1964 SMS, PROOF OR REGULAR STRIKE

My bad different New Guy, they all blend together. BUT the premise is the same and I hate to see a new member make the mistake AND the loose the communities respect.

Sorry @Ethan.Pitassi

Respectfully,
Reed,

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

I think he meant 0.0026 Billion...

 

Haha... kudos to you, sir!

Hey, it happens.

 

Actually 3.95 million, my bad. 2.6 Billion was for circulation.

 

They definitely made proofs.They didn't from 1965-67.
No one knows how many sets the treasurer stole because there is no mint record.
Estimations have ben made by what was sold at her estate sale and the different amounts of individual sms coins,not in sets which have been attributed.
One thing SMS penny should have crystal clear steps on the Memorial and not relect cartwheel light like a regular penny.
It's tough and only an expert could give you a definitive answer. Although HA has posted some 1964 coins and pointed out some mint marks you can look for.
I am surprised the feds havent done the sms colectors the same way as with the aluminum 1974 penny.
I hope I find one!

 

And the large amount of circulation 64 pennies were eitger proof or regular, not SMS which is kind of a regular on steroids.
They use the same planchet but the impreßion left on the coin is almost proof like,in fact with brannd new dies sms actually have a cameo look.
And I think the pressure used is so much more tgan a regular mint that the background never gets that sheen new reg s get and certainly not glassy like a proof.

 

So what do you look for on the SMS on the 64 coins ???

 

I believe the only ones known were found in the mint directors estate. and all have been accounted for, it is pretty much a null and void thought, that any more are going to be found.

 

Can I post a pic of a 1964 Lincoln cent to get your opinion on the type of cent it might be?

 

It would get more views if you stert a new thread

 

Idiot warning! All proofs up to and including 1964 were made at Philly, not San Fran.

 

No need to post it. It is a normal business strike. PERIOD!

 

Six month old post, Kurt.

 

This is error. Do not trust Internet sources.

 

I agree to disagree that anyone who uses internet sources exclusively is a sentient being.

 

You're also not the only one. Can it be considered a coincidence that as the internet has grown more prevalent people in general have grown dumber?

 

Too much trust of unedited material.

 

Wikipedia is the most commonly believed misinformation, and nothing more.

 

Who the hell are you talking to Kurt?