Now I have all 3 1 1

[J P M]

I went to my favorite coin shop today to see what he had that was new. Dang he got a mess of graded CC Morgan's from one guy and I was Thunderstruck Big bucks on all of them I did not bring enough $$$ for that hoard of CC's  But while I was looking around I found the 66 and 67 SMS sets to go with my 1965 set and at least I had enough for those...... $10 a peace 

 

Edited September 25, 2021 by J P Mashoke

[Mr.Bill347]

Way to  go JP, you really have an eye for those things! Btw what did a beautiful Morgan Cc cost?

[J P M]

Oh just so you all know the joke around the forum is the Special Mint Sets are not.  Well I can now say with out a doubt they are better than BS but not as nice as a proof sets there close to proof in strike. They still have a lot of contact marks like a mint set. The 67 is a little better than the 66 in quality. But this is only one set there may be some nicer ones out there.

[J P M]

On 9/25/2021 at 6:51 PM, Mr.Bill347 said:

Way to  go JP, you really have an eye for those things! Btw what did a beautiful Morgan Cc cost?

Well Bill there was a VF 25 for around $250 but most were in the $500 to $1200 range and that is average for a CC and then there are some .......................... 

[Mohawk]

On 9/25/2021 at 7:04 PM, J P Mashoke said:

Oh just so you all know the joke around the forum is the Special Mint Sets are not.  Well I can now say with out a doubt they are better than BS but not as nice as a proof sets there close to proof in strike. They still have a lot of contact marks like a mint set. The 67 is a little better than the 66 in quality. But this is only one set there may be some nicer ones out there.

At least it's not about the present ultimate numismatic cryptid, the "1964 SMS"!!  And you're right on....the 1967 sets are going to be the nicest, the 1965's will be the worst, generally speaking and the 1966's are better than the 1965's but not as nice as the 1967's.  Some of the 1967 SMS coins are nicer than the 1968-S proofs that came out the next year.  If you want nice examples of early clad Roosevelt Dimes and Washington Quarters, the 1967 SMS issues are the best bet, IMHO.

[J P M]

On 9/25/2021 at 9:15 PM, Mohawk said:

At least it's not about the present ultimate numismatic cryptid, the "1964 SMS"!!  And you're right on....the 1967 sets are going to be the nicest, the 1965's will be the worst, generally speaking and the 1966's are better than the 1965's but not as nice as the 1967's.  Some of the 1967 SMS coins are nicer than the 1968-S proofs that came out the next year.  If you want nice examples of early clad Roosevelt Dimes and Washington Quarters, the 1967 SMS issues are the best bet, IMHO.

I have a 1964 set and it says proof not SMS 

Edited September 26, 2021 by J P Mashoke

[Mohawk]

On 9/25/2021 at 9:26 PM, J P Mashoke said:

I have a 1964 set and it says proof not SMS 

1964 Proof Sets....now they're just fine!! We can all agree about the existence of those   Did you check your Kennedy for the Accented Hair variety?

[J P M]

On 9/25/2021 at 11:57 PM, Mohawk said:

1964 Proof Sets....now they're just fine!! We can all agree about the existence of those   Did you check your Kennedy for the Accented Hair variety?

Ya I did check it long time ago. Mine has normal hair and the I on LIBERTY is normal also. you are correct all the coins are in good shape except. The nickels don't have full steps like most mint sets and the dimes are FB but have a sandblasted texture that takes away a lot of the detail. The Quarter background is almost proof. But they did get the proof background on the half dollar pretty good.  

[Fenntucky Mike]

Another nice pickup JP. 

[RWB]

In 1965 those who bought SMS were very disappointed in what was delivered.

[Mohawk]

On 9/26/2021 at 6:16 PM, RWB said:

In 1965 those who bought SMS were very disappointed in what was delivered.

I've read that and as someone who has seen a lot of modern U.S. coins, I can imagine they were greatly disappointed.  You compare a 1965 SMS set with a 1964 Proof Set, it's readily apparent to the person who actually ordered it from the U.S. Mint that they paid double the money for a vastly inferior product.  1965 SMS coins are pretty awful.  It's funny about the 1967 sets though.  I've seen my fair share of 1967 SMS coins that actually look better than the 1968 proofs from the next year.  I've found this to be especially true in regard to the nickels, dimes and quarters.

[Mohawk]

On 9/26/2021 at 7:31 AM, J P Mashoke said:

Ya I did check it long time ago. Mine has normal hair and the I on LIBERTY is normal also. you are correct all the coins are in good shape except. The nickels don't have full steps like most mint sets and the dimes are FB but have a sandblasted texture that takes away a lot of the detail. The Quarter background is almost proof. But they did get the proof background on the half dollar pretty good.  

Those are all pretty nice looking to me, but you're right about some of the details.  Particularly with the nickels....the 1968-S proofs definitely have better step detail most of the time.  But in overall appearance, I find the 1967 SMS's nicer.  A coin can have better details in one area than another and still lack eye appeal compared to the coin with less detail.  A lot of the 1968-S proofs I've seen are actually rather lifeless compared to the 1967 SMS's.  But they are full proofs and have a mint mark, so they get more love.

[RWB]

It is possible the 1967 sets were made with the same presses as earlier proofs, and with similar die and planchet preparation. However, quality control was also looser and I suspect packaging was also inferior in production. Mint document show multiple "reasons" for not issuing 1965-1967 proofs - the most common was the "coin shortage" which had largely vanished by mid-1965.

[Mohawk]

On 9/26/2021 at 8:24 PM, RWB said:

It is possible the 1967 sets were made with the same presses as earlier proofs, and with similar die and planchet preparation. However, quality control was also looser and I suspect packaging was also inferior in production. Mint document show multiple "reasons" for not issuing 1965-1967 proofs - the most common was the "coin shortage" which had largely vanished by mid-1965.

Now that is interesting Roger.  I've always wondered about the 1967 SMS production....many of those coins actually do look pretty similar to the proofs from earlier in the 1960s.  I've seen some 1967 SMS Kennedy Halves that actually look very similar to the 1964 and 1968-S Proofs. They were definitely made with more care than the previous two SMS issues.  The looser quality control would account for the marks you see on the 1967 coins from time to time, but it was also noticeably better than the quality control on the 1966 and especially the 1965 issues.  The production of the 1967 SMS coins and what they actually are is pretty interesting.  I've seen some 1967 SMS and 1968-S Proof issues of all five denominations that if one were to place them side by side and explain the differences between the two coins, it would be quite difficult to do, honestly.  The 1965 issues, the difference is very easy to see and explain.  Compared to true proofs, the 1965's are terrible.  Not so with the 1967's.

[J P M]

On 9/26/2021 at 8:24 PM, RWB said:

It is possible the 1967 sets were made with the same presses as earlier proofs, and with similar die and planchet preparation. However, quality control was also looser and I suspect packaging was also inferior in production. Mint document show multiple "reasons" for not issuing 1965-1967 proofs - the most common was the "coin shortage" which had largely vanished by mid-1965.

Yes with each year they get better. with high magnification you can see the changes. In my opinion the 65 was a quickie throw together of top BS coins because of the collectors demands the 66 was a more prepared Die for a proof look and then the 67 was even more refined to prepare for the coming years ahead. Here are some shots of the fields. Sorry I did not take them out of there wrappers so there may be some glare but you can still see it well.  

[Mohawk]

On 9/26/2021 at 9:02 PM, J P Mashoke said:

Yes with each year they get better. with high magnification you can see the changes. In my opinion the 65 was a quickie throw together of top BS coins because of the collectors demands the 66 was a more prepared Die for a proof look and then the 67 was even more refined to prepare for the coming years ahead. Here are some shots of the fields. Sorry I did not take them out of there wrappers so there may be some glare but you can still see it well.  

Your pics are just fine JP, and they show the increasing quality of the SMS's from their origin point in 1965 very well.  The 1965 looks like something you'd get out of a bank roll while the 1967 is a huge improvement.  As most of you know, I'm not a collector of U.S. coins any longer, but I have to admit a certain fondness for the 1967 Special Mint Set.....they're darned attractive and have neat distinctive look.

[RWB]

As noted in an earlier thread, 1965 SMS coins were merely made using new dies with very short production runs. The dies presumably then went to regular coinage. 1965 SMS coins will usually have slightly better detail than circulation pieces - that and the packaging is about it. The phony "1964 SMS" coins are nothing but the same without the packaging -- they occur with every change of dies, in every year, for every denomination.

Edited September 27, 2021 by RWB