Question about SMS coins

OK,

As I understand it, the US Mint issued SMS sets, as opposed to Proof Sets, in the years of 1965, 1966, 1967.

In searching the internet, all I can find are vague statements that the mint issued SMS coins in these years that weren't up to proof standards. I don't know what that means, nor do I know if this is related to the ban from congress on using mint marks (I'm guessing no on that since previously, most proofs were issued by Philadelphia and had no mint mark)

So my question is (in two parts),

what is the difference between the SMS coins and "true" proof coins?

How can one differentiate between an SMS coin and a well struck UNC coin?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

Basically yes, those years no proof sets were made. Instead they made the mint sets higher quality, so they are kind of a cross between mint sets and proof sets.

Others know more about this then I, but from what I understand the SMS sets were struck more like normal mint sets then proof sets, but the coins have some kind of a satin finish that gives them more of a shine. I'm sure someone else can elaborate on this, but in summary they should be better looking than a mint set, not quite as good as a proof. But officially they are considered MS coins, and not PR coins.

 

You can't, neither can the TPG's.

 

I've gotten two of what I believe to be SMS Kennedy Halves out of circulation. There were many other proofs in the same box of halves (including a 1960 Franklin and a 1964 Kennedy). When I look at those two, they just jump out at you and shout Proof, especially the quality of the edge of the coin.

Now, I find a few proofs in a box of halves this week including a 1969S. One of the 1967 coins jumped out at me and looked like a proof. I rinsed it off in acetone and while all the details just jump out at me, the appearance of the background field just doesn't say proof to me, but the edge quality is there and all the design details are remarkable.

Now, generally speaking, I find there really is no mistaking a proof, they just have a certain unmistakeable quality to them. But I'm wondering if the reason the background field looks different from a Proof is because this coin could be an SMS.

I've been searching the internet for pictures of SMS coins and some have that mirrored proof look to them, and some seem to not.

I'll get a scan of the coin up tomorrow when I get a chance.

 

Just for the record, I didn't want this thread to be specifically about my coin, but rather a potential reference to help discern SMS coins from UNC coins (if possible).

 

Conder, were you referring to the SMS sets of the mid-60s, or the more recent SMS fiasco? ...Mike

 

The SMS coins from the mid 60's, in my experience, most closely resemble proof coins. IIRC, they were struck once with business strike planchets using proof dies. As a result, they will have mirrored fields and some have cameoed devices, just like a proof. Later die states have weaker mirrors and little to no cameo appearnace. By way of example, here's a SMS coin:

(please excuse crappy white-balance)


Said simply, SMS coins look like proofs, at least to this idiot, but I am anything but an expert on SMS coins...Mike

 

This is a pretty complicated subject because the mint didn't make all the set coins nor the regular issues in the same way or to the same standards. As a general rule the mint set coins were struck with a much higher coining force and a slower speeds than the regular issues but otherwise there isn't much you can say that applies across the board. Some of the SMS dies were basined (fields ground flat) and the high areas sandblasted like proof coins but when these dies were retired from service they were then used to strike regular circulation coins without a mint mark in San Francisco.

Some planchets were polished and these may have all been used for SMS production but the number was small. The mint experimented quite a bit with these and most, if not all, the dies went on to strike regular coinage.

Quality of the SMS coinage ranges from poor even by mint state standards to essentially proof. While the SMS coins were struck once they were struck at more pressure than proofs are struck, a very few appear to have been struck twice. The proofs are struck twice. Quality of regular issues in those years ranged from simply horrid to at least choice gem but high grade coins are quite difficult. These coins were usually struck by highly eroded dies spaced far apart and unevenly. The planchets were bad and the struck coins were mangled. Generally if you assume gems are SMS you'll be right 98% of the time. With a little more refinement you can probably get a lot closer but, as has been said, you can't really know.

 

I've been wrong before.

My understanding is that mint set coins are struck with somewhat more force than proof set coins which are struck (twice) at more force than regular business strikes. If memory serves, it's about 55, 65, and 70 tons for quarters.

Do you have access to the recent Coin World article?

I just tried to google this a while back and had no success.

 

Well, here's the coin in question. It definitely does not have a mirrored background. I think I'm going to put it with the rest of the UNC's that I've found as even if it is an SMS, there's probably no way to prove it anymore.

 

Thank you all for the replies and additional information.

 

Both. As elaborated by others here, even the TPG's can't always tell on either the 1960's or the more recent mint set pieces. Often coins that are resubmitted change their designation, and there have been cases where a really sharp coin taken from OBW rolls from the 60's comes back as SMS when submitted.

Sure an SMS coin struck from new dies that looks a lot like a proof is easy to identify as an SMS coin. But telling a well struck business strike from an average quality SMS coin is purt near impossible.

Likewise telling an lower quality modern post 2005 mint set coin that is missing the satin finish from a business strike is often impossible. Especially since some business strikes also seem to have satin finishes as well. Their is money to be made in searching recent mint sets for the non-satin finish coins and getting them slabbed as high grade normal business strikes.

 

Thanks, guys, for correcting my understanding. As usual, you guys keep me on my toes, and I appreciate it...Mike

 

Per the 10/1 issue of Coin World, page 48 referring to the 1965-7 coins;

 

Thanks for the info.

The author must have been referring to the clad proofs since the silvers would have required much less striking force.

 

OK, here's an SMS coin listed on teletrade, there is definitely no prooflike mirroring going on with this coin.

http://www.teletrade.com/coins/lot.asp?auction=2438&lot=1458&imagetype=j2