1964 SMS, PROOF OR REGULAR STRIKE

You can have it your way and I and the community will have it ours,
But really don't you think that there would be more of these certified if they made billions of them. There are I believe under 30 known. So tell me how that can be? The point is you havn't done enough research to back up your claims. Period.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

It is very commonly known in the coin collecting community that in 1964 there were only a small number of SMS sets produced which were not released to the public. 1965 is the year that the US Mint stopped producing Proof sets and switched to producing SMS sets. Then in 1968 Proof coins were resumed and were now being struck at the San Francisco Mint and have been since.

Also FYI there were just under 4,000,000 proof Nickels struck in 1964. Check any Redbook or and other guide book regarding US coins.

 

Until 1968 all Lincoln proofs were minted in Philadelphia (no mint mark). With the exception of around 30 1964 SMS Lincoln's found in Mint Director, Eva Adams safe after her death, all SMS coins from 1965-67 were minted in San Francisco (no mintmark). Starting in 1968 the S mintmark would appear on Proof coinage.

 

I loves me a good cat fight.......

 

I'm puzzled. If they didn't make 1964 proof sets, then what did the mint send me back then when I ordered a proof set from them? It certainly was described as proof and looked like proof, and a dealer bought it for proof when I sold it a few years later.

 

Go to ebay and look up 1964 sms.
Then look up 1964 proof set.
If 1964 sms were so common then why are the 1000's of dollars for them.
Oh yea look up 65,66 and 67 sms. Its ok to make mistakes. We all have.

 

go back and read post #12, there were 3.9 million proof sets produced in 1964...

 

When you're right you're right. I looked up how many SMS nickels were produced through the pcgs site and the numbers are the same as the 64 Lincoln proof but after reading about the mint director Eva Adams I see I was totally wrong. Who would of thought pcgs would give you false information

 

Sorry, I thought it was obvious I was pointing out that, yes, there were proof sets made in 1964, I know because I bought one. I usually don't use sarcasm, but the person I quoted was not accepting published facts. I apologize to Ethan for using that method.

 

Proof


Business strike


1965 SMS, for comparison

 

A description of what exactly a "proof" is would be helpful for Ethan right now.......

 

Just another reason to call the 64 SMS coins SP or special strikes. Only a handful were produced, while the 64 Proofs were struck in the millions. No SMS sets were made in 1964.

 

They didn't do it deliberately, everyone makes mistakes. If you bring it to their attention I'm sure they will fix it.

 

Your Numismatic Naivety is showing friend.

1964 Proofs and previous years) were minted in Philadelphia. As such, no mint mark.

1968 marked the 1st year that proof coins were minted in the San Francisco Assay Office and they all bear the S Mint mark with a few very rare exceptions.

 

Credit.

 

this statement is false and misinformed.

The Mint made Proof Sets in 1964. The Mint also made Mint Sets in 1964.

the Special Mint Sets are a very special animal and although they do exist, the odds of finding coins from one, particularly from circulation are extremely slim.

 

2.6 Billion??? with a B???

 

Making stuff up again. It’s very difficult to survive this site when you don’t have good facts when you post @Ethan.Pitassi Some of the members here are industry leaders in the field so NO you can’t get away with it on this site. @mikenoodle just happens to be some one who knows better.
Hope this helps.
Reed

 

I'm not going to re-read the entire thread, but didn't the guy already admit to having been wrong? If so, he's already advanced more than many visitors we have here.

If not, my apologies. Carry on...

 

Books I’m just trying to be bluntly helpful to the guy so he doesn’t alienate the community.
He is trying to fit in but with made up stuff it’s hard to take him serious.
Reed