Message:

<p>[QUOTE=&quot;KBBPLL, post: 26522482, member: 104064&quot;]Thanks! Further down that thread: &quot;I must note - there are a few things in my OP that are factually incorrect based on subsequent research. My OP was factually correct based on the info I had at the time, but the errors in it will be corrected in my final research.&quot;</p><p><br /></p><p>I have no idea what was in the original and subsequently edited post, but the fact that it was removed doesn&#039;t mean that his whole theory is negated. More than a year later, the Numismatist still published his article. After the original thread began in August 2023, he goes on to update in May 2024 that the article is being reviewed. Mark Feld replies that November isn&#039;t soon enough (referencing the publication issue). To me this adds up to some relatively trivial inaccurate details in the post that got deleted. </p><p><br /></p><p>To your earlier comment, from that CU thread a post that lists previous auctions confirms that in fact a set was auctioned May 2-4, 1990, confirming what was said in the Numismatist article that at least some of these were not from Adams&#039; estate (she hadn&#039;t died yet). <a href="https://media.stacksbowers.com/VirtualCatalogs/CatalogLibrary/unitedstatesgold1990stac.pdf" target="_blank" class="externalLink ProxyLink" data-proxy-href="https://media.stacksbowers.com/VirtualCatalogs/CatalogLibrary/unitedstatesgold1990stac.pdf" rel="nofollow">https://media.stacksbowers.com/VirtualCatalogs/CatalogLibrary/unitedstatesgold1990stac.pdf</a></p><p>[ATTACH=full]1690529[/ATTACH] </p><p>Note &quot;we suspect that&quot;, which then led to PCGS attributing these as &quot;special mint set&quot; experimental coins, and &quot;we suspect that&quot; perpetuated into Heritage listings. There is nothing to substantiate the claim of a connection to the later actual SMS coins other than an auctioneer&#039;s hype. Yes, they were &quot;special&quot; according to the article, as part of strikes of sets given to the Smithsonian during that era, but not special in the way that is hyped. </p><p><br /></p><p>I also got some humor out of the suggestion of measuring the coins for &quot;higher relief&quot; and a subsequent post about having done that on the supposedly &quot;high relief&quot; 1942 experimental cent, to which CaptHenway replied &quot;As I recall, there was considerable disagreement with that article, but the discussion ended badly.&quot; I made the mistake of weighing in on that 4 years earlier, because I noticed that this &quot;unique&quot; 1942 cent had the same die characteristics as 1942 circulation coins. I got banned along with Roger Burdette over it, and the entire thread was deleted. I mention this only from the standpoint that once PCGS designates something, they&#039;re rather sensitive about challenging it. I doubt PCGS will ever remove their SMS designation on these. </p><p><br /></p><p>The rest of the posts in that thread largely agree with the article. However you want to designate them, they aren&#039;t &quot;SMS&quot;. And I agree with the author&#039;s comments in that thread - you don&#039;t have to see coins in hand in order to draw conclusions. That&#039;s not a deal breaker.[/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