Special Mint Set Coins '65 - '67

I would not. They were given special finishes, but they were not struck on high quality blanks, or carefully handled. I consider them to specimen coins.

If they were proofs the mint would have called them proof sets , not S.M.S.

I ask this because I have been considering starting a quarter proof set run and wanted to start it at 1965, the first year of the clads.

That is like wanting to start a Lincoln Cent collection starting with 1907.
If there were no Proofs made for a certain year, you cannot have that year in your collection.

There were several processes used to make the SMS coins. This means several ways to prepare blanks and dies and then several ways to strike them. Some of these coins appear extremely PL because they were struck by polished dies on polished planchets and received extremely good strikes because the dies were new and there was a lot of tonnage used to strike them. However, all SMS all were designed to have been struck a single time so probably shouldn't be considered proof no matter how much cameo and PL they appear.

This being said I believe that some of these coins were inadvertently struck twice. Since everything else about them involves the same processes it is likely that either they were test pieces of some sort or an operator "helped" them into existence. I've looked at thousands of sets and countless hundreds of rolls of these SMS's and have found only a few but have seen a few more found by other searchers. None of the ones I've seen are cameo and they are each struck by virtually new dies. They have a very distinct and rich luster.

I believe a few SMS are technically proof. But this series is very highly complex and there are a lot of strange and exotic pieces in them. One of the strangest are the very shiny 1966 quarters that are usually almost mark free but are incredibly ugly since they were struck by very badly cut dies. These look like you took a well struck coin from heavily worn dies from circulation and carefully buffed it up.

Thanks all!

Just to add my newbie perspective, they seem to be more proof than mint. They used a special
"finish" that was "proof-like." These coins were not, otherwise, like regular circulation
bound coins.

So no disrespect to anyone, I am going to consider them proofs. I guess I won't be
able to break out any 1965-1967 mint sets for album bound coins.

If I were going to do a proof run I personally would not include them.
But that is what I like about collecting.
You can collect what you like and make sets any way you want to.