What grade is this SMS cent? 0

[CoinsRCool78]

Just curious

 

Edited August 9, 2021 by CoinsRCool78

[CoinsRCool78]

Can’t send reverse pic

[J P M]

I think it would only be a SMS if it was still in the 1965 SMS mint set ? 

[Just Bob]

With it behind plastic, not close-up, and a little bit fuzzy when enlarged, it will be impossible to guess a grade (not to mention that the reverse also plays a role in the grade.) I do see what appear to be some tics on the rim, but I can't tell what else might be on the surfaces without closer, clearer pics.

[Just Bob]

On 8/9/2021 at 3:36 PM, J P Mashoke said:

1965 SMS mint set ? 

Would that be a SMSMS? 

[Coinbuf]

The highest probability is that it will grade as a 67, but I cannot be more definitive than that as the glare from the Mylar window of the holder makes it difficult to asses.

[RWB]

There appears to be a spot or nick on the lapel; other marks. It might be gradable, assuming the two light spots are on the 2x2, but no TPG could certify it came from a 1965 SMS.

Edited August 10, 2021 by RWB

[gmarguli]

 

On 8/9/2021 at 1:36 PM, J P Mashoke said:

I think it would only be a SMS if it was still in the 1965 SMS mint set ? 

Why? Does a proof coin suddenly become not proof once it is removed from the set? SMS refers to a type of manufacturing.

 

On 8/9/2021 at 6:36 PM, RWB said:

It might be gradable, assuming the two light spots are on the 2x2, but no TPG could certify it came from a 1965 SMS.

You don't think that there is a reasonable ability for professionals to tell SMS coins from business strikes? 

[RWB]

On 8/10/2021 at 11:59 AM, gmarguli said:

 

Why? Does a proof coin suddenly become not proof once it is removed from the set? SMS refers to a type of manufacturing.

 

You don't think that there is a reasonable ability for professionals to tell SMS coins from business strikes? 

1965 SMS coins are not reliably distinguishable from circulation pieces. Hence, if not in the original packaging, they could not be certified. '66 and '67 and proofs are distinguishable.

[gmarguli]

On 8/10/2021 at 9:20 AM, RWB said:

1965 SMS coins are not reliably distinguishable from circulation pieces. Hence, if not in the original packaging, they could not be certified. '66 and '67 and proofs are distinguishable.

I disagree with the 1965 SMS not being reliably distinguishable. Superb business strikes can sometimes look like SMS examples, but SMS examples rarely look like business strikes. 

[RWB]

On 8/10/2021 at 12:47 PM, gmarguli said:

I disagree with the 1965 SMS not being reliably distinguishable. Superb business strikes can sometimes look like SMS examples, but SMS examples rarely look like business strikes. 

But - the differences are not definitive for 1965. Therein lies the problem. TPGs really should offer a discounted group rate for all three SMS sets, or at least a sealed grading band like NGC does for GSA dollars. (I happen to have one 1965 set that is clearly superior - but won't break the holder and lose the attribution.)

Edited August 10, 2021 by RWB

[Coinbuf]

On 8/10/2021 at 1:04 PM, RWB said:

But - the differences are not definitive for 1965. Therein lies the problem. TPGs really should offer a discounted group rate for all three SMS sets, or at least a sealed grading band like NGC does for GSA dollars. (I happen to have one 1965 set that is clearly superior - but won't break the holder and lose the attribution.)

You are correct that the differences are not definitive, but the problem works against really nice business strike coins not the SMS coins.    Because the mint quality was so poor when the TPG's get a coin that looks above average that is sent in as a business strike it gets graded as an SMS almost automatically.   Check the pops, over 1,800 SMS in 67 compared to 43 MS in 67 here at NGC.   It is far more difficult to get a high grade 1965 Lincoln MS coin than it is an SMS, I have no doubt that if you broke up your 1965 SMS set and sent for grading the odds are very high that all would be graded as SMS regardless of what you put on the form

[RWB]

...and that misrepresents both quality and population.

[J P M]

On 8/10/2021 at 5:23 PM, RWB said:

...and that misrepresents both quality and population.

Once it is removed I feel it is no longer part of a set. It becomes a MS coin How do you prove it is from a  Mint set once it is removed there are no mint marks on the coins.

[gmarguli]

On 8/10/2021 at 2:38 PM, J P Mashoke said:

Once it is removed I feel it is no longer part of a set. It becomes a MS coin How do you prove it is from a  Mint set once it is removed there are no mint marks on the coins.

The same way you "prove" that a specially minted coin from any other era is a specially minted coin and not a business strike. You compare it to the characteristics of known examples. I suspect with the SMS coins they could compare it to known dies if they wanted to waste the time. However, it's much easier to look at the strike, surfaces, and luster in order to come up with a conclusion. We know what a SMS example should generally look like. We know what the business strike coins generally look like. We can make a determination based on this knowledge.

How about this coin? I assume you view it as MS since it was removed from the set and there are not mint marks on the coin.

[RWB]

On 8/10/2021 at 6:15 PM, gmarguli said:

We know what a SMS example should generally look like. We know what the business strike coins generally look like. We can make a determination based on this knowledge.

Actually, we "know" neither for 1965. There is no accepted description of either that can be used to separate one from the other.

[J P M]

On 8/10/2021 at 6:15 PM, gmarguli said:

The same way you "prove" that a specially minted coin from any other era is a specially minted coin and not a business strike. You compare it to the characteristics of known examples. I suspect with the SMS coins they could compare it to known dies if they wanted to waste the time. However, it's much easier to look at the strike, surfaces, and luster in order to come up with a conclusion. We know what a SMS example should generally look like. We know what the business strike coins generally look like. We can make a determination based on this knowledge.

How about this coin? I assume you view it as MS since it was removed from the set and there are not mint marks on the coin.

That would be a DCAM Proof Best guess... Nice coin by the way  but a SMS is a business strike put together in 1966 at the mint for us fussy collectors that kept complaining a lot after they took our coin sets away after 1964 . The only thing I can see that makes it special is the blue poker chip  the coins are nice but not proof like they don't even have FS Nickels or FT dimes they are just coins in plastic wrap with a piece of paper saying Special Mint Set.

Edited August 10, 2021 by J P Mashoke

[gmarguli]

On 8/10/2021 at 3:29 PM, RWB said:

Actually, we "know" neither for 1965. There is no accepted description of either that can be used to separate one from the other.

YOU may not know, but I guarantee you that the TPG graders, most dealers, and a significant chunk of collectors know what a SMS coin looks like. 

If you can't accept that you can generally tell them apart based on the look, then you can't say that the 1956 Franklin I posted isn't a business strike. 

[J P M]

On 8/9/2021 at 4:30 PM, CoinsRCool78 said:

Just curious

 

But going back to the OP I would think you will get a 65 66 a 67 or 68  may be pushing the limit. But it would be cool but then it would be worth a lot of money. 

[RWB]

On 8/10/2021 at 7:20 PM, gmarguli said:

I guarantee you that the TPG graders, most dealers, and a significant chunk of collectors

False. There are no reliable specifications by any TPG. Dealers and collectors freely invent whatever they suit or feeds their fantasies.

[RWB]

On 8/10/2021 at 7:20 PM, gmarguli said:

If you can't accept that you can generally tell them apart based on the look, then you can't say that the 1956 Franklin I posted isn't a business strike. 

Separating proof from circulation strike coins is usually simple and based of accepted standards both of appearance and technical manufacture. Not so with 1965 SMS coins which received no special treatment except reduced handling during production. The data are in NARA files.

[Woods020]

On 8/10/2021 at 7:07 PM, RWB said:

Separating proof from circulation strike coins is usually simple and based of accepted standards both of appearance and technical manufacture. Not so with 1965 SMS coins which received no special treatment except reduced handling during production. The data are in NARA files.

I thought the dies used received special treatment? It was a quasi proof with polished dies, regular planchets, and standard coining press? I agree with @Coinbufin that many business strikes may have been misclassified, but I don’t think the TPGS would miss many SMS coins as business strikes. 

 

On 8/10/2021 at 4:38 PM, J P Mashoke said:

Once it is removed I feel it is no longer part of a set. It becomes a MS coin How do you prove it is from a  Mint set once it is removed there are no mint marks on the coins.

 

SMS is a special form of manufacture and not dependent on the packaging. Dies were polished which leads to better finish. 65 is arguably not done very well, but it is different in more ways than just the package.

 

Here is NGCs description:

 

In 1964, the United States faced a coinage shortage. Due to this, the mint ceased production of normal proof coins, which required significantly more work with die and planchet preparation. As a substitute, they created the Special Mint Set, which contained coins that weren't quite proofs, but were clearly of a higher quality than normal circulation coins. This allowed the mint to place more resources into producing coins for circulation. These special sets were issued in 1965, 1966 and 1967 before normal proof production started once more in 1968.

 

Here is PCGS description:

Edited August 11, 2021 by Woods020

[J P M]

On 8/10/2021 at 8:53 PM, Woods020 said:

65 is arguably not done very well,

Ya Woods  I know my set is better than a BS strike but not by much. All the sets I have of years before are much nicer strikes. I think the mint was just trying to cover there butt with the 65 sets and made up for it in the 66 and 67 strikes( Just My Opinion ) The Redbook write-up is a little different than PCGS but does say the SMS coins were polished dies but they let the coins hit each other so that's why they have bag marks.. ??.. Well that's kinda counter productive... sounds like a song and dance. Who knows ? only the ones who were there working at the mint really know for sure     

[gmarguli]

On 8/10/2021 at 5:05 PM, RWB said:

False. There are no reliable specifications by any TPG.

It's called knowledge. 

 

On 8/10/2021 at 5:07 PM, RWB said:

Separating proof from circulation strike coins is usually simple and based of accepted standards both of appearance and technical manufacture.

So, knowledge. 

[CoinsRCool78]

Please don’t tell me that I created grudges against veterans!

[J P M]

On 8/12/2021 at 8:08 PM, CoinsRCool78 said:

Please don’t tell me that I created grudges against veterans!

This is normal. If we weren't so darn fussy we sure wouldn't be coin collectors

[RWB]

On 8/10/2021 at 8:53 PM, Woods020 said:

SMS is a special form of manufacture and not dependent on the packaging

Nope. In 1965 the SMS coins were made the same way as normal circulation pieces. The only differences were in less handling contact and the pliofilm packaging. They were really just slightly nicer Mint Sets as had been sold for many years. Only in 1966 and 1967 were there real differences in manufacturing. This is documented in NARA files.

Both of the TPG descriptions ignore archival facts and are concocted from hobby publications, not from reality. Simply put, the descriptions lack the subtle differences in manufacture during each of the three calendar years. Once NARA reopens to useful research times, I'll copy the documents.

Edited August 13, 2021 by RWB

[gmarguli]

On 8/13/2021 at 11:07 AM, RWB said:

Nope. In 1965 the SMS coins were made the same way as normal circulation pieces. The only differences were in less handling contact and the pliofilm packaging. They were really just slightly nicer Mint Sets as had been sold for many years. Only in 1966 and 1967 were there real differences in manufacturing. This is documented in NARA files.

Both of the TPG descriptions ignore archival facts and are concocted from hobby publications, not from reality. Simply put, the descriptions lack the subtle differences in manufacture during each of the three calendar years. Once NARA reopens to useful research times, I'll copy the documents.

Here is what the Director of the Mint said on the insert that went with all 1965 SMS sets. Special Mint Sets are made from specially prepared and polished blanks and struck on high tonnage presses with polished dies. This statement directly contradicts what you are stating. Special Planchets + Special Dies + Special Press = Special Mint Sets.

 

You are free to argue that the Mint Director was lying, but anyone who has ever seen a 1965 SMS can easily tell that the coins are better struck and more prooflike than business strikes. The look of the coins match exactly what the Director wrote, not what you have been stating. 

[Woods020]

On 8/12/2021 at 7:08 PM, CoinsRCool78 said:

Please don’t tell me that I created grudges against veterans!

Haha no not at all. Numismatics has many areas that are debated. It’s these types of debates that lead to better understanding. You asked a perfectly valid question, and the debate should show that is is valid because many veterans disagree. Stick around and you will get both knowledge and entertainment in a single show   

[J P M]

On 8/13/2021 at 3:31 PM, gmarguli said:

Here is what the Director of the Mint said on the insert that went with all 1965 SMS sets. Special Mint Sets are made from specially prepared and polished blanks and struck on high tonnage presses with polished dies. This statement directly contradicts what you are stating. Special Planchets + Special Dies + Special Press = Special Mint Sets.

 

You are free to argue that the Mint Director was lying, but anyone who has ever seen a 1965 SMS can easily tell that the coins are better struck and more prooflike than business strikes. The look of the coins match exactly what the Director wrote, not what you have been stating. 

And we all know the Government never lie's