MS vs. SP 0

[LINCOLNMAN]

I noticed that NGC designates SMS coins as MS whereas PCGS uses SP. Rationale for either? 

[GoldFinger1969]

3 hours ago, LINCOLNMAN said:

I noticed that NGC designates SMS coins as MS whereas PCGS uses SP. Rationale for either? 

SP is "special proof" -- right ?  I think that 2013 Reverese Enhances ASE got the SP rating from PCGS....I can't recall if NGC gave it an MS or SP rating.  Gotta check.....

[MarkFeld]

3 hours ago, GoldFinger1969 said:

SP is "special proof" -- right ?  I think that 2013 Reverese Enhances ASE got the SP rating from PCGS....I can't recall if NGC gave it an MS or SP rating.  Gotta check.....

As far as I know, “SP” is for “Specimen”, which is different from “proof. And I’ve not heard of “Special Proof”.

 

[MarkFeld]

6 hours ago, LINCOLNMAN said:

I noticed that NGC designates SMS coins as MS whereas PCGS uses SP. Rationale for either? 

if you look at coins such as 1965 SMS quarters, both companies use “SMS”. Can you give an example of what you’re speaking of?

 

[Conder101]

When it comes to the SP designation there is no rationale.  Coins get called one thing then another eventually is seems to be if they don't know what to call it they call it SP  For example the matte finish nickels that were in the Thomas Jefferson and the Botanical Gardens collectors sets.  First they called them MS, then they called them Matte Proof, then they called them SMS, and now they call them SP.  If you keep and eye out for them you can find slabs with all these designations.  Or the 1894 S dime.  They were minted as business strikes and I think they were identified as such, then they became proofs and now they are SP.  I think they have done the same thing to the 1913 V nickel.  The coins ftom the 2005 -2010 mint sets have been called MS, SMS and SP.

If the Mint hadn't called the W mintmarked ASE's Burnished they would probably call those SP.  (And who knows they still might.)

Edited December 10, 2020 by Conder101

[Fenntucky Mike]

Been calling the burnished ASE's SP for at least a few years. Although I think PCGS as gone back and forth between MS and SP on these a few times.

Not my coin.

[GoldFinger1969]

5 hours ago, MarkFeld said:

As far as I know, “SP” is for “Specimen”, which is different from “proof. And I’ve not heard of “Special Proof”.

 

I think you are right, Mark....I think one of the dealers told me that.

[LINCOLNMAN]

I should have elaborated. I put a 1965 SMS together as part of my type collection (I like to use first year coins to add interest). Ended up with a mixture of NGC and PCGS. All of the NGC coins are graded MS[xx] and all the PCGS coins are graded SP[xx], which I assumed is for "Specimen". Both NGC and PCGS identify the coins as "SMS". I'm inclined to think that NGC is more conservative not treating these as Specimens, reserving that term for specially prepared and exceptional coins. Could have researched of course but thought it would be of interest, and I'm congenitally lazy. 

[Morpheus1967]

They can't even agree on a designation for a proof (PF vs. PR) 

[LINCOLNMAN]

50 minutes ago, Morpheus1967 said:

They can't even agree on a designation for a proof (PF vs. PR) 

I keep everything on a spreadsheet. I use PR for all proofs (as does eBay). Use SP for SMS as it looks cooler (eBay does not). 

[RWB]

The term "specimen" ('SP') is tossed about with little concern for meaning or relevance. In 19th century US Mint correspondence the meaning floats depending on context. Before 1850 it can mean either a "Master Coin" (what is now called a proof) or simply an example or sample of a coin as in "Here's a specimen of half dollar made today." In the latter usage, nothing special is implied. After about 1858 the terms Master Coin and Proof Coin both refer to what is now called a proof. Specimen is seen more in relation to pattern pieces although the meaning is rarely clear.

Use of "Specimen" to mean a coin made for a specific event or purpose is not historically justified - unless there is documentation to support the claim of "specialness." Some continue to follow the obsolete approach of declaring a coin a "specimen" just because it looks a little different than other contemporary pieces. Given the normal wide range of appearance of coins struck from a pair of dies, nearly all of these claims are specious, and are built on ignorance or wishful-thinking. The basic rule I follow is: "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence." (Virtually every "specimen" I've been shown fails this simple test.)

Back to the OP's original thought.... A coin known to have been part of a US Mint Special Mint Set from 1965-1967 should be labeled as such by an authentication company. That is a clear, recognized and accepted designation and needs no embellishment.

[Henri Charriere]

On 12/10/2020 at 8:42 AM, Conder101 said:

 ....Or the 1894 S dime.  They were minted as business strikes and I think they were identified as such,....

Respectfully, by whom, and when?  That term was not in use then and seems to have been conjured up in the 1980's.  The correct term is what it has always been: a circulation strike.