1965 Kennedy Half SMS Satin Finish

Generally SMS coins appear PL and regular issue appear "satin". This may be all they were trying to differentiate. Telling these apart requires experience and I doubt anyone can do it with 100% accuracy. There is a strong tendency to just ascribe the nicest coins as being "SMS" but this isn't true.

These are not scarce in the least but they are of several different appearances. I'd guess about 5% might be described as "satin" but every satin 1965 half doesn't look like every other one. Some will even look more PL than others. There is almost a continuum because they used so many different processes.

The evidence shows that the Satin proofs of 1950 were struck using un-polished planchets, leaving planchet marks on the high points. This also calls into question if they were fully-struck, since those marks should have been removed with sufficient striking force.

The inconsistency ("continuum" of qualities) @cladking mentions may show that there was little quality control for SMS in 1965. Did this continue into 1966? If 1966 are consistent, then if one compares the surface qualities of 1966 SMS to 1965, what % are similar?

For the 1950 proofs, perhaps 10% (maybe fewer) are Satin, so I think they worked out the details of die and planchet problems early in proof production, or perhaps the Satins were made in a first run. I don't think anyone knows for sure, and all we have is the physical evidence of the coins themselves. For sure the majority of 1950 proofs look "normal", ie with brilliant fields, and a "continuum" from full cameo to full brilliant based on die prep and wear.

Quality control was not extremely good on the SMS coins. Much of the variation resulted from using several different methods for planchets and die preparation. Some dies were hubbed differently and some were basined. Die pressure appears to have varied as well. Some planchets were polished.

The mint was trying to produce a set that appealed to both mint set and proof set collectors but these never were liked by anybody. They did a lot of experimentation trying to get just the right look. There were letters to the editor that said the sets were nearly perfect and some that said they were awful. They may have all been right.

The '66 sets were even worse in terms of different appearances. You just never knew what you'd see in these. There were quarters in this date that looked polished and were flatly struck but tended to be flawless. I've seen other specimens that appear to be fully proof.

The mint mostly settled on a single appearance in the '67 sets which almost all look a lot like proofs but much less well made. Apparently these weren't liked either because mintages dropped even further.

Mint set collectors avoided these sets because they looked too much like proof sets and proof set collectors avoided them because they looked too much like mint sets. Nobody liked them much and attrition has been extremely high on them. Most '65 sets have a lot of haze or tarnish and the others are very little better.

If you don't like an SMS coin just keep looking because there will probably be one you do like.

'66 and '67 sets are often changed around in order to remove the numerous substandard coins and a few Gems, varieties, and special coins. This makes the resultant sets far more marketable. Usually these sets will look a great deal alike if they've undergone this process. '65 sets can't be switched around so easily because of the packaging and rarely or never are. But collectors and dealers still cull out bad sets to sell individually and Gems for grading. Curiously this results in attrition being higher on the ';65 so it has become the most valuable. Many of these sets are bad though and can't be wholesaled.

Most of the coins actually being removed from the sets for collections or grading are Gems but in aggregate a lot of the "special coins" and varieties are also getting attention. Anyone taking apart the sets to reassemble nicer sets (by removing bad coins which are numerous) is going to notice that the coins are different.

There are surprisingly few original sets left. It's not simple attrition but just the many years that have passed since they were made. The low demand means the sets are exposed to harsh conditions from being stored in barns and attics and the many years assures most sets have been in the marketplace at least once. This makes finding sets that are still "random" such as you'd find in a sealed box very improbable. If you do find a sealed box the odds are that many of the coins are ruined anyway.

But these coins are still out there and many sets have never been picked over. Don't expect to find many frosted Gems because these were very scarce even when you could open sealed boxes and all the coins were still pristine.