECIAL MINT" coins, too

Some of the coins coming out of the mint that have "specially'' designed dies often times will carry a large premium with them.
Your questions are good, at least you ask them...plus, they allow others to share valued information.
Excellent coin, Russ.

airedale · March 2, 2007 8:42PM

<< 

<< 

<< Interesting. The prototypes showed up years later? Kinda makes you wonder what else is out there, floating around...... >>

Who were the original sellers of these rarities? Any in NGC holders? >>

Back to the old question, how do you tell a business strike from a SMS? >>

Bump?

DHeath · March 2, 2007 9:43PM

Who were the original sellers of these rarities? Any in NGC holders? >> Yes, they're labeled "specimen". See the last paragraph of this old post.

Much of the information regarding production of the special mint sets is limited to heresay, as it is believed most if not all of the mint records from that period were destroyed by Stella Hackel-Sims (mint director Nov 1977- April 1988). In an effort to save space, she ordered most of the working mint records from 1900-1970 destroyed. Ironically, they were headed for a landfill when the paper recycler saw what he had and sold them to a coin dealer. When the dealer traced the records back to their source, the government tried to force the dealer to give the records back. According to an E-Sylum article, Julian Leidman knew the dealer and saw the journals. Perhaps he'll comment on this thread.

All of the halves minted in 1964 seemed to evaporate as soon as they reached the banks. Breen believed many of these coins were sent overseas, and many were purchased by speculators and investors. More still were used as payment for silver certificate redemption. The mints simply could not manufacturer enough coins to satisfy demand. It was wrongly assumed that collectors were responsible for the unavailability of the coin. President Johnson signed a bill on 7/23/65 changing the composition of the half, and the mint chose to remove the mint mark, hoping to discourage collectors.
Coins manufactured till that time were dated 1964 (well into 1965).

The first 1965 dated coins were released 3/8/66. The first 1966 dated coins were released 8/1/66. Essentially all of the 65 and 66 production occured in 1966. The 65-66 coinage was produced with slightly more care than circulation coins were given. Paraphrasing Rick Tomaska, the mint preparation for the 65-66 sets was as follows -

1 - The dies were not as polished as proof dies
2 - SMS planchets were not burnished
3 - SMS dies were used longer before being discarded
4 - SMS planchets were struck at higher pressure like proof coinage, but were only single struck, where proof coins were double struck
5 - SMS dies did not receive special cleaning and maintenance the proof dies did, and were infrequently repolished.
6 - SMS coins did not receive individual handling prior to packaging, and were dumped into hoppers.

There is one "SMS" coin that the services recognize that falls outside the bounds of this discussion. There are some special 1964 sets that for lack of a better description have come to be called special mint sets. A few years ago, I began chasing these coins hoping to learn their significance and origin. Since no information was available in mint records, I traced ownership of the coins by phone last year, and have come to believe there were 12 complete sets of these coins sold by Lester merkin in the early 90's. Speculation is that he acquired them from the mint. I believe them to be either trial strikes or presentation coins, but they have come to be known by the TPG's as SMS. The original purchaser of these sets noted that 4 of the halves were ordinary, and did not posess the same finish as the other 8. The 4 ordinary halves were thrown into the silver bin. Interestingly, when merkin's estate was auctioned (Stack's Nov.30 1994), the only modern half in the auction was one 1964 proof JFK described as "Very choice brilliant proof, pale grey with a trace of an old fingerprint". It hammered for $10. I'm still looking for it.

DHeath · March 2, 2007 9:50PM

Here's a 64 SMS half that matches the old catalog, first at Heritage, and later Teletrade.

and some other denominations...

grabba · March 2, 2007 10:10PM

DHeath...that is about one of the most fascinating information story I have read on these boards concerning SMS set series.

Thanks for sharing that.

DHeath · March 2, 2007 10:14PM

Thank you. It is also worth noting the one of the 66 half die pairs was used and repolished to exhaustion, producing the 66 no FG half. Notice the bridge of the nose is completely missing, as are the designer initials.

It's fun to contrast that die state with this one.....

grabba · March 2, 2007 10:19PM

That is pretty cool. Makes JFK look totally different on the coin.

The bottom 66 is absolutely phenomenal.

The hunt continues on this end.

I know it's probably a dumb quesiton but what is "SMS"?

Comments

Leave a Comment

I know it's probably a dumb quesiton but what is &quot;SMS&quot;?

Comments

Leave a Comment

I know it's probably a dumb quesiton but what is "SMS"?