i got this in change a few months back. i was wondering if it was worth keeping or not. it looks to be very new looking. i put it in a 2x2 a few weeks back to try to protect it. i was also wondering if maybe it were a proof. sorry for the crappy scans, thats all i have. i was just wondering if this was normal to have a quarter in this good of condition on a 1965 coin. all of the 1965 quarters and dimes i have seen are all worn out and crappy looking. this one you can acually see the feathers on the eagle's breast. most 65's you cannot see that. thanks.
Chuckle, it's 40 yrs old, in great shape, and if you save it will only appreciate in value. Heck, I'd hang onto it too Ben
It's very probably an SMS coin!!! The minor reason to believe this is that there are very few of these left in nice shape. The simple fact this one is lightly worn suggests it is more likely to have been removed from a set. The major reason is that there is die polish around the rim in the fields at the 7 o'clock position. This afflicts significant numbers of the SMS coins and relatively few others. A tertiary reason is that these often have high luster like a proof, and you imply that it looks proof. 1965 is really a great year for quarters and there are numerous rarities. There are two different clad and one silver reverse types used. There are some made of typical dies but in silver. There are also a few different SMS processes used to make coins of this date including a very few which might be true proofs. There are also a few die varieties though none of these are really special or dramatic. 1965 quarters were the very first clad coins issued in November, 1965 and many were saved. Most of those saved initially have drifted back into circulation over the years but it's still easier to find nice examples of this date than any other pre-1972 issue. If I collected these I'd keep it until I found a nicer example.
They didn't make proof or mint sets 1965-67. Instead they made the SMS's which are really neither fish nor fowl. They experimented with different processes so there are lots of different looks to these but most were effectively struck once under higher pressure by proof dies. They aren't true proofs because they were struck only once. Most mint set collectors always considered them proof sets and proof sets collectors thought of them as mint sets so they got little attention until recently. There are no positive ways to differentiate these strikes from regular circulation strikes but they can be told apart with great accuracy with experience. There are numerous complicating factors such as the production of all denominations in San Francisco during this period without mint marks. The SMS's were also struck here and retired SMS dies were sometimes used to strike coins for circulation. They have become much more popular in the last few years and their lower mintages and much higher attritions has resulted in significant price increases. Sets with frosted cameo coins are especially desirable.
clad - The one thing I would add to help people avoid being confused about these coins is that the fields of the coins do not have the highly polished mirrored look of a Proof. They more closely resemble a business strike in that regard. And that of course is one of the factors that makes them so hard to identify.
Very true. The cameo pieces can be extraordinarily Proof Like, however. They won't usually won't have the squared rims or great detail as is seen in a true proof. The few I've seen which appear to be true proofs are not cameo.
