1964 SP/SMS coins 1 1

[MarkFeld]

20 minutes ago, VKurtB said:

The question is whether you are satisfied with “might not have been the case”. Clearly, I am not impressed with that standard. I see it as more likely than not that misdeeds occurred. 

I have no idea whether anything improper was done and neither do you. I hope it wasn't, but unlike you, since I don't have the facts, I'm not going to make accusations. And that doesn't mean I excuse "misdeeds".

[Henri Charriere]

[Note to earlycoin-migratio...  Coming out like a cicada every so often, I bet you never thought a simple query would re-ignite a firestorm of opinion on a residual matter that has been lying dormant until you reawakened it with only your third post in years.

Welcome back to the Forum, a scaled back, more closely supervised Gladiator School of Numismatics where common courtesy reigns supreme!]

[VKurtB]

Mark, it sure looks like you’re looking to grant a past government employee all the benefit of the doubt. As a CURRENT government employee, I am not. I see rampant corruption on nearly a daily basis. 

[MarkFeld]

5 minutes ago, VKurtB said:

Mark, it sure looks like you’re looking to grant a past government employee all the benefit of the doubt. As a CURRENT government employee, I am not. I see rampant corruption on nearly a daily basis. 

Yes, in the absence of any evidence of wrongdoing, I choose to give the benefit of the doubt. And perhaps more so, because at that time, it’s easy to believe that the coins had no special value.

[GREENWOOD210]

It's sad allot of people especially new collectors come to these forums looking for advice or info and the experts treat them horribly. I'm glad I didn't listen to you guys and went with the info provided. I'll post pics after my SMS is encapsulated and returned.... Thanks for nothing! 

[VKurtB]

Just now, GREENWOOD210 said:

It's sad allot of people especially new collectors come to these forums looking for advice or info and the experts treat them horribly. I'm glad I didn't listen to you guys and went with the info provided. I'll post pics after my SMS is encapsulated and returned.... Thanks for nothing! 

Dream on. Yours are merely a completely normal 1964 proof set. I have 30 sets exactly like yours.

[VKurtB]

5 hours ago, MarkFeld said:

Yes, in the absence of any evidence of wrongdoing, I choose to give the benefit of the doubt. And perhaps more so, because at that time, it’s easy to believe that the coins had no special value.

You and I agree on that last bit. If I am to believe @RWB, they STILL ARE no difference and have no special value truly other than condition rarities. Never having examined one, I’ll defer having an opinion on that. I am troubled by one other thing - if these are truly “Specimens” from sets, why is there only talk of the halves? What about the other denominations?

 

Yeah, I realize all the action on 1979 and 1981 Type II proofs is on the SBA’s, but this would be that effect on steroids. 

Edited November 11, 2020 by VKurtB

[Just Bob]

55 minutes ago, GREENWOOD210 said:

It's sad allot of people especially new collectors come to these forums looking for advice or info and the experts treat them horribly. I'm glad I didn't listen to you guys and went with the info provided. I'll post pics after my SMS is encapsulated and returned.... Thanks for nothing! 

"Treat them horribly?" How can you possibly say that you were treated "horribly?" A total of four posters responded to your posts, giving their opinion that your coins were proofs, and not SMS coins. No one was rude or ugly; they were honest and matter-of-fact. If having someone merely disagree with your opinion makes you this upset, maybe online forums are not for you.

Feel free to post the results of your submission when you get them. My guess is that they will not be graded as Specimens or Special Mint Set coins, but I would love for you to prove me, and all of the others, wrong.

Good luck.

[MarkFeld]

4 hours ago, VKurtB said:

You and I agree on that last bit. If I am to believe @RWB, they STILL ARE no difference and have no special value truly other than condition rarities. Never having examined one, I’ll defer having an opinion on that. I am troubled by one other thing - if these are truly “Specimens” from sets, why is there only talk of the halves? What about the other denominations?

 

Yeah, I realize all the action on 1979 and 1981 Type II proofs is on the SBA’s, but this would be that effect on steroids. 

I’m not sure what you mean by “why is there only talk of the halves?”. Maybe they receive the bulk of the attention, because they bring much higher prices, but there are graded examples of each of the other denominations, as well.

The coins were in sets that sold in Stack’s sales in the 90’s and when I was grading at NGC, a number of them were submitted for grading. As I recall, over time, many of the coins have migrated into PCGS holders.
 

 

Edited November 11, 2020 by MarkFeld

[scopru]

8 hours ago, GREENWOOD210 said:

It's sad allot of people especially new collectors come to these forums looking for advice or info and the experts treat them horribly. I'm glad I didn't listen to you guys and went with the info provided. I'll post pics after my SMS is encapsulated and returned.... Thanks for nothing! 

Interesting as I am not sure how horribly you could been treated (yet).  Because people do not agree with you is that your version of horrible?  Time to join the real world my friend.  There are very few times in an online forum you will post something that someone can not find to pick at.  

Advice or info you came here for - I will give both. 

 ADVICE: don't be a whiner as you paint a bullseye on yourself for people to pick at your posts.  Disagree if you want, but no need to play the pity poor me card. 

INFO: ALLOT is actually "a lot". 

Now please let me get back to the discussion between Kurt and Mark. 

Edited November 11, 2020 by scopru
typo

[VKurtB]

5 hours ago, MarkFeld said:

I’m not sure what you mean by “why is there only talk of the halves?”. Maybe they receive the bulk of the attention, because they bring much higher prices, but there are graded examples of each of the other denominations, as well.

The coins were in sets that sold in Stack’s sales in the 90’s and when I was grading at NGC, a number of them were submitted for grading. As I recall, over time, many of the coins have migrated into PCGS holders.
 

 

What I mean is I’ve seen lots of pictures of the alleged SMS halves, and I have a vague recollection of maybe having seen a cent, but I know I have never seen any pictures of the 5 cent, dime, or quarter. Why is that? Are they somehow less compelling?

[MarkFeld]

18 minutes ago, VKurtB said:

What I mean is I’ve seen lots of pictures of the alleged SMS halves, and I have a vague recollection of maybe having seen a cent, but I know I have never seen any pictures of the 5 cent, dime, or quarter. Why is that? Are they somehow less compelling?

In general, I don’t think they’re less compelling. But as I mentioned, they’re a lot less valuable (so less likely to receive similar attention). If you really care about seeing pictures, they shouldn’t be difficult to find.

[VKurtB]

Just now, MarkFeld said:

In general, I don’t think they’re less compelling. But as I mentioned, they’re a lot less valuable (so less likely to receive similar attention). If you really care about seeing pictures, they shouldn’t be difficult to find.

I don’t care about the coins at all, so I wouldn’t be searching out pictures. Some pictures “find” me. A lot of which I couldn’t give a rip about. I’m convinced that one of two things is true, and I’m not sure which. 1) they’re merely early strikes off fresh dies and maybe not allowed to fall into a bin, and 2) they were an unauthorized special striking. And no, I do NOT accept that the Mint Superintendent had the authority to self-authorize them.

[MarkFeld]

20 minutes ago, VKurtB said:

I don’t care about the coins at all, so I wouldn’t be searching out pictures. Some pictures “find” me. A lot of which I couldn’t give a rip about. I’m convinced that one of two things is true, and I’m not sure which. 1) they’re merely early strikes off fresh dies and maybe not allowed to fall into a bin, and 2) they were an unauthorized special striking. And no, I do NOT accept that the Mint Superintendent had the authority to self-authorize them.

One thing I’d like to know is whether any 1964 coins, other than the ones from the Stack’s sales, have been attributed as “SMS”. If not, I’d be more inclined to believe that the coins were special strikes.  But if so, I’d be more likely to think Roger is correct about their (mere) early strike status. 

[VKurtB]

10 minutes ago, MarkFeld said:

One thing I’d like to know is whether any 1964 coins, other than the ones from the Stack’s sales, have been attributed as “SMS”. If not, I’d be more inclined to believe that the coins were special strikes.  But if so, I’d be more likely to think Roger is correct about their (mere) early strike status. 

I think I agree with every word of that. But if it IS the former, I don’t see how they would NOT be unauthorized strikings, even understanding that it was in 1964 with a more laissez-faire attitude regarding government official “perks”.

And I say that with the knowledge that there were special “President Nixon” packaging “blue pack” Ike dollars in 1971.

Edited November 11, 2020 by VKurtB

[MarkFeld]

10 minutes ago, VKurtB said:

I think I agree with every word of that. But if it IS the former, I don’t see how they would NOT be unauthorized strikings, even understanding that it was in 1964 with a more laissez-faire attitude regarding government official “perks”.

And I say that with the knowledge that there were special “President Nixon” packaging “blue pack” Ike dollars in 1971.

Please check your first sentence, above. There must have been a typo or other type of error.😉

I don’t claim to have any understanding of whether the former would mean there were unauthorized strikings. But, just to give you something to disagree with, I wouldn’t take it as a given that such strikings would be illegal or improper at the time.

[VKurtB]

2 minutes ago, MarkFeld said:

Please check your first sentence, above. There must have been a typo or other type of error.😉

I don’t claim to have any understanding of whether the former would mean there were unauthorized strikings. But, just to give you something to disagree with, I wouldn’t take it as a given that such strikings would be illegal or improper at the time.

I admit that the standards may be different pre- or post- Watergate era. The über-fetish about “perks” ramped up in that era.

Edited November 11, 2020 by VKurtB

[Moxie15]

@VKurtB what was needed to make it legal for her to have kept the coins?

If she paid face value for the coins to the cashier or whatever the position is called and did not get a receipt, would it be legal?

[RWB]

The US Mint normally made arrangements for persons connected with a new coin, or who had a compelling interest in new coins, to purchase examples. This could be done during initial annual production (as with the Director or Sec Treasury), or at a formal ceremonial striking as with the Kennedy halves. There was, and is, nothing illegal or under-the-table about this - it is a common courtesy.  A similar situation was offered Denver Mint employees at first release of 1964-D halves - each could buy 2 new halves on the first release date. Philadelphia Mint did the same, and a bag was delivered to Treasury for a similar purpose. Smithsonian got coins from new dies in a similar manner whether direct from each mint for via the Director's office.

The who point is that these were not special coins made for special people, or from some secret purpose or test. The hyped "SMS" coins are nothing but normal pieces, from normal dies, made on normal equipment, for normal purposes. The ignorance that led to calling these (or some other coins) "special" lies in the failure of some to research, learn and understand how and why coins appear as they do. (Some will recall that only a few years ago it was believed that new dies were polished and that accounted for PL Morgans and other denominations. I did the research and digging in records to understand what was really done. Now we understand, correctly, that PL coins come from dies polished during repair and touch-up as part of normal production.)

One cannot slap "special" or "specimen" or some other title in a coin arbitrarily - it MUST be proven. That demands understanding the processes, equipment, methodology and operational standards of U.S. Mint production and management, along with the range of appearance generated by normal die use. (Many readily accept Early, Middle, and Late die states, yet fail to apply the concept to Initial and Terminal die states.)

Frankly, I feel I'm talking past the dollar signs; the truth is just too inconvenient and costly for the hobby business to admit.

[VKurtB]

51 minutes ago, Moxie15 said:

@VKurtB what was needed to make it legal for her to have kept the coins?

If she paid face value for the coins to the cashier or whatever the position is called and did not get a receipt, would it be legal?

Under TODAY’S expectations of public officials, in BOTH the U.K. and the U.S., merely paying “face” would be insufficient, clearly. No special products not publicly available are legal. A receipt for FULL RETAIL PRICE would be the absolute minimum that would be required. In 1964? That’s the question in which the rubber meets the road. Present day mint employees may not even “pay for” coins right off the machines. 

[VKurtB]

11 minutes ago, RWB said:

The US Mint normally made arrangements for persons connected with a new coin, or who had a compelling interest in new coins, to purchase examples. This could be done during initial annual production (as with the Director or Sec Treasury), or at a formal ceremonial striking as with the Kennedy halves. There was, and is, nothing illegal or under-the-table about this - it is a common courtesy.  A similar situation was offered Denver Mint employees at first release of 1964-D halves - each could buy 2 new halves on the first release date. Philadelphia Mint did the same, and a bag was delivered to Treasury for a similar purpose. Smithsonian got coins from new dies in a similar manner whether direct from each mint for via the Director's office.

The who point is that these were not special coins made for special people, or from some secret purpose or test. The hyped "SMS" coins are nothing but normal pieces, from normal dies, made on normal equipment, for normal purposes. The ignorance that led to calling these (or some other coins) "special" lies in the failure of some to research, learn and understand how and why coins appear as they do. (Some will recall that only a few years ago it was believed that new dies were polished and that accounted for PL Morgans and other denominations. I did the research and digging in records to understand what was really done. Now we understand, correctly, that PL coins come from dies polished during repair and touch-up as part of normal production.)

One cannot slap "special" or "specimen" or some other title in a coin arbitrarily - it MUST be proven. That demands understanding the processes, equipment, methodology and operational standards of U.S. Mint production and management, along with the range of appearance generated by normal die use. (Many readily accept Early, Middle, and Late die states, yet fail to apply the concept to Initial and Terminal die states.)

Frankly, I feel I'm talking past the dollar signs; the truth is just too inconvenient and costly for the hobby business to admit.

I believe this all may be true circa 1964. The standards today are different. I have two TRULY specimen 50p “struck four times and handled with gloved hands” coins as part of the Royal Mint Experience. I had to pay £12.50 for each of those 50p coins. 
 

Next year, when I (hopefully) finally get to do the Royal Mint VIP tour, we will be “up close and personal” in the proof coin die prep and striking rooms, but no products will even be possible to buy at all, at ANY price. We can buy all we want from the public sales room. If a coin lover wants to see proof production with his own eyes, he can’t do it at all in the USA. He has to go to South Wales. 

Edited November 11, 2020 by VKurtB

[gmarguli]

15 hours ago, GREENWOOD210 said:

It's sad allot of people especially new collectors come to these forums looking for advice or info and the experts treat them horribly. I'm glad I didn't listen to you guys and went with the info provided. I'll post pics after my SMS is encapsulated and returned.... Thanks for nothing! 

How exactly were you treated horribly? By people correctly telling you your coins are not what you think they are? You're in for a rude awakening when you step into the real world if you think people correcting your error was horrible treatment. 

And I strongly suspect that we will never hear from you again. You will not be man enough to come back to the forums and post pictures of your "SMS" coins in PF slabs and admit that you were wrong and the mean people on the internet were correct. 

[VKurtB]

32 minutes ago, gmarguli said:

How exactly were you treated horribly? By people correctly telling you your coins are not what you think they are? You're in for a rude awakening when you step into the real world if you think people correcting your error was horrible treatment. 

And I strongly suspect that we will never hear from you again. You will not be man enough to come back to the forums and post pictures of your "SMS" coins in PF slabs and admit that you were wrong and the mean people on the internet were correct. 

True, but yet we see these sorts of protestations about ill-treatment over and over again. This is how a generation earns the term “snowflake”. Man the heck up, please!

Edited November 11, 2020 by VKurtB

[Moxie15]

2 hours ago, VKurtB said:

Under TODAY’S expectations of public officials, in BOTH the U.K. and the U.S., merely paying “face” would be insufficient, clearly. No special products not publicly available are legal. A receipt for FULL RETAIL PRICE would be the absolute minimum that would be required. In 1964? That’s the question in which the rubber meets the road. Present day mint employees may not even “pay for” coins right off the machines. 

we cannot use Today's standards on a 1964 transaction. Until there is evidence of wrong doing by 1964 standards I have to go with the reasonable doubt and vote not guilty.

[VKurtB]

2 minutes ago, Moxie15 said:

we cannot use Today's standards on a 1964 transaction. Until there is evidence of wrong doing by 1964 standards I have to go with the reasonable doubt and vote not guilty.

But the legal standard is NOT and NEVER HAS BEEN “reasonable doubt”. No individual is being charged with a crime. That’s the only place “reasonable doubt” is the legal standard. These are CIVIL questions of law, where the appropriate legal standard is merely “more likely than not”, or one iota beyond 50/50.

The question is posed in the passive voice. It’s not “Did she steal them?” It’s “Were they legitimately created or appropriated?” That’s what the Langbord case established once and for all. The “reasonable doubt” standard does NOT apply to these cases any more. Mere preponderance does. That’s why the Langbords lost.

[RWB]

RE:

"I believe this all may be true circa 1964. The standards today are different. I have two TRULY specimen 50p “struck four times and handled with gloved hands” coins as part of the Royal Mint Experience. I had to pay £12.50 for each of those 50p coins. 
"Next year, when I (hopefully) finally get to do the Royal Mint VIP tour, we will be “up close and personal” in the proof coin die prep and striking rooms, but no products will even be possible to buy at all, at ANY price. We can buy all we want from the public sales room. If a coin lover wants to see proof production with his own eyes, he can’t do it at all in the USA. He has to go to South Wales."

Standards have not changed at the US Mint or Royal Mint. Your specimen coins were clearly identified and documented as special in some way and you paid for that identification. That is exactly what is required as proof that any coin a TPG labels "specimen" or "special" is truly different, and not a product of ordinary production.

[gmarguli]

43 minutes ago, RWB said:

Standards have not changed at the US Mint or Royal Mint. Your specimen coins were clearly identified and documented as special in some way and you paid for that identification. That is exactly what is required as proof that any coin a TPG labels "specimen" or "special" is truly different, and not a product of ordinary production.

I've had numerous coins designated Specimen (and proof) that had no documentation and even no records of proof coins ever being struck. 

[VKurtB]

58 minutes ago, gmarguli said:

I've had numerous coins designated Specimen (and proof) that had no documentation and even no records of proof coins ever being struck. 

I’m pretty certain Roger is explaining what SHOULD BE, if everyone were operating honestly, not what IS HAPPENING, in the fundamentally corrupt world in which we all actually live. Mark chooses to not care. I choose to care.

Edited November 12, 2020 by VKurtB

[MarkFeld]

6 hours ago, VKurtB said:

I’m pretty certain Roger is explaining what SHOULD BE, if everyone were operating honestly, not what IS HAPPENING, in the fundamentally corrupt world in which we all actually live. Mark chooses to not care. I choose to care.

I never said I didn’t care. And for the record, I do.

That said, as a grader, what call would you make if you saw a coin which looked as obviously Proof as any Proof you’d seen, but for which there was no official record of Proofs having been struck?

Edited November 12, 2020 by MarkFeld

[Moxie15]

1 hour ago, MarkFeld said:

 

That said, as a grader, what call would you make if you saw a coin which looked as obviously Proof as any Proof you’d seen, but for which there was no official record of Proofs having been struck?

I know this question was not directed at me, but, I am sticking my nose in anyway.

I think I would call the coin proof-like.