<< <i>Well this moron still believes that the 1964 SMS's were patterns of the Special Mint Sets released in the place of proofs sets in 1965, 1966, and 1967. Possibly a little like a dollar coin of the date that was made but never authorized. >>
I never called you a moron, I only descibed a statement you made as moronic. I apolagize if this was too harsh.
After having seen, examined, and owned virtually all known examples of 1964 SMS coins, I believe the only comparison is the Chapman dollars. Unlike those, they were struck but once. I no longer own any coins these days, but I handled in my day thousands of high powered patterns, and the SMS are not patterns. I truly believe they are Denver mint products sans the mintmarks, that were minted for sets that might have included 1964D peace dollars. That is what I was told by a friend of Lester Merkin, the man who owned all known 1964 SMS coins. They are more distinctive than most Double dies or accentuated hair varieties. They are important varieties that can be distinguished naked eye by any trained numismatist, or any sharp eyed coin maven who was once shown one
<< <i>It is obvious that you are un - informed on the topic. A “pattern” does not have to be off metal, most definitions that I have read state that it “may” be off metal. >>
I submit, perhaps you should reconsider weather I am truly uniformed on any facet of American numismatics.
<< <i>Let me start out by stating that I am not a collector of Kennedy's and have never been one. I have produced and sold a number of toppop pieces to collectors such as Green. Included in that was the still pop one 1964-D MS68. I feel I have a right to get in this discussion as I have placed quite a few of the SMS pieces in all the denominations and you all are trying to determine the way these are treated. These sets came out of Stacks sales out of a deal they purchased. I will try to press Larry at the Central States show this week as to where they acquired them from. As far as the 1964 SMS coins being classified as patterns, they do not fit the description of a pattern. They were struck in the same metal as other 1964 coins and have the same design. The only difference is a slight change in finish. If it isn't a pattern then it must be considered a regularly issued coin and should then be considered in the regular issue registry sets. The last I heard was that if PCGS has graded more than five of a variety, then it would be included in the variety set. Has this changed? Mitch, you would know. The only question would be to determine whether they fit in the proof or MS sets. Do the coins fit the description of a proof? Have they been struck more than once? Answer that and you should have your answer. As to the coins not being made for circulation, can someone please remind me how many 1970-D halves were released into general circulation? Should we remove this coin from the mint state registry as well? As to having no records that they were struck, how about coins like the 1870-S dollar, half dime and three dollar gold? There a quite a few other examples including many classic rarities. Folks, instead of getting upset at how much you are going to have to shell out to acquire one of these, I would say that you should be looking at how much you are going to make on this coin in the future when this coin gets treated as the classic modern rarity that I feel it rightly deserves. I feel they are selling for only a fraction of what they will be worth in the not to distant future. >>
Dear David Schweitz,
Glad to see you chime in and you are more then welcome as far as I am concerned.
I have read your post and have a few comments. You mention “As far as the 1964 SMS coins being classified as patterns, they do not fit the description of a pattern. They were struck in the same metal as other 1964 coins and have the same design” . Pattern may be struck in the same metal so you conclusion that this would disqualify these 1964 SMS example is unfounded and I would site the following source. PCGS’ own CoinFact web site and the definition listed on the web page of uspatterns.com, also the following quote or paraphrase from “Scott’s Comprehensive Catalogue and Encyclopedia of U.S. Coins, 1971.”
NOTE 1: (The following is quoted and/or paraphrased from a resource that may be absent from your library. “Scott’s Comprehensive Catalogue and Encyclopedia of U.S. Coins, 1971,” prepared and edited for the Scott Publishing Co., by Don Taxay) The pattern is an essay intended for submission by the Mint Director to a higher authority, generally the Secretary of the Treasury or Congress. It may be struck in the metal intended for adoption, or, for reasons of economy, in a less expensive one.
NOTE 2: Quoted from Coinfacts (a PCGS owned product): Pattern coins fall into a number of different categories: 1. Both sides were rejected for use on circulating coins. 2. One or both sides were modified slightly before they were used on circulating coins. 3. Either the obverse or the reverse was accepted for use on circulating coins. 4. Both sides were accepted for use on circulating coins, but the metal composition may be different from the one eventually used.
Like I have mentioned before, I agree with Andy Lustig, that these coins should not be prematurely classified as “legitmate experimental pieces” without supporting documentation. I also agree with Andy Lustig, Dr. Wiles and Julian Leidman that these coins are not “regular issues” either. I don’t know what these 1964 SMS example are, they might be “experimental”, “test” “patterns”, “proto types”, “specimens” or “trial pieces” but until supporting documentation or an “authoritative” source can be shown by research they should not be considered “regular” or “Basic” coin.
The second issue that you made, that I would like to bring up for discussion is the erroneous connection you have made concerning the 1970-D Kennedy Half Dollar to the 1964 SMS examples. I find it funny, for a person with Mitch’s expertise, that he felt this was an “interesting comparison” when in fact it is not even comparing “apples to oranges”, it is more like comparing “coal to peanut butter”. The 1970-D Kennedy Half Dollar was officially released by the US mint. You allude in your post that since the 1970-D was not released into circulation then it should not be included into a “basic” set. This makes me wonder if you consider any of the modern proof coins, “basic” coins for inclusion into a “basic” proof set because they were not released into circulation. Regarding if the US Mint release a coin into circulation is a mute issue, the US Mint could release a coin into circulation or as a collectable item issued as proofs, mint, or in a commemorative set ( the underline requirement is , was it an officially issue and released by the US Mint not by the back door).
<< <i> << It is obvious that you are un - informed on the topic. A “pattern” does not have to be off metal, most definitions that I have read state that it “may” be off metal. >>
I submit, perhaps you should reconsider weather I am truly uniformed on any facet of American numismatics.
Jess Lipka >>
Welcome Jess Lipka,
If you still have the position that "patterns" have to be off metal, then I still have the position that you are un - informed. I'm not sure how else to say it.
"I find it funny, for a person with Mitch’s expertise, that he felt this was an “interesting comparison” when in fact it is not even comparing “apples to oranges”"
Tim - My "interesting comparison" comment referenced (4) different coins MS68 spoke of in that paragraph. You have addressed (1) of the (4) coins in disagreeing with my comment. What about MS68's other comparison coins mentioned?
Also, as far as the 1970-D Kennedy comparison - I believe it was previously mentioned (or alluded to) by someone that the failure of the SMS coins to circulate was another reason the coins did not deserve to be in the "circulation strike" variety set. Perhaps I did not recall that correctly.
Wondercoin
Please visit my website at www.wondercoins.com and my ebay auctions under my user name www.wondercoin.com.
<< <i>Twincam: Is "officially released" the test for inclusion of a coin in a registry set? Indeed, how do you interpet "officially released"? >>
Mitch...no 1964 SMS coins were officially issued and released by the mint...officially issued and released meaning distributed by the mint through official channels...ie authorized by the mint to be distributed. And yes...as never officially issued and released, that is certainly reason for their non-inclusion in a registry set. Fact is, the US Mint issued a press release concerning one such non-officially released item...the 1964 Peace Dollar. In the press release, the mint declared that since they were never officially issued and released, any that were found in the possession of an individual "are the property of the United States, which is entitled to recover [them]." As we all know, you have to own an item (or have permission from the owner) to use it in the registry...that can't happen if it's the property of the United States.
<< <i>Did the US Mint "officially release" Missing Edge Lettering Presidential coins for example? >>
Yes, the US mint certainly "officially released" Missing Edge Lettering Presidential coins. Presidential coins were officially issued and released. The fact that the coins were produced with a variety or an error, of the same "Basic coin" has no bearing...the "Basic coin" was officially issued and released.
"Mitch...no 1964 SMS coins were officially issued and released by the mint...officially issued and released meaning distributed by the mint through official channels...ie authorized by the mint to be distributed. And yes...as never officially issued and released, that is certainly reason for their non-inclusion in a registry set. Fact is, the US Mint issued a press release concerning one such non-officially released item...the 1964 Peace Dollar. In the press release, the mint declared that since they were never officially issued and released, any that were found in the possession of an individual "are the property of the United States, which is entitled to recover [them]." As we all know, you have to own an item (or have permission from the owner) to use it in the registry...that can't happen if it's the property of the United States."
Dave - Yet, these SMS coins are legal to own, which would make them just as "official" as owning Missing Edge Lettering Dollars - no? These SMS coins are NOT like the 1964 Peace Dollar, which were not officially issued and released and therefore not legal to own. Right?
Wondercoin
Please visit my website at www.wondercoins.com and my ebay auctions under my user name www.wondercoin.com.
<< <i>"I find it funny, for a person with Mitch’s expertise, that he felt this was an “interesting comparison” when in fact it is not even comparing “apples to oranges”"
Tim - My "interesting comparison" comment referenced (4) different coins MS68 spoke of in that paragraph. You have addressed (1) of the (4) coins in disagreeing with my comment. What about MS68's other comparison coins mentioned?
Also, as far as the 1970-D Kennedy comparison - I believe it was previously mentioned by someone that the failure of the SMS coins to circulate was another reason the coins did not deserve to be in the variety set. Or, did I not recall that correctly?
Wondercoin >>
Mitch,
on the issue of the 1970-D Kennedy Half Dollar, your statement was
<< <i>Third, interesting comparison to the 70-D and the other coins you have mentioned. >>
. You are the one that emphasized the 1970-D and not the others. If the 1970-D was not the main coin you were referring to as being an "interesting comparison" then why emphasize it?
As far as the statement about SMS coins failing to circulate, I'm not sure what you are referring to or what you are recalling?
<< <i>Dave - Yet, these SMS coins are legal to own, which would make them just as "official" as owning Missing Edge Lettering Dollars - no? These SMS coins are NOT like the 1964 Peace Dollar, which were not officially issued and released and therefore not legal to own. Right? >>
Mitch I don't know if the 1964 SMS pieces are legal to own or not. There was a time several people thought their 1933 Saints were legal. The 1964 SMS pieces were not officially issued and released by the mint...I'll stop saying this as soon as anyone can show me one piece of correspondence or literature from the mint or Treasury Dept that addresses their issue and release.
The MEL Dollars were issued and released...an error or variety of them is not akin to an unreleased Basic coin.
I addressed many Kennedy Set concerns in my original post to this thread. Are we going to address any of the others...or just the 1964 SMS?
Tim- One last time before I leave for the Bowers auction in about four hours. Please show me ONE US pattern that has the exact same design, denomination, and metal of an issue from the same year that regular issue coins were struck, that only has a slight change in the finish that is classified as a pattern. Maybe there is one, I know of none off hand. What you are proposing is a brand new type of patttern in my opinion. As for the comparison on the 1970-D, it was only to show that a coin need not be released into circulation for inclusion in the mint state registry set. I guess I did not make that clear, I am sorry. The real comparison I made was that of the 1870-S dollar, half dime and three dollar gold. I notice that this point has still not been addressed. Quite a few of the classic rarities fall into this catagory of having no documentation. Why do you insist that this modern classic rarity be any different?
<< <i>Tim- One last time before I leave for the Bowers auction in about four hours. Please show me ONE US pattern that has the exact same design, denomination, and metal of an issue from the same year that regular issue coins were struck, that only has a slight change in the finish that is classified as a pattern. Maybe there is one, I know of none off hand. What you are proposing is a brand new type of patttern in my opinion. As for the comparison on the 1970-D, it was only to show that a coin need not be released into circulation for inclusion in the mint state registry set. I guess I did not make that clear, I am sorry. The real comparison I made was that of the 1870-S dollar, half dime and three dollar gold. I notice that this point has still not been addressed. Quite a few of the classic rarities fall into this catagory of having no documentation. Why do you insist that this modern classic rarity be any different? >>
Dave,
I am not sure how many times I have said this in this thread, but one more time.
Like I have mentioned before, I agree with Andy Lustig, that these coins should not be prematurely classified as “legitmate experimental pieces” without supporting documentation. I also agree with Andy Lustig, Dr. Wiles and Julian Leidman that these coins are not “regular issues” either. I don’t know what these 1964 SMS example are, they might be “experimental”, “test” “patterns”, “proto types”, “specimens” or “trial pieces” but until supporting documentation or an “authoritative” source can be shown by research they should not be considered “regular” or “Basic” coin.
The issue that I mention about your post was when you said: As far as the 1964 SMS coins being classified as patterns, they do not fit the description of a pattern. They were struck in the same metal as other 1964 coins and have the same design. My point was: Pattern may be struck in the same metal so your conclusion that this would disqualify these 1964 SMS example is unfounded
Now if you want to look at plausible theories about these coins; were they made as “experimental”, “test” “patterns”, “proto types”, “specimens” or “trial pieces” for the up coming SMS coins of 1965? This is why I feel that caution or a conservative approach should be taken and these examples should not be prematurely classified as anything until further research can be completed. If the intent of these 1964 SMS examples were for the theory mentioned then they would even be “off metal” to meet your standard (ninety percent verses forty percent silver) plus created a year ahead of the official 1965 SMS coinage mush like the 1916 Walking Liberty Half Dollar.
I know NGC has a different take on these 1964 SMS examples and calls them “Specimens”. Who is right, that is my point. But I do like the following quote from PCGS’ CoinFact web page when they talk about "patterns":
“Is it important that we classify these coins properly? Yes, because apart from our natural human tendency to categorize, pigeon-hole, and classify just about everything around us, most collectors are concerned about a thing called "intent". Rarities that were "made-to-order" or that were created deliberately hold less of an attraction than legitimate rarities, and justly so.”
EDITED TO ADD: On your question:
<< <i>The real comparison I made was that of the 1870-S dollar, half dime and three dollar gold. I notice that this point has still not been addressed. >>
I'm not sure what you are looking for. I do not collect any of the three series that you mentioned but none of them deal with the issue or series at hand either. I don't care if coins in other series are mis classified, I just don't what any examples going into the Kennedy series wrongly classified.
<< <i>If you still have the position that "patterns" have to be off metal, then I still have the position that you are un - informed. I'm not sure how else to say it. >>
I prefer you not quote me on a half a statement. I quote my previous post;
<< <i>A pattern is an unadapted design or one in a different metal. >>
<< The real comparison I made was that of the 1870-S dollar, half dime and three dollar gold. I notice that this point has still not been addressed. >>
I'm not sure what you are looking for. I do not collect any of the three series that you mentioned but none of them deal with the issue or series at hand either. I don't care if coins in other series are mis classified, I just don't what any examples going into the Kennedy series wrongly classified.
That is to funny! Classic rarities as being misattibuted. I will have to remember that one. You keep leaving off that if a coin is on the same metal/denomination it then needs to be a different design or at least changed design to be a pattern. Good luck in your fight. I will be fighting on the other side on this one. This isn't just a Kennedy issue as I stated earlier. My plane is ready to board. Have a nice week.
<< <i>If you still have the position that "patterns" have to be off metal, then I still have the position that you are un - informed. I'm not sure how else to say it. >>
I prefer you not quote me on a half a statement. I quote my previous post;
<< <i>A pattern is an unadapted design or one in a different metal. >>
>>
Sorry Jess but you are out to lunch on this one. If this is an example of your research then Russ is accurate is his assessment. Check the record!
I quoted you fully the first time.
You are the one that only quoted half of your own statement and challenged me to respond.
I quoted what part of your statement you used with your challenge and give a response.
Now you don’t like the half statement that you quoted to me? And say “I prefer you not quote me on a half a statement”. Sorry, this was your choice. I quoted exactly what you stated. Check the record.
You are responsible for only having half of your original post quoted.
Edit for spelling. Don't you hate it when this happens
Then show us an example of an adopted design in the same metal that is in the pattern book. Edited to add Since you like quoting people out of context, perhaps you should consider a career in politics.
<< <i>Then show us an example of an adopted design in the same metal that is in the pattern book. Edited to add Since you like quoting people out of context, perhaps you should consider a career in politics. >>
Jess,
I did not quote you "out of context"! You did that yourself! Guess you are not man enough to admitt it, sad, very sad!
<< <i><< The real comparison I made was that of the 1870-S dollar, half dime and three dollar gold. I notice that this point has still not been addressed. >>
I'm not sure what you are looking for. I do not collect any of the three series that you mentioned but none of them deal with the issue or series at hand either. I don't care if coins in other series are mis classified, I just don't what any examples going into the Kennedy series wrongly classified.
That is to funny! Classic rarities as being misattibuted. I will have to remember that one. You keep leaving off that if a coin is on the same metal/denomination it then needs to be a different design or at least changed design to be a pattern. Good luck in your fight. I will be fighting on the other side on this one. This isn't just a Kennedy issue as I stated earlier. My plane is ready to board. Have a nice week. >>
David,
I thought you might like that! It is my polite way of saying “I don’t give a crap about your 1970-S coins and stop trying to ‘muddy the waters’ when this thread is about the Kennedy series.”
I find it funny also; that your argument must be so week that was the only thing you quoted from the post. I’m not leaving anything off; you are one of the posters to this thread that is hung up on the definition of a “pattern” not me. I am not sure if the 1964 SMS coinage was a “pattern” for the start of the 1965 SMS coinage and have stated so several times. These 1964 SMS examples could be “experimental pieces”, “test pieces” or “proto- type pieces” for the upcoming 1965 – 1967 Special Mint Sets, maybe even “pattern” to see what the “special” strike would look like. Who knows what the intent of these “specimens” were. Until research can uncover what the intent was, it is pure speculation on both sides of the fence. I believe that I have presented a “plausible theory” in the post you are quoting from. Is this what happened? I don’t know but it is just as plausible as any other theory out there which is my point. Let us understand and find out what the intent of these 1964 SMS examples were, then they can be classified.
Tim - To move this discussion along, perhaps we should get off the 1964 SMS coin debate and move to something else? If you or anyone else here wants to question PCGS about the 1964 SMS coin -that is perfectly fine. No one is stopping you. But, It does not appear we have a consensus among members here for a "unified front" to propose a change with respect to that coin at this time. Agreed?
If so, are we also finished with a discussion of the 1998-S coin? Everything is fine with leaving that one alone at this point as well?
If so, let's discuss the 1982 NO FG - does it make any sense at this point to request its inclusion in the variety set (or the 1983 for that matter)?
Also, is there any coins from Twincam's thoughtful post that we should start discussing now?
And, finally, do you want to discuss the possibility of moving some "major" varieties into the complete set Tim?
Wondercoin
Please visit my website at www.wondercoins.com and my ebay auctions under my user name www.wondercoin.com.
I concur on the 1964 SMS examples, no sense “beating a dead horse”. The only thing I would add, is when you present the consensus of this thread to PCGS, you might ask why they decided to add the 1964 SMS. Maybe their research /documentation on the issue may shed some light on the subject so all of us can understand.
Next, the 1998-S SMS silver Kennedy, I’m not sure if this issue might need some more discussion. I’m trying to keep an open mind, but is this coin any different then the 1970-D, 1987-P or 1987-D which also were only issued in Mint Sets? Also, as you know, I like consistence within the Registry so on this point if the Jefferson Nickels are going to have in their “Basic Circulation Strike” set the 1994-P and the 1997-P SMS coins then I would like the 1998-S SMS silver treated the same. Does this sound fair? Hopefully other will chime in on this topic so a consensus can be formed.
Next, on the 1982-P “no FS”, I see no difference in this coin then the 1966 SMS “no FG” or the 1972-D “no FG” except that Fivaz & Stanton omitted it from the fourth edition of the Cherrypickers’ Guide. Why should we be penalized for their omission, this is a neat looking coin and it is searched for. I for one would like to see it in the “complete variety” set. As a matter of fact, I believe the 1982-P “no FG” was / is searched for more then the 1972-D counterpart.
Next issue, varieties worthy of the “Major Variety” set. Looking at the definition listed in the rules section of the Registry and Twincam list, I have no problem and will support the varieties that Twincam has listed. They make sense, they can be easily seen with the naked eye and have the history of being search for by the numismatic community for their “strength of doubling” or differences. I will copy Twincams list here so we can all see it.
On the MS side, that list would include… 1964-D DDO FS-101 (Old FS-13.4) 1964-D TDO FS-103 (Old FS-13.5) 1964-D QDO FS-105 (Old FS-13.6) 1966 DDO FS-101 (Old FS-13.8) 1971-D DDO FS-101 (Old FS-14.3) 1973-D FS-101 (Old FS-14.8) 1974-D DDO FS-101 (Old FS-15)
On the proof side, that list would include… 1964 DDO FS-101 (Old FS-13.2) 1966 SMS DDO FS-103 1966 SMS no “FG” FS-901 (Old FS-13.9) 1967 SMS QDO FS-101 1968-S DDO FS-101 (Old FS-14.0) 1971-S DDO FS-102 (Old FS-14.5)
Next issue, I believe the 1964 AH Proof should be put back into the ‘basic proof” set. If anyone disagrees I would be happy to state my case.
Next issue, the weights of the varieties are grossly out of line. I posted to this thread a list using Q.D. Bowers URS scale; I’m not saying that it is right, just fairer then what has been done so far.
I will stop here and let some other members bring up a few issues.
<< <i>You keep leaving off that if a coin is on the same metal/denomination it then needs to be a different design or at least changed design to be a pattern >>
Actually, he addressed that in an earlier post. But, I'll clarify it. If we assume that the 1964 SMS coins were struck as trials or experimental pieces in anticipation of subsequent SMS production then they are, indeed, of a different metal composition.
Now, what PCGS really needs to do is start designating the Birthmark Die and add it to the sets.
My position on the 1998-S SMS is in agreement with Tim's. As I stated in my original post to this thread...the 1998-S SMS is a circulation strike that belongs in the Basic Circulation Strike Set…much as the 1994-P SMS and 1997-P SMS Jefferson nickels. It should be added not only to the Basic Circulation Strike Set...but also to the Complete Basic Set, Circulation Strikes and Proof.
I understand PCGS now holders the 1982-P no "FG" in a "Minor Variety" holder. In my opinion, this is the coin Fivaz & Stanton should have placed in the Cherrypickers' instead of the 1972-D no "FG". The 1982-P no "FG" and the 1966 SMS no "FG" are the two no "FG" coins that have been searched for by a wide base of collectors. I wouldn't add any of the other no "FG" coins after that. The 1966 SMS and 1982-P belong...and I understand the 1972-D is there because it's in the Cherrypickers'. That's enough.
As per my original post here, I also agree the 1964 AH proof should be added back to the Basic Set. I further believe the same is true for the 1979 and 1981 Type II coins.
As to the Major Varieties...Tim, I'm glad to hear you think the list presented is accurate. I believe most long-time Kennedy variety collectors would present a very similar list.
Regarding the weights assigned to the varieties...they are urgently in need of revision. As Tim has noted, the 1974-D has long had a weight of three. It seems logical to leave that alone, and use it as a benchmark for the others based on relative scarcity. I believe Tim's chart posted earlier in this thread has a lot of merit.
I know there will be some other issues before we're finished...but let's not forget the issue of the "Complete Variety Set, Circulation Strikes and Proof". Several of the Kennedy variety collectors want a set to put ALL their Kennedys under one roof.
We havn't heard from you on your opinion of Twincam's list of what varieties should be in the "Major Variety" sets. Which varieties would you like to see in the sets?
What do you think of the "weights" given to the varieties?
You asked me what I thought of the 1982-P "no FG", what is your take on that coin?
What do you think of the idea of asking PCGS to start a "Kennedy Half Dollar Complete Variety, Circulation Strikes and Proof (1964 - Present)"?
Now that we are talking about new sets, what are your thoughts on adding to the specialty sets, I was thinking about "Kennedy Half Dollars Complete Variety, Short Silver Set, Circulation Strikes (1964 - 1970)? This set would have more varieties then "basic" coins.
This is a very interesting thread. Although my collection of Kennedy halves is minimal. This whole subject is like deja vu to those that are collecting Presidential Dollars. It takes awhile to get the ship (PCGS) turned but it will be worth it, you guys just need minimal mutanies in the process to get it all accomplished.
Guys: I think the 1982 No FG is as major a variety (if not even more desireable) as a great many coins that are now being considered major varieties.
I am also fine leaving the 98-S just where it is.
I understand why the AH and Ty 2 SBA coins are being treated as varieties by PCGS and out of the basic set. I am indifferent to what happens with them though. If there is a strong unanamous movement by collectors to put them back (i.e. more than the handful that have weighed in thus far), you won't get any argument out of me.
I like the idea of a global variety set that includes all the MS and Proof varieties - why not. And, smaller variety sets - why not. That philosophy is what PCGS has done with most of its sets recently.
In a little bit, I am tied up most of the day today so I may not get back to this until this evening. In the meantime, perhaps we can hear from many others.
Wondercoin
Please visit my website at www.wondercoins.com and my ebay auctions under my user name www.wondercoin.com.
On the 1982-P “no FG”, Like I’ve mentioned before, I like the coin and think it should be part of a variety collection of the series. Just so there is full discloser, I have had a few email discussions with James Wiles about this coin. (For anyone reading this post who doesn’t know who James Wiles is, he is a Past President of CONECA and is currently CONECA's 20th Century Die Variety Attributer. Dr. Wiles also is the author of “The Kennedy Half Dollar Book, An Attribution and Pricing Guide.” Most Collectors of the varieties of the Kennedy series consider Dr. Wiles sort of like the grandfather of the Kennedy varieties.) One of the things that I discussed with Dr. Wiles, was about the 1982-P “no FG”. Dr Wiles expressed to me ” I included a few of the no FG halves in my first book, because it was the first book on the subject and I wanted to provide information for the most popularly collected pieces. The 1983 never was that popular. Since then, the no FG field has pretty much dried up. I see an occasional auction for the 66 SMS and the 82P but not very often. The no FG can be caused by either a debris filled die or an over abraded die. In either case they are considered die errors and not die varieties.” My thinking was if the coin was struck after the dies were polished too much then wouldn’t they still be considered a “variety”?
Where Dr. Wiles is leaning towards these “no FG” coins being “errors” instead of “varieties”, maybe it would be better if we place them in the “Complete Varieties” sets and not the “Major Varieties” sets.
I think the rotated reverses should be on the list as well. This especially applies to the '88-P but also to the '65. Many consider these errors rather than varieties but they seem to have more in common with the latter than the former. Certainly they identify specific dies and die pairs.
I for one would think a person trying to build a complete Kennedy Collection would strive to have an example of each specimen produced for a given year.
I would like to say I am in favor of the changes PCGS has layed out for the Kennedy sets. I feel the new additions will bring back the interest some of us have lost, in building the best and most complete sets possible.
I do wish the 1982 P no designers initials had been included also, and I believe the 1964 AH should stay, as it was the first version of the proof issue, until Jackie got it changed.
I have had some of these varieties in my raw Kennedy collection already and now look forward to the challenge of having them graded or purchasing them already certified/slabbed by PCGS.
These views are offered as my humble opinion only Regards, Larry
<< <i>I do wish the 1982 P no designers initials had been included also, and I believe the 1964 AH should stay, as it was the first version of the proof issue, until Jackie got it changed. >>
I would be in favor of the 1982-P no "FG" if PCGS were to begin attributing it. In my opinion, that coin would belong in the complete MS set, but not the basic or major variety sets. As the mint made a conscious design change on the 1964 proofs with the intent that they look different, both are basic coins and both belong in the basic set.
Ok, my thoughts and they are just my personal opinions: PCGS has done pretty good on setting forth their rules/guidelines for all to read. I do not have a full Kennedy Registry set, nor do I want to collect one. I do have a Short set, way down on the ATF list In regards to the 1964 SMS I think if it has to be added it should be optional and not required.
Set Changes-
The PCGS Set Registry is a work in progress. Occasionally, a coin in a set originally marked as "optional" may be changed to be included as part of the required coins or vice versa. Also, coins may be added or subtracted from a set. These changes may affect a registrant's overall GPA and rating. PCGS reserves the right to make changes with or without the consent of participating members.
I think Tim has made some pretty good points and it would appear to fall in line with what PCGS states in their rules. Be sure before a coin is included, so as to not have to back track
Major Variety Set (Date, Mintmark, and Major Varieties)-
Note that new varieties are recognized each year and the number of coins needed for a Major Variety Set may increase over time. Also note that it is possible for varieties to be “delisted,” i.e. removed from inclusion in the Major Variety set. Sometimes varieties are misattributed by the numismatic community. For example, for years the pricing guides listed an 1869/8 Indian cent. Experts now state that this is not a 9 over 8, but “recut 9,” or “9 over 9.’ This minor recutting is a much more common occurring variety and is not considered major.
As far as the no FG I believe PCGS said
<< <i> the Complete Variety Set includes all die varieties as listed in the most recognized reference books. >>
That they would follow what was in the current Cherry Picker's Guide and this is why they are not included.
I hope to see these coins added to a new short set all of which I already have, maybe not top pop but I want to play!
1964-D DDO FS-101 or 104 1964-D TDO FS-103 (Old FS-13.5) 1964-D QDO FS-105 (Old FS-13.6) 1964-D/D RPM FS-501 or FS-502
I have read this thread and others on these current Kennendy Half debuts and would like to comment on some of the points that have been made. First, I will state that I am a fairly long term Kennedy collector and have sets in all of the Kennedy Registry Sets, one of which has been the the number one set for the past two years. Also,I've talked to Mitch a number of times over the years and have asked for his sage advise and his expertise and have much appreciated his assist. However, with that said, my viewpoints on the issues presented are in conflict with his and maybe others.
1. The Accent Hair Proof, I'm indifferent on this issue.
2. The “Major Varieties” listed by Twincam, I feel are correct and these are the “varieties” that should be listed in the sets called “Major Varieties”. The “varieties” listed are the ones that I have always searched for, for their “strength of doubling” and ease of seeing.
3. The Weights for the “varieties” listed by Tim seem fairer and more logical comparing the basic coins to the varieties and the varieties amongst themselves. I have no idea how PCGS came up with the current weights, there is no rhyme or reasoning that I can make out (no understandable pattern of any type). It would be great if PCGS would post a paper on how they came up with "Weights" re the Kennedy Varieties.
4. The Registry should have a “Basic Circulation Strike” Set like they have for the “Statehood Quarters” and “Presidential Dollars” consisting of just “business strike” coin and no “satin finish” coins. Just can not understand their thinking sometime; Maybe it's "ADD" or "ADHD"?
5. The 1964 SMS example has never been part of any Kennedy Circulation or Proof set in the past and it is not a "variety" of a coin listed in any recognized reference guide that I know of. I agree with Dr. Wiles, David Lange, Rick Tomaska, Coneca, ANA and others that don't consider this coin a "variety", but a Prototype, Test or Experimental piece and even a Pattern coin. Please by all means show me just one Legit Coin Reference book that refers to the 1964 SMS as a Kennedy Variety? I believe the vast majority of Kennedy collectors will agree with me on this point---The 1964 SMS should be removed from the Kennedy series sets! As I told (wrote) David Hall et al, if I owned one, I'd still be adamantly opposed to it being in the Kennedy Sets!!!
6. The 1998-S SMS coin is not a variety of a “basic” coin; it is a “basic” coin that was only issued in a two coin commemorative set. No different then the 1970-D or the 1987-P & D Kennedy Half Dollars being issued only in Mint Sets, and I might add, unlike the 1964SMS, the 1998-S was and is an available coin that the general public can get. Like it has been mentioned, if PCGS allows the Jefferson Nickels to have the SMS 1994-P & 1997-P in that “basic” set then why not the same treatment for the 1998-S SMS Kennedy in our “basic set? Just simply Perplexing!!! There's that "ADD" again.
7. The 1982-P “no FG” in the “Complete Variety” set, I am indifferent too, but if the rule ‘is” the variety must be listed in the Cherrypickers’ Guide, then that is the rule (which page of the CPG is the 64 SMS on???). By the way, I had many detailed discussions with PCGS and PCGS Registry about the make up of the Kennedy Variety Sets before they were posted, never once did they ever mention the requierment of 1964 SMS. Then just several days before they posted the Kennedy Variety Sets I noticed that the Jeff. Nickles and Rossie Variety Sets required the 1964 SMS. I called BJ at the Registry and to my astonishment she confirmed the unbelievable. My question. Why did PCGS try to hide it?
P.S. Mitch, I'd like to buy your POP one 1982-P MS67 "no FG", would you sell it?
These are just my humble opinions of the points raised so far,
PDSHAD - Thank you for that thoughtful post. I am not sure we disagree on very much - do we? It appears we might only seriously disagree on the treatment of the SMS Kennedy actually. That horse has been beaten to death so no need to start up again - at least right now.
As far as me selling any MS Kennedys - the set has really been in a holding pattern for me over the past few years with me buying and selling virtually no set coins. I love the Kenendy series as much as anyone and grew up with the coins. One day, I might just start aggressively collecting the series again. Or, I might just sell off the collection. Just not sure yet. But, I can tell you this - not a day goes by where I am not at least trying to slab a pop top Kennedy half dollar. The only problem is they are next to impossible to produce!! A real "sleeper" coin in top grade.
Wondercoin
Please visit my website at www.wondercoins.com and my ebay auctions under my user name www.wondercoin.com.
I've been a member of the Registry for a number of years but I have never once posted any comments on the Message Board until now. This is the second, the first was late yesterday. In fact I've only looked at the Message Board a half dozen times over the years, and that was because I was looking for Kennedys to buy and once I was trying to sell a few Platinums.
Well, I was contacted by another Kennedy Collector who asked me to please chime in on this rather heated debate. So I did, but now you ask me to drop the 64 SMS arguement, at least for now, "because that horse has been beaten to death"! Well sir, the horse may be beaten to death but there has been no official announcement of it's burial. At this point in my life I strive to avoid penned, verbal or physical conflict, for I've had more than my share of all three in the past. However, for this matter, I think I have a right to voice my thoughts and stance. For full disclosure, a while back you told me owned the 1964 SMS Washington quarter and I believe the 64 SMS Kennedy as well. I have no problem with that because I've actively tried to locate and purchase one (Kennedy) for myself. If I do find and buy one, I would still hold to my belief and stand by objection to it's entry into any of the current Kennedy sets. I've seen photos of these coins and they are truely a super coin to behold. I own a beautiful (PCGS graded and labeled) 1968-D Kennedy MS67 that was struck on a quarter planchet. PCGS will not allow it into the Registry, so for a time I placed it into the PCGS Showcase. Why don't you and others place your 64 SMS's there for all to see?
PDSHAD - I was not the only one who suggested dropping the discussion now on the "beaten horse" - go review this thread - a number of others (including those sharing your view) agreed that was the proper thing to do at this point to move on to all the other issues. You came in a bit late to the thread so you brought up the SMS coin. I noted that in reading your "thoughtful" posting that may have been the only major disagreement we had on our views of Kennedys. But, a number of other posters previously suggested dropping that debate for now - hence, my comment about the beaten horse.
If eveyone would like to "start up" again on the SMS coin - I am fine with that. I simply did not want to address it in light of the prior agreement on the thread to drop the issue for now. Which has nothing at all to do with silencing PDSHAD - I am very pleased you stopped by to voice your opinion.
Wondercoin
Please visit my website at www.wondercoins.com and my ebay auctions under my user name www.wondercoin.com.
<< <i>PDSHAD - I was not the only one who suggested dropping the discussion now on the "beaten horse" - go review this thread - a number of others (including those sharing your view) agreed that was the proper thing to do at this point to move on to all the other issues. You came in a bit late to the thread so you brought up the SMS coin. I noted that in reading your "thoughtful" posting that may have been the only major disagreement we had on our views of Kennedys. But, a number of other posters previously suggested dropping that debate for now - hence, my comment about the beaten horse.
If eveyone would like to "start up" again on the SMS coin - I am fine with that. I simply did not want to address it in light of the prior agreement on the thread to drop the issue for now. Which has nothing at all to do with silencing PDSHAD - I am very pleased you stopped by to voice your opinion.
Wondercoin >>
Just for clarity, I was the one that mentioned and referred to the 1964 SMS issue as “beating a dead horse”. I did this because in my opinion neither Mitch, Jess nor David Schwetz could produce any legitimate reasons based on research or authoritative source to warrant the inclusion of the 1964 SMS examples into a series “complete variety” set and without that type of documentation, I will stand steadfast that the 1964 SMS is not a legitimate variety of the series. On the same note, nothing that Twincam, Russ, Syl, Cointime, or I said was going to move Mitch for his take on the issue. If a vote of the Kennedy collectors that have commented in this thread were to vote right now on the 1964 SMS issue, the vote would be six to one against inclusion of the 1964 SMS. But only seven members that have sets in the Registry of Kennedy Half Dollars is low, and I would like to see a few more collectors chime in.
If someone wants to chime in on the 1964 SMS issue, either for or against, go for it! I will stand by my viewpoint until either research or documentation can be shown to warrant the inclusion. (I like changes to be based on something substantial not just because PCGS doesn’t know what else to do with it.)
In the meantime, is there any opposition to the modification of varieties that Twincam listed for the “Major Varieties” sets?
Also, is there any opposition to weight changes that I brought up?
Is there any opposition to having a “Basic Set” in the Registry consisting of only business strike coins and no satin finish?
Some have mentioned that they are “indifferent”, but is any one opposed to requesting that the 1964 AH Proof be put back into the “Basic Proof” set?
Just for the record, I am glad to see PDSHAD post; don’t be a stranger to these forums! Any other Kennedy Collector, I would also like to see post their viewpoint on the issues raised so far and any other issue they think applies to this thread. The more that post, the more accurate the consensus will be.
Tim: I thought I did produce some "evidence" on why the SMS coin might be acceptable for the Registry. For one thing, I showed you that true pattern coins are, indeed, part of the registry (e.g. 1856 Flying Eagle) notwithstanding the fact that they are not technically "varieties". I also pointed out to you that PCGS has great discretion within the rules of its registry to include or exclude anything they desire - it's their court and ball. In other words, the "spirit" of the registry is not a pure form over substance analysis. This is why great coins such as the 1856 Flying Eagle is in the registry, to name just one coin.
Now, I will repeat - I had ABSOUTELY NOTHING to do with PCGS including the SMS coin in the registry. I have frankly not discussed a Kennedy Half Dollar with any one at PCGS, vis a vis a registry discussion, in year(s). Obviously, PCGS, on their own, selected the SMS coin as important enough to be included in the sets. Or, perhaps the debate occured with respect to another series (Lincolns, Jefferson, Roosies or Wash quarters) and PCGS decided to include the coin there and, to be consistent, decided that every set should have the SMS coins (just a guess on my part)? I have no idea- I did suggest writing to PCGS to ask the question and see what answer we all get.
In any event, we were all "beating a dead horse" as no one was going to convince the other of anything with respect to the SMS coin. And, it appears we are still right there. So, unless I hear any objection, later this week, I will send an email off to PCGS and simply ask PCGS on what basis they decided to include the SMS coins in the registry. Unless that is not OK with anyone here?
Wondercoin
Please visit my website at www.wondercoins.com and my ebay auctions under my user name www.wondercoin.com.
<< <i>Tim: I thought I did produce some "evidence" on why the SMS coin might be acceptable for the Registry. For one thing, I showed you that true pattern coins are, indeed, part of the registry (e.g. 1856 Flying Eagle) notwithstanding the fact that they are not technically "varieties". I also pointed out to you that PCGS has great discretion within the rules of its registry to include or exclude anything they desire - it's their court and ball. In other words, the "spirit" of the registry is not a pure form over substance analysis. This is why great coins such as the 1856 Flying Eagle is in the registry, to name just one coin.
Now, I will repeat - I had ABSOUTELY NOTHING to do with PCGS including the SMS coin in the registry. I have frankly not discussed a Kennedy Half Dollar with any one at PCGS, vis a vis a registry discussion, in year(s). Obviously, PCGS, on their own, selected the SMS coin as important enough to be included in the sets. Or, perhaps the debate occured with respect to another series (Lincolns, Jefferson, Roosies or Wash quarters) and PCGS decided to include the coin there and, to be consistent, decided that every set should have the SMS coins (just a guess on my part)? I have no idea- I did suggest writing to PCGS to ask the question and see what answer we all get.
In any event, we were all "beating a dead horse" as no one was going to convince the other of anything with respect to the SMS coin. And, it appears we are still right there. So, unless I hear any objection, later this week, I will send an email off to PCGS and simply ask PCGS on what basis they decided to include the SMS coins in the registry. Unless that is not OK with anyone here?
Wondercoin >>
Mitch,
With all due respect, the 1856 Flying Eagle Cent may be classified as a “pattern” but they left the Mint by means of the “front door” as far as I know, one Mint employee didn’t walk out with all examples of this coin, unlike what appears to be the case with the 1964 SMS. Like I mentioned before, I’m not sure the 1964 SMS examples are “patterns” or “experimental pieces” but before it is classified as anything maybe what it “is” should be found out first by research, documentation or an authoritative source on the subject (sorry PCGS may be the best grading company, but they are not an authoritative source on the classification of an “experimental piece”, “test” or “pattern”, that is what they use reference books for and that is all I’m asking, what legitimate reference book or what did their research show?) . The argument that you raise about the 1856 Flying Eagle, I could make the same argument using the 1916 Liberty Half Dollar but neither one or the 1970-D Kennedy that was mentioned earlier in this thread has any bearing on the 1964 SMS.
Now your statement that PCGS has “great discretion within the rules”, I guess all I would say here is “what rules”? If you refer to the first post I made in this thread, this is the point I was trying to make. If PCGS wants to say the Registry has integrity, is fair and unbiased, it is a place that “is home to the worlds finest coin collections, both past and present” then shouldn’t there be a complete set of rules for all to follow? If it is as PCGS says, “is home to the worlds finest coin collections, both past and present” then shouldn’t it be by established sets of the different series coins collected? Not by what they (PCGS) says a collection of coins should be? Getting back to the subject of rules, I can’t imagine going to a baseball game and the umpire and both coaches say, we will make up the rules as we play the game.
Mitch, if you say that you haven’t talked to PCGS about what coins are added to the Registry sets, I do not doubt you – I will take you at your word (end of subject as far as I’m concerned, no need to keep saying that you haven’t).
My previous post was just to point out that I was the one that referred to the debate as “beating a dead horse” and I have no intention of just repeating my viewpoints on the subject. But on the same token, someone that is posting here new, yes I would like to hear their viewpoints on the subject but they can read the thread to determine my viewpoint, and yes, based on what new research or documentation they produce, I may change my viewpoint (I am trying to keep an open mind but will challenge for supporting documentation).
I was also trying to in my previous post, to high light the points that I get the feeling we are in agreement on and ask if anyone had objections to them. Yes, I would like to hear from more then just the eight or nine Kennedy Collectors that have posted so far, maybe they might have an issue that hasn’t been brought up yet.
I like the idea of having this thread, so all can voice their opinion and a “united front” can be presented to PCGS for change (if warranted).
I'd like to know who is searching for the gem 08 BS coin's as it seems we have been doing way to much typing on this thread ( thats a wink don't stone me ). I have nouthing to add as I no longer have a dog in this battle.
Dan
U S Navy Retired 22 years - ENC(SW) Ret. - Travling Nuclear Maintanence Contractor - Working Indian Point Nuclear plant Buchanan New York
I have not given up yet but I have held my breath long enough and decided it was just time to leave. IF they ever get a true Basic Circ Strike set ( no SMS or SF coins) I may be back . To Me this is an easy thing to figure out - A Circulation strike is a coin that has the strike of a coin that is ment for CIRCULATION. A SMS or SF coin was never struck for CIRCULATION. Now were are those 08 PCGS BS Halves my set is still growing.
Dan
U S Navy Retired 22 years - ENC(SW) Ret. - Travling Nuclear Maintanence Contractor - Working Indian Point Nuclear plant Buchanan New York
I am going to try and find the issue of the PCGS monthly mag that they mail out, if I remember correctly, there was an article about the satin finish compared to the bussiness strike. I believe the article was referring to how some collectors collect just the business strike. If this is the case, I wonder if this is mentioned to the Registry along with the fact that the "Statehood Quarters" and "Presidential Dollars" currently have just bussiness strike sets that may help pave the way for the Kennedy halves only having a business strike set.
<< <i>In any event, we were all "beating a dead horse" as no one was going to convince the other of anything with respect to the SMS coin. And, it appears we are still right there. So, unless I hear any objection, later this week, I will send an email off to PCGS and simply ask PCGS on what basis they decided to include the SMS coins in the registry. Unless that is not OK with anyone here? >>
"Although the exact source of the Special Mint Set strikings of 1964 coinage is uncertain (most believe they came from the estate of dealer Lester Merkin), they have been trading in the numismatic marketplace since their surfacing in auctions beginning in 1993. Their inclusion as separate varieties is analogous to the separate listing of Satin finish examples in Mint Sets, which were first issued in 2005. Both are striking variations that represent a variation from the normal strikes (hence, PCGS listing them as separate varieties)."
Wondercoin
Please visit my website at www.wondercoins.com and my ebay auctions under my user name www.wondercoin.com.
"Although the exact source of the Special Mint Set strikings of 1964 coinage is uncertain (most believe they came from the estate of dealer Lester Merkin), they have been trading in the numismatic marketplace since their surfacing in auctions beginning in 1993. Their inclusion as separate varieties is analogous to the separate listing of Satin finish examples in Mint Sets, which were first issued in 2005. Both are striking variations that represent a variation from the normal strikes (hence, PCGS listing them as separate varieties)."
Wondercoin >>
Mitch,
I received the same email today from PCGS. Wonder how he wrote that, bet it wasn't with a straight face! Talk about not passing the "smell test".
Dannreuther is comparing the 1964 SMS to the modern satin finish circulation strike sets issued by the US Mint? Talk about making a leap, Evil Kanevil couldn’t even make that jump. I am surprised that he is willing to put his creditability on the line like this, maybe he will amend his statement or make one that is more believable? If different strikes are varieties, then why isn’t the 1964 Proof a variety and listed as such in the MS side of the Registry? Hay, I have an idea, lets take out the 1965 - 1967 coins and subsitute in the 1965 - 1967 SMS coins in the "Basic Circulation Strike" sets!
Someone has been spending to much time on the dung pile, because that is what this one is smelling like!
After reading through most of this, I thought I would add my opinion:
1) The 1964 SMS coins are obviously experimental pieces and thus should probably be classified as patterns (someone asked if there were any patterns which had the same design and metal content as the final coin issued; the answer is the Mercury dime, the only difference is the lack of the "W" on the pattern).
2) The 1998-S SMS coin should not be included with the business strike sets; it's a matte proof.
3) The 1970-D and 1987-P/D belong in the business strike sets because there is/was no intent to make them different from business strikes (besides most of the high grade examples in the business strike sets came from Mint sets).
"It's far easier to fight for principles, than to live up to them." Adlai Stevenson
Comments
<< <i>Well this moron still believes that the 1964 SMS's were patterns of the Special Mint Sets released in the place of proofs sets in 1965, 1966, and 1967. Possibly a little like a dollar coin of the date that was made but never authorized. >>
I never called you a moron, I only descibed a statement you made as moronic. I apolagize if this was too harsh.
After having seen, examined, and owned virtually all known examples of 1964 SMS coins, I believe the only comparison is the Chapman dollars. Unlike those, they were struck but once. I no longer own any coins these days, but I handled in my day thousands of high powered patterns, and the SMS are not patterns. I truly believe they are Denver mint products sans the mintmarks, that were minted for sets that might have included 1964D peace dollars. That is what I was told by a friend of Lester Merkin, the man who owned all known 1964 SMS coins. They are more distinctive than most Double dies or accentuated hair varieties. They are important varieties that can be distinguished naked eye by any trained numismatist, or any sharp eyed coin maven who was once shown one
<< <i>It is obvious that you are un - informed on the topic. A “pattern” does not have to be off metal, most definitions that I have read state that it “may” be off metal. >>
I submit, perhaps you should reconsider weather I am truly uniformed on any facet of American numismatics.
Jess Lipka
Wondercoin
<< <i>Let me start out by stating that I am not a collector of Kennedy's and have never been one. I have produced and sold a number of toppop pieces to collectors such as Green. Included in that was the still pop one 1964-D MS68. I feel I have a right to get in this discussion as I have placed quite a few of the SMS pieces in all the denominations and you all are trying to determine the way these are treated. These sets came out of Stacks sales out of a deal they purchased. I will try to press Larry at the Central States show this week as to where they acquired them from.
As far as the 1964 SMS coins being classified as patterns, they do not fit the description of a pattern. They were struck in the same metal as other 1964 coins and have the same design. The only difference is a slight change in finish. If it isn't a pattern then it must be considered a regularly issued coin and should then be considered in the regular issue registry sets. The last I heard was that if PCGS has graded more than five of a variety, then it would be included in the variety set. Has this changed? Mitch, you would know. The only question would be to determine whether they fit in the proof or MS sets. Do the coins fit the description of a proof? Have they been struck more than once? Answer that and you should have your answer.
As to the coins not being made for circulation, can someone please remind me how many 1970-D halves were released into general circulation? Should we remove this coin from the mint state registry as well? As to having no records that they were struck, how about coins like the 1870-S dollar, half dime and three dollar gold? There a quite a few other examples including many classic rarities.
Folks, instead of getting upset at how much you are going to have to shell out to acquire one of these, I would say that you should be looking at how much you are going to make on this coin in the future when this coin gets treated as the classic modern rarity that I feel it rightly deserves. I feel they are selling for only a fraction of what they will be worth in the not to distant future. >>
Dear David Schweitz,
Glad to see you chime in and you are more then welcome as far as I am concerned.
I have read your post and have a few comments. You mention “As far as the 1964 SMS coins being classified as patterns, they do not fit the description of a pattern. They were struck in the same metal as other 1964 coins and have the same design” . Pattern may be struck in the same metal so you conclusion that this would disqualify these 1964 SMS example is unfounded and I would site the following source. PCGS’ own CoinFact web site and the definition listed on the web page of uspatterns.com, also the following quote or paraphrase from “Scott’s Comprehensive Catalogue and Encyclopedia of U.S. Coins, 1971.”
NOTE 1:
(The following is quoted and/or paraphrased from a resource that may be absent from your library. “Scott’s Comprehensive Catalogue and Encyclopedia of U.S. Coins, 1971,” prepared and edited for the Scott Publishing Co., by Don Taxay)
The pattern is an essay intended for submission by the Mint Director to a higher authority, generally the Secretary of the Treasury or Congress. It may be struck in the metal intended for adoption, or, for reasons of economy, in a less expensive one.
NOTE 2:
Quoted from Coinfacts (a PCGS owned product): Pattern coins fall into a number of different categories:
1. Both sides were rejected for use on circulating coins.
2. One or both sides were modified slightly before they were used on circulating coins.
3. Either the obverse or the reverse was accepted for use on circulating coins.
4. Both sides were accepted for use on circulating coins, but the metal composition may be different from the one eventually used.
Like I have mentioned before, I agree with Andy Lustig, that these coins should not be prematurely classified as “legitmate experimental pieces” without supporting documentation. I also agree with Andy Lustig, Dr. Wiles and Julian Leidman that these coins are not “regular issues” either. I don’t know what these 1964 SMS example are, they might be “experimental”, “test” “patterns”, “proto types”, “specimens” or “trial pieces” but until supporting documentation or an “authoritative” source can be shown by research they should not be considered “regular” or “Basic” coin.
The second issue that you made, that I would like to bring up for discussion is the erroneous connection you have made concerning the 1970-D Kennedy Half Dollar to the 1964 SMS examples. I find it funny, for a person with Mitch’s expertise, that he felt this was an “interesting comparison” when in fact it is not even comparing “apples to oranges”, it is more like comparing “coal to peanut butter”. The 1970-D Kennedy Half Dollar was officially released by the US mint. You allude in your post that since the 1970-D was not released into circulation then it should not be included into a “basic” set. This makes me wonder if you consider any of the modern proof coins, “basic” coins for inclusion into a “basic” proof set because they were not released into circulation. Regarding if the US Mint release a coin into circulation is a mute issue, the US Mint could release a coin into circulation or as a collectable item issued as proofs, mint, or in a commemorative set ( the underline requirement is , was it an officially issue and released by the US Mint not by the back door).
JMHO,
Tim
<< <i> << It is obvious that you are un - informed on the topic. A “pattern” does not have to be off metal, most definitions that I have read state that it “may” be off metal. >>
I submit, perhaps you should reconsider weather I am truly uniformed on any facet of American numismatics.
Jess Lipka >>
Welcome Jess Lipka,
If you still have the position that "patterns" have to be off metal, then I still have the position that you are un - informed. I'm not sure how else to say it.
Tim - My "interesting comparison" comment referenced (4) different coins MS68 spoke of in that paragraph. You have addressed (1) of the (4) coins in disagreeing with my comment. What about MS68's other comparison coins mentioned?
Also, as far as the 1970-D Kennedy comparison - I believe it was previously mentioned (or alluded to) by someone that the failure of the SMS coins to circulate was another reason the coins did not deserve to be in the "circulation strike" variety set. Perhaps I did not recall that correctly.
Wondercoin
<< <i>Twincam: Is "officially released" the test for inclusion of a coin in a registry set?
Indeed, how do you interpet "officially released"? >>
Mitch...no 1964 SMS coins were officially issued and released by the mint...officially issued and released meaning distributed by the mint through official channels...ie authorized by the mint to be distributed. And yes...as never officially issued and released, that is certainly reason for their non-inclusion in a registry set. Fact is, the US Mint issued a press release concerning one such non-officially released item...the 1964 Peace Dollar. In the press release, the mint declared that since they were never officially issued and released, any that were found in the possession of an individual "are the property of the United States, which is entitled to recover [them]." As we all know, you have to own an item (or have permission from the owner) to use it in the registry...that can't happen if it's the property of the United States.
<< <i>Did the US Mint "officially release" Missing Edge Lettering Presidential coins for example? >>
Yes, the US mint certainly "officially released" Missing Edge Lettering Presidential coins. Presidential coins were officially issued and released. The fact that the coins were produced with a variety or an error, of the same "Basic coin" has no bearing...the "Basic coin" was officially issued and released.
COMPLETE KENNEDY VARIETY SET, CIRCULATION STRIKES AND PROOFS
1964 MINT SET
Dave - Yet, these SMS coins are legal to own, which would make them just as "official" as owning Missing Edge Lettering Dollars - no? These SMS coins are NOT like the 1964 Peace Dollar, which were not officially issued and released and therefore not legal to own. Right?
Wondercoin
<< <i>"I find it funny, for a person with Mitch’s expertise, that he felt this was an “interesting comparison” when in fact it is not even comparing “apples to oranges”"
Tim - My "interesting comparison" comment referenced (4) different coins MS68 spoke of in that paragraph. You have addressed (1) of the (4) coins in disagreeing with my comment. What about MS68's other comparison coins mentioned?
Also, as far as the 1970-D Kennedy comparison - I believe it was previously mentioned by someone that the failure of the SMS coins to circulate was another reason the coins did not deserve to be in the variety set. Or, did I not recall that correctly?
Wondercoin >>
Mitch,
on the issue of the 1970-D Kennedy Half Dollar, your statement was
<< <i>Third, interesting comparison to the 70-D and the other coins you have mentioned. >>
. You are the one that emphasized the 1970-D and not the others. If the 1970-D was not the main coin you were referring to as being an "interesting comparison" then why emphasize it?
As far as the statement about SMS coins failing to circulate, I'm not sure what you are referring to or what you are recalling?
<< <i>Dave - Yet, these SMS coins are legal to own, which would make them just as "official" as owning Missing Edge Lettering Dollars - no? These SMS coins are NOT like the 1964 Peace Dollar, which were not officially issued and released and therefore not legal to own. Right? >>
Mitch
I don't know if the 1964 SMS pieces are legal to own or not. There was a time several people thought their 1933 Saints were legal. The 1964 SMS pieces were not officially issued and released by the mint...I'll stop saying this as soon as anyone can show me one piece of correspondence or literature from the mint or Treasury Dept that addresses their issue and release.
The MEL Dollars were issued and released...an error or variety of them is not akin to an unreleased Basic coin.
I addressed many Kennedy Set concerns in my original post to this thread. Are we going to address any of the others...or just the 1964 SMS?
COMPLETE KENNEDY VARIETY SET, CIRCULATION STRIKES AND PROOFS
1964 MINT SET
Thank you,
Tim
Wondercoin
<< <i>Tim- One last time before I leave for the Bowers auction in about four hours. Please show me ONE US pattern that has the exact same design, denomination, and metal of an issue from the same year that regular issue coins were struck, that only has a slight change in the finish that is classified as a pattern. Maybe there is one, I know of none off hand. What you are proposing is a brand new type of patttern in my opinion. As for the comparison on the 1970-D, it was only to show that a coin need not be released into circulation for inclusion in the mint state registry set. I guess I did not make that clear, I am sorry. The real comparison I made was that of the 1870-S dollar, half dime and three dollar gold. I notice that this point has still not been addressed. Quite a few of the classic rarities fall into this catagory of having no documentation. Why do you insist that this modern classic rarity be any different? >>
Dave,
I am not sure how many times I have said this in this thread, but one more time.
Like I have mentioned before, I agree with Andy Lustig, that these coins should not be prematurely classified as “legitmate experimental pieces” without supporting documentation. I also agree with Andy Lustig, Dr. Wiles and Julian Leidman that these coins are not “regular issues” either. I don’t know what these 1964 SMS example are, they might be “experimental”, “test” “patterns”, “proto types”, “specimens” or “trial pieces” but until supporting documentation or an “authoritative” source can be shown by research they should not be considered “regular” or “Basic” coin.
The issue that I mention about your post was when you said: As far as the 1964 SMS coins being classified as patterns, they do not fit the description of a pattern. They were struck in the same metal as other 1964 coins and have the same design. My point was: Pattern may be struck in the same metal so your conclusion that this would disqualify these 1964 SMS example is unfounded
Now if you want to look at plausible theories about these coins; were they made as “experimental”, “test” “patterns”, “proto types”, “specimens” or “trial pieces” for the up coming SMS coins of 1965? This is why I feel that caution or a conservative approach should be taken and these examples should not be prematurely classified as anything until further research can be completed. If the intent of these 1964 SMS examples were for the theory mentioned then they would even be “off metal” to meet your standard (ninety percent verses forty percent silver) plus created a year ahead of the official 1965 SMS coinage mush like the 1916 Walking Liberty Half Dollar.
I know NGC has a different take on these 1964 SMS examples and calls them “Specimens”. Who is right, that is my point. But I do like the following quote from PCGS’ CoinFact web page when they talk about "patterns":
“Is it important that we classify these coins properly? Yes, because apart from our natural human tendency to categorize, pigeon-hole, and classify just about everything around us, most collectors are concerned about a thing called "intent". Rarities that were "made-to-order" or that were created deliberately hold less of an attraction than legitimate rarities, and justly so.”
EDITED TO ADD: On your question:
<< <i>The real comparison I made was that of the 1870-S dollar, half dime and three dollar gold. I notice that this point has still not been addressed. >>
I'm not sure what you are looking for. I do not collect any of the three series that you mentioned but none of them deal with the issue or series at hand either. I don't care if coins in other series are mis classified, I just don't what any examples going into the Kennedy series wrongly classified.
EDITED for grammar
<< <i>If you still have the position that "patterns" have to be off metal, then I still have the position that you are un - informed. I'm not sure how else to say it. >>
I prefer you not quote me on a half a statement. I quote my previous post;
<< <i>A pattern is an unadapted design or one in a different metal. >>
I'm not sure what you are looking for. I do not collect any of the three series that you mentioned but none of them deal with the issue or series at hand either. I don't care if coins in other series are mis classified, I just don't what any examples going into the Kennedy series wrongly classified.
That is to funny! Classic rarities as being misattibuted.
<< <i>
<< <i>If you still have the position that "patterns" have to be off metal, then I still have the position that you are un - informed. I'm not sure how else to say it. >>
I prefer you not quote me on a half a statement. I quote my previous post;
<< <i>A pattern is an unadapted design or one in a different metal. >>
>>
Sorry Jess but you are out to lunch on this one. If this is an example of your research then Russ is accurate is his assessment. Check the record!
I quoted you fully the first time.
You are the one that only quoted half of your own statement and challenged me to respond.
I quoted what part of your statement you used with your challenge and give a response.
Now you don’t like the half statement that you quoted to me? And say “I prefer you not quote me on a half a statement”. Sorry, this was your choice. I quoted exactly what you stated. Check the record.
You are responsible for only having half of your original post quoted.
Edit for spelling. Don't you hate it when this happens
<< <i>Then show us an example of an adopted design in the same metal that is in the pattern book. Edited to add Since you like quoting people out of context, perhaps you should consider a career in politics. >>
Jess,
I did not quote you "out of context"! You did that yourself! Guess you are not man enough to admitt it, sad, very sad!
<< <i><< The real comparison I made was that of the 1870-S dollar, half dime and three dollar gold. I notice that this point has still not been addressed. >>
I'm not sure what you are looking for. I do not collect any of the three series that you mentioned but none of them deal with the issue or series at hand either. I don't care if coins in other series are mis classified, I just don't what any examples going into the Kennedy series wrongly classified.
That is to funny! Classic rarities as being misattibuted.
David,
I thought you might like that! It is my polite way of saying “I don’t give a crap about your 1970-S coins and stop trying to ‘muddy the waters’ when this thread is about the Kennedy series.”
I find it funny also; that your argument must be so week that was the only thing you quoted from the post. I’m not leaving anything off; you are one of the posters to this thread that is hung up on the definition of a “pattern” not me. I am not sure if the 1964 SMS coinage was a “pattern” for the start of the 1965 SMS coinage and have stated so several times. These 1964 SMS examples could be “experimental pieces”, “test pieces” or “proto- type pieces” for the upcoming 1965 – 1967 Special Mint Sets, maybe even “pattern” to see what the “special” strike would look like. Who knows what the intent of these “specimens” were. Until research can uncover what the intent was, it is pure speculation on both sides of the fence. I believe that I have presented a “plausible theory” in the post you are quoting from. Is this what happened? I don’t know but it is just as plausible as any other theory out there which is my point. Let us understand and find out what the intent of these 1964 SMS examples were, then they can be classified.
JMHO,
Tim
If so, are we also finished with a discussion of the 1998-S coin? Everything is fine with leaving that one alone at this point as well?
If so, let's discuss the 1982 NO FG - does it make any sense at this point to request its inclusion in the variety set (or the 1983 for that matter)?
Also, is there any coins from Twincam's thoughtful post that we should start discussing now?
And, finally, do you want to discuss the possibility of moving some "major" varieties into the complete set Tim?
Wondercoin
I concur on the 1964 SMS examples, no sense “beating a dead horse”. The only thing I would add, is when you present the consensus of this thread to PCGS, you might ask why they decided to add the 1964 SMS. Maybe their research /documentation on the issue may shed some light on the subject so all of us can understand.
Next, the 1998-S SMS silver Kennedy, I’m not sure if this issue might need some more discussion. I’m trying to keep an open mind, but is this coin any different then the 1970-D, 1987-P or 1987-D which also were only issued in Mint Sets? Also, as you know, I like consistence within the Registry so on this point if the Jefferson Nickels are going to have in their “Basic Circulation Strike” set the 1994-P and the 1997-P SMS coins then I would like the 1998-S SMS silver treated the same. Does this sound fair? Hopefully other will chime in on this topic so a consensus can be formed.
Next, on the 1982-P “no FS”, I see no difference in this coin then the 1966 SMS “no FG” or the 1972-D “no FG” except that Fivaz & Stanton omitted it from the fourth edition of the Cherrypickers’ Guide. Why should we be penalized for their omission, this is a neat looking coin and it is searched for. I for one would like to see it in the “complete variety” set. As a matter of fact, I believe the 1982-P “no FG” was / is searched for more then the 1972-D counterpart.
Next issue, varieties worthy of the “Major Variety” set. Looking at the definition listed in the rules section of the Registry and Twincam list, I have no problem and will support the varieties that Twincam has listed. They make sense, they can be easily seen with the naked eye and have the history of being search for by the numismatic community for their “strength of doubling” or differences. I will copy Twincams list here so we can all see it.
On the MS side, that list would include…
1964-D DDO FS-101 (Old FS-13.4)
1964-D TDO FS-103 (Old FS-13.5)
1964-D QDO FS-105 (Old FS-13.6)
1966 DDO FS-101 (Old FS-13.8)
1971-D DDO FS-101 (Old FS-14.3)
1973-D FS-101 (Old FS-14.8)
1974-D DDO FS-101 (Old FS-15)
On the proof side, that list would include…
1964 DDO FS-101 (Old FS-13.2)
1966 SMS DDO FS-103
1966 SMS no “FG” FS-901 (Old FS-13.9)
1967 SMS QDO FS-101
1968-S DDO FS-101 (Old FS-14.0)
1971-S DDO FS-102 (Old FS-14.5)
Next issue, I believe the 1964 AH Proof should be put back into the ‘basic proof” set. If anyone disagrees I would be happy to state my case.
Next issue, the weights of the varieties are grossly out of line. I posted to this thread a list using Q.D. Bowers URS scale; I’m not saying that it is right, just fairer then what has been done so far.
I will stop here and let some other members bring up a few issues.
Tim
<< <i>You keep leaving off that if a coin is on the same metal/denomination it then needs to be a different design or at least changed design to be a pattern >>
Actually, he addressed that in an earlier post. But, I'll clarify it. If we assume that the 1964 SMS coins were struck as trials or experimental pieces in anticipation of subsequent SMS production then they are, indeed, of a different metal composition.
Now, what PCGS really needs to do is start designating the Birthmark Die and add it to the sets.
Russ, NCNE
I understand PCGS now holders the 1982-P no "FG" in a "Minor Variety" holder. In my opinion, this is the coin Fivaz & Stanton should have placed in the Cherrypickers' instead of the 1972-D no "FG". The 1982-P no "FG" and the 1966 SMS no "FG" are the two no "FG" coins that have been searched for by a wide base of collectors. I wouldn't add any of the other no "FG" coins after that. The 1966 SMS and 1982-P belong...and I understand the 1972-D is there because it's in the Cherrypickers'. That's enough.
As per my original post here, I also agree the 1964 AH proof should be added back to the Basic Set. I further believe the same is true for the 1979 and 1981 Type II coins.
As to the Major Varieties...Tim, I'm glad to hear you think the list presented is accurate. I believe most long-time Kennedy variety collectors would present a very similar list.
Regarding the weights assigned to the varieties...they are urgently in need of revision. As Tim has noted, the 1974-D has long had a weight of three. It seems logical to leave that alone, and use it as a benchmark for the others based on relative scarcity. I believe Tim's chart posted earlier in this thread has a lot of merit.
I know there will be some other issues before we're finished...but let's not forget the issue of the "Complete Variety Set, Circulation Strikes and Proof". Several of the Kennedy variety collectors want a set to put ALL their Kennedys under one roof.
COMPLETE KENNEDY VARIETY SET, CIRCULATION STRIKES AND PROOFS
1964 MINT SET
We havn't heard from you on your opinion of Twincam's list of what varieties should be in the "Major Variety" sets. Which varieties would you like to see in the sets?
What do you think of the "weights" given to the varieties?
You asked me what I thought of the 1982-P "no FG", what is your take on that coin?
What do you think of the idea of asking PCGS to start a "Kennedy Half Dollar Complete Variety, Circulation Strikes and Proof (1964 - Present)"?
Now that we are talking about new sets, what are your thoughts on adding to the specialty sets, I was thinking about "Kennedy Half Dollars Complete Variety, Short Silver Set, Circulation Strikes (1964 - 1970)? This set would have more varieties then "basic" coins.
Tim
It takes awhile to get the ship (PCGS) turned but it will be worth it, you guys just need minimal mutanies in the process to get it all accomplished.
Gardnerville, NV
=========================
Our Website -->Innovation, Native & Presidential Dollar Errors, Lincoln Cents and more
Check it out --> Our eBay Auctions
I am also fine leaving the 98-S just where it is.
I understand why the AH and Ty 2 SBA coins are being treated as varieties by PCGS and out of the basic set. I am indifferent to what happens with them though. If there is a strong unanamous movement by collectors to put them back (i.e. more than the handful that have weighed in thus far), you won't get any argument out of me.
I like the idea of a global variety set that includes all the MS and Proof varieties - why not. And, smaller variety sets - why not. That philosophy is what PCGS has done with most of its sets recently.
In a little bit, I am tied up most of the day today so I may not get back to this until this evening. In the meantime, perhaps we can hear from many others.
Wondercoin
On the 1982-P “no FG”, Like I’ve mentioned before, I like the coin and think it should be part of a variety collection of the series. Just so there is full discloser, I have had a few email discussions with James Wiles about this coin. (For anyone reading this post who doesn’t know who James Wiles is, he is a Past President of CONECA and is currently CONECA's 20th Century Die Variety Attributer. Dr. Wiles also is the author of “The Kennedy Half Dollar Book, An Attribution and Pricing Guide.” Most Collectors of the varieties of the Kennedy series consider Dr. Wiles sort of like the grandfather of the Kennedy varieties.) One of the things that I discussed with Dr. Wiles, was about the 1982-P “no FG”. Dr Wiles expressed to me ” I included a few of the no FG halves in my first book, because it was the first book on the subject and I wanted to provide information for the most popularly collected pieces. The 1983 never was that popular. Since then, the no FG field has pretty much dried up. I see an occasional auction for the 66 SMS and the 82P but not very often. The no FG can be caused by either a debris filled die or an over abraded die. In either case they are considered die errors and not die varieties.” My thinking was if the coin was struck after the dies were polished too much then wouldn’t they still be considered a “variety”?
Where Dr. Wiles is leaning towards these “no FG” coins being “errors” instead of “varieties”, maybe it would be better if we place them in the “Complete Varieties” sets and not the “Major Varieties” sets.
Tim
applies to the '88-P but also to the '65. Many consider these errors rather
than varieties but they seem to have more in common with the latter than
the former. Certainly they identify specific dies and die pairs.
...Just a thought.
would strive to have an example of each specimen produced for a given year.
I would like to say I am in favor of the changes PCGS has layed out for the Kennedy sets.
I feel the new additions will bring back the interest some of us have lost,
in building the best and most complete sets possible.
I do wish the 1982 P no designers initials had been included also, and I believe
the 1964 AH should stay, as it was the first version of the proof issue, until Jackie got it changed.
I have had some of these varieties in my raw Kennedy collection already
and now look forward to the challenge of having them graded or purchasing
them already certified/slabbed by PCGS.
These views are offered as my humble opinion only
Regards, Larry
<< <i>I do wish the 1982 P no designers initials had been included also, and I believe the 1964 AH should stay, as it was the first version of the proof issue, until Jackie got it changed. >>
I would be in favor of the 1982-P no "FG" if PCGS were to begin attributing it. In my opinion, that coin would belong in the complete MS set, but not the basic or major variety sets. As the mint made a conscious design change on the 1964 proofs with the intent that they look different, both are basic coins and both belong in the basic set.
COMPLETE KENNEDY VARIETY SET, CIRCULATION STRIKES AND PROOFS
1964 MINT SET
PCGS has done pretty good on setting forth their rules/guidelines for all to read. I do not have a full Kennedy Registry set, nor do I want to collect one. I do have a Short set, way down on the ATF list
Set Changes-
The PCGS Set Registry is a work in progress. Occasionally, a coin in a set originally marked as "optional" may be changed to be included as part of the required coins or vice versa. Also, coins may be added or subtracted from a set. These changes may affect a registrant's overall GPA and rating. PCGS reserves the right to make changes with or without the consent of participating members.
I think Tim has made some pretty good points and it would appear to fall in line with what PCGS states in their rules. Be sure before a coin is included, so as to not have to back track
Major Variety Set (Date, Mintmark, and Major Varieties)-
Note that new varieties are recognized each year and the number of coins needed for a Major Variety Set may increase over time. Also note that it is possible for varieties to be “delisted,” i.e. removed from inclusion in the Major Variety set. Sometimes varieties are misattributed by the numismatic community. For example, for years the pricing guides listed an 1869/8 Indian cent. Experts now state that this is not a 9 over 8, but “recut 9,” or “9 over 9.’ This minor recutting is a much more common occurring variety and is not considered major.
As far as the no FG I believe PCGS said
<< <i> the Complete Variety Set includes all die varieties as listed in the most recognized reference books. >>
That they would follow what was in the current Cherry Picker's Guide and this is why they are not included.
I hope to see these coins added to a new short set
1964-D DDO FS-101 or 104
1964-D TDO FS-103 (Old FS-13.5)
1964-D QDO FS-105 (Old FS-13.6)
1964-D/D RPM FS-501 or FS-502
Have a great weekend guys!
Ken
One last food for thought on Rarities: If the well documented King of Siam coins were broken up into different hands, would the individual coins (which are "Restrikes") be (required or optional, like the 1834 Half Dollar PCGS PR 65 in a top notch Half set like this?) I used Dale's set just as an example since the Proof set did not have any entries at this time. Sorry if this goes off topic
My Washington Type B/C Set
I have read this thread and others on these current Kennendy Half debuts and would like to comment on some of the points that have been made. First, I will state that I am a fairly long term Kennedy collector and have sets in all of the Kennedy Registry Sets, one of which has been the the number one set for the past two years. Also,I've talked to Mitch a number of times over the years and have asked for his sage advise and his expertise and have much appreciated his assist. However, with that said, my viewpoints on the issues presented are in conflict with his and maybe others.
1. The Accent Hair Proof, I'm indifferent on this issue.
2. The “Major Varieties” listed by Twincam, I feel are correct and these are the “varieties” that should be listed in the sets called “Major Varieties”. The “varieties” listed are the ones that I have always searched for, for their “strength of doubling” and ease of seeing.
3. The Weights for the “varieties” listed by Tim seem fairer and more logical comparing the basic coins to the varieties and the varieties amongst themselves. I have no idea how PCGS came up with the current weights, there is no rhyme or reasoning that I can make out (no understandable pattern of any type). It would be great if PCGS would post a paper on how they came up with "Weights" re the Kennedy Varieties.
4. The Registry should have a “Basic Circulation Strike” Set like they have for the “Statehood Quarters” and “Presidential Dollars” consisting of just “business strike” coin and no “satin finish” coins. Just can not understand their thinking sometime; Maybe it's "ADD" or "ADHD"?
5. The 1964 SMS example has never been part of any Kennedy Circulation or Proof set in the past and it is not a "variety" of a coin listed in any recognized reference guide that I know of. I agree with Dr. Wiles, David Lange, Rick Tomaska, Coneca, ANA and others that don't consider this coin a "variety", but a Prototype, Test or Experimental piece and even a Pattern coin. Please by all means show me just one Legit Coin Reference book that refers to the 1964 SMS as a Kennedy Variety? I believe the vast majority of Kennedy collectors will agree with me on this point---The 1964 SMS should be removed from the Kennedy series sets! As I told (wrote) David Hall et al, if I owned one, I'd still be adamantly opposed to it being in the Kennedy Sets!!!
6. The 1998-S SMS coin is not a variety of a “basic” coin; it is a “basic” coin that was only issued in a two coin commemorative set. No different then the 1970-D or the 1987-P & D Kennedy Half Dollars being issued only in Mint Sets, and I might add, unlike the 1964SMS, the 1998-S was and is an available coin that the general public can get. Like it has been mentioned, if PCGS allows the Jefferson Nickels to have the SMS 1994-P & 1997-P in that “basic” set then why not the same treatment for the 1998-S SMS Kennedy in our “basic set? Just simply Perplexing!!! There's that "ADD" again.
7. The 1982-P “no FG” in the “Complete Variety” set, I am indifferent too, but if the rule ‘is” the variety must be listed in the Cherrypickers’ Guide, then that is the rule (which page of the CPG is the 64 SMS on???). By the way, I had many detailed discussions with PCGS and PCGS Registry about the make up of the Kennedy Variety Sets before they were posted, never once did they ever mention the requierment of 1964 SMS. Then just several days before they posted the Kennedy Variety Sets I noticed that the Jeff. Nickles and Rossie Variety Sets required the 1964 SMS. I called BJ at the Registry and to my astonishment she confirmed the unbelievable. My question. Why did PCGS try to hide it?
P.S. Mitch, I'd like to buy your POP one 1982-P MS67 "no FG", would you sell it?
These are just my humble opinions of the points raised so far,
PDSHAD
As far as me selling any MS Kennedys - the set has really been in a holding pattern for me over the past few years with me buying and selling virtually no set coins. I love the Kenendy series as much as anyone and grew up with the coins. One day, I might just start aggressively collecting the series again. Or, I might just sell off the collection. Just not sure yet. But, I can tell you this - not a day goes by where I am not at least trying to slab a pop top Kennedy half dollar. The only problem is they are next to impossible to produce!! A real "sleeper" coin in top grade.
Wondercoin
I've been a member of the Registry for a number of years but I have never once posted any comments on the Message Board until now. This is the second, the first was late yesterday. In fact I've only looked at the Message Board a half dozen times over the years, and that was because I was looking for Kennedys to buy and once I was trying to sell a few Platinums.
Well, I was contacted by another Kennedy Collector who asked me to please chime in on this rather heated debate. So I did, but now you ask me to drop the 64 SMS arguement, at least for now, "because that horse has been beaten to death"! Well sir, the horse may be beaten to death but there has been no official announcement of it's burial. At this point in my life I strive to avoid penned, verbal or physical conflict, for I've had more than my share of all three in the past. However, for this matter, I think I have a right to voice my thoughts and stance. For full disclosure, a while back you told me owned the 1964 SMS Washington quarter and I believe the 64 SMS Kennedy as well. I have no problem with that because I've actively tried to locate and purchase one (Kennedy) for myself. If I do find and buy one, I would still hold to my belief and stand by objection to it's entry into any of the current Kennedy sets. I've seen photos of these coins and they are truely a super coin to behold. I own a beautiful (PCGS graded and labeled) 1968-D Kennedy MS67 that was struck on a quarter planchet. PCGS will not allow it into the Registry, so for a time I placed it into the PCGS Showcase. Why don't you and others place your 64 SMS's there for all to see?
My best regards, your friend,
PDSHAD
If eveyone would like to "start up" again on the SMS coin - I am fine with that. I simply did not want to address it in light of the prior agreement on the thread to drop the issue for now. Which has nothing at all to do with silencing PDSHAD - I am very pleased you stopped by to voice your opinion.
Wondercoin
<< <i>PDSHAD - I was not the only one who suggested dropping the discussion now on the "beaten horse" - go review this thread - a number of others (including those sharing your view) agreed that was the proper thing to do at this point to move on to all the other issues. You came in a bit late to the thread so you brought up the SMS coin. I noted that in reading your "thoughtful" posting that may have been the only major disagreement we had on our views of Kennedys. But, a number of other posters previously suggested dropping that debate for now - hence, my comment about the beaten horse.
If eveyone would like to "start up" again on the SMS coin - I am fine with that. I simply did not want to address it in light of the prior agreement on the thread to drop the issue for now. Which has nothing at all to do with silencing PDSHAD - I am very pleased you stopped by to voice your opinion.
Wondercoin >>
Just for clarity, I was the one that mentioned and referred to the 1964 SMS issue as “beating a dead horse”. I did this because in my opinion neither Mitch, Jess nor David Schwetz could produce any legitimate reasons based on research or authoritative source to warrant the inclusion of the 1964 SMS examples into a series “complete variety” set and without that type of documentation, I will stand steadfast that the 1964 SMS is not a legitimate variety of the series. On the same note, nothing that Twincam, Russ, Syl, Cointime, or I said was going to move Mitch for his take on the issue. If a vote of the Kennedy collectors that have commented in this thread were to vote right now on the 1964 SMS issue, the vote would be six to one against inclusion of the 1964 SMS. But only seven members that have sets in the Registry of Kennedy Half Dollars is low, and I would like to see a few more collectors chime in.
If someone wants to chime in on the 1964 SMS issue, either for or against, go for it! I will stand by my viewpoint until either research or documentation can be shown to warrant the inclusion. (I like changes to be based on something substantial not just because PCGS doesn’t know what else to do with it.)
In the meantime, is there any opposition to the modification of varieties that Twincam listed for the “Major Varieties” sets?
Also, is there any opposition to weight changes that I brought up?
Is there any opposition to having a “Basic Set” in the Registry consisting of only business strike coins and no satin finish?
Some have mentioned that they are “indifferent”, but is any one opposed to requesting that the 1964 AH Proof be put back into the “Basic Proof” set?
Just for the record, I am glad to see PDSHAD post; don’t be a stranger to these forums! Any other Kennedy Collector, I would also like to see post their viewpoint on the issues raised so far and any other issue they think applies to this thread. The more that post, the more accurate the consensus will be.
JMHO,
Tim
Now, I will repeat - I had ABSOUTELY NOTHING to do with PCGS including the SMS coin in the registry. I have frankly not discussed a Kennedy Half Dollar with any one at PCGS, vis a vis a registry discussion, in year(s). Obviously, PCGS, on their own, selected the SMS coin as important enough to be included in the sets. Or, perhaps the debate occured with respect to another series (Lincolns, Jefferson, Roosies or Wash quarters) and PCGS decided to include the coin there and, to be consistent, decided that every set should have the SMS coins (just a guess on my part)? I have no idea- I did suggest writing to PCGS to ask the question and see what answer we all get.
In any event, we were all "beating a dead horse" as no one was going to convince the other of anything with respect to the SMS coin. And, it appears we are still right there. So, unless I hear any objection, later this week, I will send an email off to PCGS and simply ask PCGS on what basis they decided to include the SMS coins in the registry. Unless that is not OK with anyone here?
Wondercoin
<< <i>Tim: I thought I did produce some "evidence" on why the SMS coin might be acceptable for the Registry. For one thing, I showed you that true pattern coins are, indeed, part of the registry (e.g. 1856 Flying Eagle) notwithstanding the fact that they are not technically "varieties". I also pointed out to you that PCGS has great discretion within the rules of its registry to include or exclude anything they desire - it's their court and ball. In other words, the "spirit" of the registry is not a pure form over substance analysis. This is why great coins such as the 1856 Flying Eagle is in the registry, to name just one coin.
Now, I will repeat - I had ABSOUTELY NOTHING to do with PCGS including the SMS coin in the registry. I have frankly not discussed a Kennedy Half Dollar with any one at PCGS, vis a vis a registry discussion, in year(s). Obviously, PCGS, on their own, selected the SMS coin as important enough to be included in the sets. Or, perhaps the debate occured with respect to another series (Lincolns, Jefferson, Roosies or Wash quarters) and PCGS decided to include the coin there and, to be consistent, decided that every set should have the SMS coins (just a guess on my part)? I have no idea- I did suggest writing to PCGS to ask the question and see what answer we all get.
In any event, we were all "beating a dead horse" as no one was going to convince the other of anything with respect to the SMS coin. And, it appears we are still right there. So, unless I hear any objection, later this week, I will send an email off to PCGS and simply ask PCGS on what basis they decided to include the SMS coins in the registry. Unless that is not OK with anyone here?
Wondercoin >>
Mitch,
With all due respect, the 1856 Flying Eagle Cent may be classified as a “pattern” but they left the Mint by means of the “front door” as far as I know, one Mint employee didn’t walk out with all examples of this coin, unlike what appears to be the case with the 1964 SMS. Like I mentioned before, I’m not sure the 1964 SMS examples are “patterns” or “experimental pieces” but before it is classified as anything maybe what it “is” should be found out first by research, documentation or an authoritative source on the subject (sorry PCGS may be the best grading company, but they are not an authoritative source on the classification of an “experimental piece”, “test” or “pattern”, that is what they use reference books for and that is all I’m asking, what legitimate reference book or what did their research show?) . The argument that you raise about the 1856 Flying Eagle, I could make the same argument using the 1916 Liberty Half Dollar but neither one or the 1970-D Kennedy that was mentioned earlier in this thread has any bearing on the 1964 SMS.
Now your statement that PCGS has “great discretion within the rules”, I guess all I would say here is “what rules”? If you refer to the first post I made in this thread, this is the point I was trying to make. If PCGS wants to say the Registry has integrity, is fair and unbiased, it is a place that “is home to the worlds finest coin collections, both past and present” then shouldn’t there be a complete set of rules for all to follow? If it is as PCGS says, “is home to the worlds finest coin collections, both past and present” then shouldn’t it be by established sets of the different series coins collected? Not by what they (PCGS) says a collection of coins should be? Getting back to the subject of rules, I can’t imagine going to a baseball game and the umpire and both coaches say, we will make up the rules as we play the game.
Mitch, if you say that you haven’t talked to PCGS about what coins are added to the Registry sets, I do not doubt you – I will take you at your word (end of subject as far as I’m concerned, no need to keep saying that you haven’t).
My previous post was just to point out that I was the one that referred to the debate as “beating a dead horse” and I have no intention of just repeating my viewpoints on the subject. But on the same token, someone that is posting here new, yes I would like to hear their viewpoints on the subject but they can read the thread to determine my viewpoint, and yes, based on what new research or documentation they produce, I may change my viewpoint (I am trying to keep an open mind but will challenge for supporting documentation).
I was also trying to in my previous post, to high light the points that I get the feeling we are in agreement on and ask if anyone had objections to them. Yes, I would like to hear from more then just the eight or nine Kennedy Collectors that have posted so far, maybe they might have an issue that hasn’t been brought up yet.
I like the idea of having this thread, so all can voice their opinion and a “united front” can be presented to PCGS for change (if warranted).
JMHO,
Tim
Dan
">Franklin Halves
">Kennedy Halves
One of the issues we are trying to get is to see if a majority will support
<< <i>Is there any opposition to having a “Basic Set” in the Registry consisting of only business strike coins and no satin finish? >>
So don't give up yet
Dan
">Franklin Halves
">Kennedy Halves
I am going to try and find the issue of the PCGS monthly mag that they mail out, if I remember correctly, there was an article about the satin finish compared to the bussiness strike. I believe the article was referring to how some collectors collect just the business strike. If this is the case, I wonder if this is mentioned to the Registry along with the fact that the "Statehood Quarters" and "Presidential Dollars" currently have just bussiness strike sets that may help pave the way for the Kennedy halves only having a business strike set.
Tim
<< <i>In any event, we were all "beating a dead horse" as no one was going to convince the other of anything with respect to the SMS coin. And, it appears we are still right there. So, unless I hear any objection, later this week, I will send an email off to PCGS and simply ask PCGS on what basis they decided to include the SMS coins in the registry. Unless that is not OK with anyone here? >>
Mitch,
Any news back yet?
Tim
Wondercoin
Tim
"Although the exact source of the Special Mint Set strikings of 1964 coinage is uncertain (most believe they came from the estate of dealer Lester Merkin), they have been trading in the numismatic marketplace since their surfacing in auctions beginning in 1993. Their inclusion as separate varieties is analogous to the separate listing of Satin finish examples in Mint Sets, which were first issued in 2005. Both are striking variations that represent a variation from the normal strikes (hence, PCGS listing them as separate varieties)."
Wondercoin
<< <i>From John Dannreuther:
"Although the exact source of the Special Mint Set strikings of 1964 coinage is uncertain (most believe they came from the estate of dealer Lester Merkin), they have been trading in the numismatic marketplace since their surfacing in auctions beginning in 1993. Their inclusion as separate varieties is analogous to the separate listing of Satin finish examples in Mint Sets, which were first issued in 2005. Both are striking variations that represent a variation from the normal strikes (hence, PCGS listing them as separate varieties)."
Wondercoin >>
Mitch,
I received the same email today from PCGS. Wonder how he wrote that, bet it wasn't with a straight face! Talk about not passing the "smell test".
Dannreuther is comparing the 1964 SMS to the modern satin finish circulation strike sets issued by the US Mint? Talk about making a leap, Evil Kanevil couldn’t even make that jump. I am surprised that he is willing to put his creditability on the line like this, maybe he will amend his statement or make one that is more believable? If different strikes are varieties, then why isn’t the 1964 Proof a variety and listed as such in the MS side of the Registry? Hay, I have an idea, lets take out the 1965 - 1967 coins and subsitute in the 1965 - 1967 SMS coins in the "Basic Circulation Strike" sets!
Someone has been spending to much time on the dung pile, because that is what this one is smelling like!
Anyway, I got an answer / you got an answer. At least we got an answer.
Wondercoin
1) The 1964 SMS coins are obviously experimental pieces and thus should probably be classified as patterns (someone asked if there were any patterns which had the same design and metal content as the final coin issued; the answer is the Mercury dime, the only difference is the lack of the "W" on the pattern).
2) The 1998-S SMS coin should not be included with the business strike sets; it's a matte proof.
3) The 1970-D and 1987-P/D belong in the business strike sets because there is/was no intent to make them different from business strikes (besides most of the high grade examples in the business strike sets came from Mint sets).