Possible SMS or just a Proof like?

This one though, SP66 by PCGS, shows none of the markers found in the diagnostic pictures...

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

The examples I showed were 2 of the 3 coins shown on CoinFacts. Since there were only 30-50 of these made I would have assumed that one die pair minted them all. I'm not exactly sure why the 3rd quarter is different from the other 2. Maybe a mistake was made in the grading room. These die scratches or polishing lines would be on all the coins struck from this die pair.........those would be the diagnostics.

 

That was why I said this would be a good place to start. If yours had the die markers of those two matching coins that would make yours one step closer. I'm not convinced the 3rd one is SMS. Too bad PCGS took all the other photos down, we might have had others to compare with.

 

Yeah that's the other issue. I remember them having photos of every coin graded for a while there and it just recently changed. HA only has a few with good pictures and the rest are distant images with the holder and all. I can say that it certainly looks SMS based on the 65 SMS Quarters, but I believe you're right about the specific die markers and this one would never stand a chance solely based on that.

 

What about this one? Something I noticed just now. Photo 1CGS 2CGS 3:Coin in Question.
There looks to be a die chip/dot to the left of the L in Liberty. Probably not enough to go on but certainly a common ground right?

 

So I just ran out and got a better light to get these on camera. Tell me what you think..first 2 are from Coinfacts showing reverse diagnostics, the rest are mine. I noticed that the line inside of the O actually splits off and runs to the outer edge of the inside of the O...I believe it's there

 

Darn, lost most of my reply so I'll just give the basics: Assuming the last 2 photos are of your coin then they contain a distinctive marker that is absent from any of the 64 SMS Quarters that I've seen. This marker is the obvious die crack that runs from the tip of the middle bar of the "E" (in UNITED), down through the base of the "T" (also in "UNITED"), and enters the Wing at a point near the base of the "I". Given the apparent fact that there were so few of these 64 SMS Quarters coined, it would seem implausible (I didn't say impossible) that the die would have cracked just before it struck your coin (if it was an SMS). I would feel that this, along with the preponderance of the facts given to date on this issue would lead a reasonable mind to conclude that your coin is not a SMS. I would like to note however, that I do like your willingness to dig deeper into your investigations rather than just scratch the surface, and; as importantly not to be thwarted with any "no it ain't so" responses! Lord only knows where we would be if the Luminaries of History had given in to a simple "No".

Semper Fidelis

 

Speaking of not accepting a simple no, would it be more plausible that a separate reverse would show the same markers as the SMS or that the die used had cracked from the heavy striking apparently used for SMS coins? I appreciate your insight on the matter and it does make sense, however, aren't most if not all mint errors able to be attributed by the specific dies based on markers, if not occasionally solely based on the die pairing used such as VAM Morgan Dollars? I suppose that I can make an attempt to seek the knowledge of all possible dies used for 1964 Quarters, of which I have no knowledge (but will), and go from there. If I can't find another reverse die with the TES having the same markers in STATES, would I be wrong to assume that it is the same die used for SMS?

 

Well Puddin` I'm going to have to cogitate on that for a bit as my mind just isn't as reliable as it once was; minutes of great lucidity and hours of pure chaos. You may have a point, but I'll have to reread your missive a few times to ferret it out. No sarcasm intended, there's just a lot going on in your message. I would note however that the production of the 64 SMS was neither a "Mint Error" nor even a "Variety" (used in a purists sense, e.g. just as one would not consider a "Proof" of a coin as a "Variety" of the Business Strike of the same type of coin) as these strikes were intentionally done by the US Mint; why they did so is another question. As such, while "Die Markers" are invaluable to "Variety" attributions, they play little or no role in defining/refining "Mint Errors", IMHO.

However, in your case you are dealing with neither of these categories; you are simply trying to ascertain if the coin in your possession was struck by the same die that produced the currently known 65 SMS Quarters. In that case, identifying true die markers is valid; in fact, given the apparent absence of any other provenance, it may be the only way for you to make your case! With that in mind, concurrence of what the key markers are on the exemplar and their existence on your coin is absolute; there can be no unexplained variance and all but a very small handful of critical observers must be in agreement. Unfortunately, there are two or more problems with that. The first and most obvious is that you have the coin "in-hand" and therefore may be able to see artifacts that we can't. As a proxy, you can try to provide photos of your coin where the markers in question are clearly visible. Though you have provided numerous photo's, most or all run into problem 2, and that is that they appear to have been taken from various angles/placements, lighting conditions and possibly even different devices. Without controlling for these variables (as much as possible) to be as close to those used for the exemplar photo, well let's just say that this may be why you are seeing certain artifacts that at least some of us are not seeing.

Finally let me say, I hope you are right, that your coin is from the original 64 SMS batch that was struck all those years ago. To me, it would be another classic (and at this point, well needed) example of, never assume anything is impossible especially in the field of numismatics! Unfortunately the issue for you is that you must prove your case beyond AND above a reasonable doubt; it is not our task to disprove it. Short of sending it to a top TPG for verification, you are submitting your evidence to some of the most qualified jurists you can find; so make sure your evidence is as complete, and absent of emotion as possible, such that "Res Ipsa Loquitur" is obtained.

Semper Fidelis