Message:

<p>[QUOTE=&quot;cladking, post: 3278505, member: 68&quot;]The problem is that they made so many different looks to the SMS because they were experimenting with different processes and techniques. The only thing they all have in common is a high tonnage strike.&nbsp; Unfortunately a few circulation issues probably have nearly as high of tonnage.&nbsp; The mirrors are caused by basining but not all SMS dies were basined.&nbsp; Not all dies were sandblasted to get the cameo.&nbsp; Indeed there are some SMS that appear to have been struck twice so are technically Proofs.&nbsp; There are 1966 quarters that were made by heavily polished dies on heavily polished planchets and then (obviously) hand placed in the sets since they are almost invariably free of marking.&nbsp; They may have been struck twice judging by the look.&nbsp; Ironically I find these to be the ugliest of all the SMS!!!&nbsp; Back in the old days I didn&#039;t even save them despite their scarcity (&lt;.5%)!&nbsp; I still don&#039;t save poor examples of it. </p><p><br /></p><p>I like your &#039;65 a great deal and&nbsp; suspect it isn&#039;t an SMS coin.&nbsp; It is certainly under graded and would go much higher if the grader agreed it&#039;s not SMS.&nbsp; I fear that a regrade would result in a SMS 67 grade.&nbsp; I should remind you though that I couldn&#039;t be certain it&#039;s not SMS even if it were in hand and photos can mask a lot of information. I believe from the photos it would still not look like SMS to me in hand.[/QUOTE]</p><p><br /></p>

Your name or email address:

Do you already have an account?

• No, create an account now.
• Yes, my password is:
• Forgot your password?

Stay logged in