I have had quite a few 1964 proof sets over the years and they have always also had the pointed 9 dime in the set. I just got one that does NOT have it. I am wondering how unusual this is? I have never seen it before, but I would guess there are some out there. Thanks
I have only one 1964 Proof Set. My dime's 9 looks just like yours... definitely NOT pointed. (That's not a gouge on the dime; it's a slight striation on the plastic.) And I'm hoping someone can confirm my Kennedy has accented hair... I purchased my Set back in the '80s. Never looked at it closely until now.
Hi COCollector, Thanks for the response. One issue, however, is that your AHK does not really look like a true AHK, but a sort of semi AHK. The specific hair on the side of Kennedy's head on yours looks very weak, and one other thing I have noticed with AHKs is that there is practically no definition on sideburn hair on an AHK, but there is strong definition on regular 64 proof Kennedys. Yours has definition on the sideburn. Does yours have the missing serif issue on the Liberty "I" and the Reverse broken rays and straight "G"?
On my Kennedy: No missing serif on Liberty "I" and no Reverse broken rays. And pretty sure it does NOT have the straight "G", but not entirely certain (late-night tired eyes). And thanks for your assessment. I was hoping mine had accented hair; but after researching your comments, I agree -- mine isn't a true AHK.
No problem! There has been some confusion regarding these coins. The typical Accented Hair Kennedy (always proof from Phily mint) has the Accented hair (obviously), the missing or incorrect serif on the bottom of the "I" in Liberty, and also on the reverse has the broken rays and the straight G. There is a variety that has the reverse qualities but not the obverse qualities that are also proof which have been called "Transitional Variety". My understanding is that there are also some Business versions of this same "Transitional Variety". They all probably have an official variety number now. But I have not yet heard of a Business version of a true AHK (unless someone puts a proof in circulation - which would be pretty much a fake, but I am sure it has happened.) My main question is: how common is it to have a 1964 proof set with a true AHK with all of the AHK qualifiers checked, that does NOT have a pointed 9 dime in the same set. This is the first one I have ever come across.
It looks like an AHK to me. The I is truncated like it is suppose to be on the bottom left side. Maybe it's the lighting. Yours Not AHK
Other members already beat me to it, but here are photos I took of my coin (sold now). You can use a combo of the diagnostics to rule your coin in or out.
I appreciate all the info! My main question is does anyone know how often a true Accented Hair Kennedy is inside a 1964 proof set with a pointed 9 dime vs. a non-pointed 9 dime? Until now, every Accented Hair Kennedy I have come across in a proof set is accompanied by a pointed 9 dime in the same proof set. However, this could easily be because I have not seen enough of them to know. I appreciate any input!
