Message:

<p>[QUOTE=&quot;cladking, post: 4069080, member: 68&quot;]It&#039;s pretty complex and the &#039;65 is far more complex than the &#039;66 and &#039;67.</p><p><br /></p><p>The mint used many different processes to make the &#039;65 SMS and if that weren&#039;t complex enough they used retired SMS dies to strike coins in San Francisco without a mintmark for circulation. Essentially just about everyone can be correct.&nbsp; </p><p><br /></p><p>But I believe that the SMS coins (and later mint set coins) were struck with more pressure than the proofs but almost all were struck only once.&nbsp; I believe a tiny minority were inadvertently struck twice.&nbsp; Those I&#039;ve seen struck twice (technically these are proofs) had no trace of frost at all.&nbsp; </p><p><br /></p><p>People would be surprised with some of the stuff that shows up in SMS sets and in circulation as well.&nbsp; There are ugly low relief 1965 quarters that are so shiny they look polished and are usually mark free.&nbsp; Strange things appear in these sets.[/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