1922 Weak Reverse Lincoln Cent Error Coin With Die Crack Reverse

[SAN]

All of my photos of 1922 Lincoln Cent from Die Pair 1
http://www.lincolncentresource.net/forums/album.php?albumid=418

Original photos:
http://www.lincolncentresource.net/forums/picture.php?albumid=418&pictureid=5314
http://www.lincolncentresource.net/forums/picture.php?albumid=418&pictureid=5315
http://www.lincolncentresource.net/forums/picture.php?albumid=418&pictureid=5316
http://www.lincolncentresource.net/forums/picture.php?albumid=418&pictureid=5317

New Closeup Photos of Date/Mint Mark Area:
http://www.lincolncentresource.net/forums/picture.php?albumid=418&pictureid=5350
http://www.lincolncentresource.net/forums/picture.php?albumid=418&pictureid=5344
http://www.lincolncentresource.net/forums/picture.php?albumid=418&pictureid=5346
http://www.lincolncentresource.net/forums/picture.php?albumid=418&pictureid=5348

New Photos of Obverse Full size:
http://www.lincolncentresource.net/forums/picture.php?albumid=418&pictureid=5349
http://www.lincolncentresource.net/forums/picture.php?albumid=418&pictureid=5343
http://www.lincolncentresource.net/forums/picture.php?albumid=418&pictureid=5345
http://www.lincolncentresource.net/forums/picture.php?albumid=418&pictureid=5347

For sale is a 1922 Weak Reverse Lincoln Cent error coin. It has a die crack on the reverse side. Compared to photos of PCGS graded 1922's from Die Pair #1, I believe that the grading would be about an F15, except that it has some pits on the reverse and nicks in Abe's beard that would probably reduce the grading to between a G-8 and an F-12.

This 1922 appears to be struck from Die Pair #1, according to:
http://www.lincolncentresource.com/1922Ddievarieties.html

It has the die crack running from the L in Pluribus through the O in One.
The second 2 in the date is weaker than the first 2.
The first T in Trust is more distinct than the other letters.
The T, U, and T in TRUST are stronger than the R and S.
The WE is very weak.
The reverse is very weak with no lines in the wheat ears.

There is a small pit located where the top of the D should be. The rest of any D should be below the pit. But I don't see any trace of a D below the pit.

SAN

[amosamos16]

That's die # 1. however I do not like the scoop, missing metal, where the mintmark was. I feel it's been altered, removing the mintmark. I have bought and sold quite a few in my day, and this is would come back as ng, not gradable, As well as cleaned. Sorry !!

[RWBILLER]

Sorry - but that coin looks altered. Hope you did not pay alot for it.
Rog

[SAN]

That's die # 1. however I do not like the scoop, missing metal, where the mintmark was. I feel it's been altered, removing the mintmark. I have bought and sold quite a few in my day, and this is would come back as ng, not gradable, As well as cleaned. Sorry !!

After looking more closely at the coin and also looking at examples on the PCGS website I am downgrading this to a Weak D.

When I look at the coin under magnification from other angles there does not appear to be any scooping or depression at the mintmark area that I can see. However, I did notice a slightly shiny area that might be considered part of a D mintmark. The shininess caused by wear over a slightly raised area. There does appear to be a small pit where the middle of the D should be. This could be coincidental as there also pits on the reverse side of the coin. If this was caused by something sharp it could have raised the area around it ever so slightly.

The coin has been degreased with 99% isopropyl alcohol. But the oxide layer has not been removed by abrasion or any chemical means.

The term "cleaning" seems to be a bit inflammatory and means different things to different people. There is a huge difference between removing dirt and grease and removing the oxide layer responsible for a coin's patina. The question I would put to any coin collector is are you collecting old coins or are you collecting old grease and dirt?

Sorry - but that coin looks altered. Hope you did not pay alot for it.
Rog

I didn't pay anything for the penny. This coin was pulled out of circulation many years ago in the middle 1960's when my dad and I would sort through many rolls of pennies. If any alteration had ever been made, it would have had to have been altered many years before that and then the coin put back in circulation before it was removed and added to my collection in the middles 60's.

I'm not about to concede that this coin has been altered just yet. I will attempt to take some photos from other angles with the light source in various positions to better show the mintmark area. It's still possible that is is a No D penny.

SAN

[DoubleYou]

I agree this is no D die 1. I don't think it's been altered, but pictures don't speak a thousand words when it comes to coins. Not bad if you really just have to have a no D 1922, which is not really something I aspire for, since it really is a rather simple matter of crappy quality control.

[Brad]

Looks like a 1922 Weak D Die 1 to me. The die crack matches Die 1 exactly. Hard to grade these, but I would say Good 4 or higher.

[rlm's cents]

Die #1, but I cannot say for sure if it is a weak "D" or a no "D". I grade it VG probably 8 because of the nicks.

[kloccwork419]

I would put it at a G4 but as for what it is...Im not taking a guess

[liveandievarieties]

In all fairness, I have to come to the defense of the seller, who seems to be representing the coin rather straightforward. I've sold examples of die #1 in this grade on eBay and they've gotten $80-100. Not a pretty coin and as stated, the result of lack of QC at the mint. But it is what it is and it doesn't appear to be cleaned or dameged, just ugly as many of the cents of this year are.

[thecentcollector]

I still don't understand paying exponential amounts of money for a grease-filled die. This is one coin that will never make it into my collection. It's no different than the 1989-P quarter with the mintmark filled. I've seen them go for a few dollars in the past. A true no-mintmark, like a 1982 (no P) dime, would have my interest... but not a greaser.

[lara4228]

To each its own. :D

[SAN]

I still don't understand paying exponential amounts of money for a grease-filled die.

The same could be said of coin collecting in general. So what if a coin is rare? Why would anyone want to pay more than the metal value for some old coin? Why should a coin with an error on it be worth any more? Shouldn't it should be worth less because there is a defect? Shouldn't a bright shiny new coin be worth more than some worn and tarnished rare coin?

I don't understand why anyone would put a value on Rap, Hip Hop, or Country music. But to each their own.

You can argue that a die crack mint error is actually a variety, as the die has been permanently altered and coins are likely to be repeatedly struck this way. Whether or not the alteration of the die was intentional or by accident doesn't change the fact that multiple coins are being struck in an identical and repeatable fashion.

Whereas a grease filled die is variable as the grease can fall out and the die will stamp coins as intended again.

In this case it's not just a grease filled die. This coin also has a distinct die crack mint error.

As far as the grading, I wouldn't be comfortable grading this coin much higher than a G-4. But being a weak stamping does make it more difficult to grade this coin, as I think that makes it more difficult to determine how much wear exists. I certainly wouldn't want to be accused of mis-grading a coin as some do on E-bay. Some of the sellers on ebay have no shame.

SAN

[lara4228]

San, I apologize that you need to defend yourself to such a degree.

Sorry guys, but I don't think it's necessary to beat this one to a pulp. He is not on ebay making obvious falsifications about this coin, he is here, amongst us, and is being as up front and honest as he can be.

In short, if you your interested, PM him, if not state your peace and move along your merry old way.

[thecentcollector]

I'm in no way berating this post or anything to *any* degree. I'm simply stating a personal opinion, something off of which this forum is based. If stating said opinion is wrong and offensive, then please, accept my sincerest apologies. I in no way, shape or form meant to put *you* on the spot for anything.

The *opinion* i was simply trying to state is that what makes the 1922 "Plains" any different from the 3 tubes full of greased die coins I have sitting here now? Would I personally be able to sell each coin for $300+? I just feel that this coin *in general* has an unfair market value for what it actually is.

Simply put, I'll keep my mouth shut from now on, as that's what keeps the gods happy.

[lara4228]

Whatever. I think I've created an issue that I didn't mean to.

My apologies

[SAN]

No need for anyone to keep their opinions to themselves. I don't take any of the comments personally. The opportunity to honestly debate an issue is part of what makes this a great country.

I also welcome any information about the penny. I don't want to misrepresent it in any way. In particular I want to make sure that the mint mark has not been tampered with.

Grading of a coin is always going to be subjective. This one probably more subjective than others. The more opinions that people have about the grade the better.

The biggest question that remains is this a No-D, a Weak-D, a tampered with D, a mint mark banged about in circulation, or possibly one with extra mint grease around the mint mark? I'm leaning towards a Weak-D

SAN

[amosamos16]

The 22 no d and weak d have nothing at all to do with it being grease filled at all. The Denver mint was so busy trying to get these cents out, they were the only mint making cents in 22 ,the dies became worn out, there were 4 dies used that year. Now with the exception of die 2. That never had a d engraved in the die at all. This is why 2 is the most desired. The mint did change the reverse of die 2 and hence you get the strong reverse. This is a quick nuts and bolts of it. But it had nothing to do with grease. Hope this helps.

[john poens]

I would agree as well this coin is altered. Over the years i have seen them come through the shop. Any depression where the mintmark should be is a red flag, a better picture and a in hand inspection would be needed to rule out for sure. But from the picture it really looks altered to me as well. The second point, the missing mintmark was not greese filled, but was correctly stated as worn out dies, and a ommited mint mark off die 2. Some however belive a worker polished off the d. No one will ever know.

[RWBILLER]

Hi

I completely agree with John. Also, if someone wants a 1922 plain or weak d - my advice is to buy one that's certified - otherwise, someday, you will have to go through this again. Spent the 20 bucks and have it certified.
Rog

[liveandievarieties]

I would agree as well this coin is altered. Over the years i have seen them come through the shop. Any depression where the mintmark should be is a red flag, a better picture and a in hand inspection would be needed to rule out for sure.


Are you guys kidding???!!!

This is one case where I'll stand up and scream out "DIE MARKERS!!" Die pair #1 has long been regognized (along with #3) as a weak D. That is all that the seller has posted about this coin. There is no question as to what this coin is. The die crack protruding from the O of ONE on the reverse is as obvious a marker as there can be. It's visible even on a very circulated example such as this.

Please visit this link, study and commit to memory. It will answer nearly all questions posed about the validity of this coin: http://www.lincolncentresource.com/1922Ddievarieties.html

The 1922 Plain listed in the Redbook is die pair #2. That's the one that is most valuable.

This coin has it's share of nicks and gashes, any coin that kicked around in circulation for 40 or so years is bound to. There is no mystery here. There happens to be a nick near the date, but that does not negate any certainty over which variety this is. It simply is.

Coin is not altered and is not being suggested as anything it's not (I'd be the first to hop on that).

It amazes me that we as an educated bunch can spend multiple pages debating something that shouldn't be in question. This is 1922-D Weak D, Die pair #1. It's a well circulated example grading VG. It just is. One could indeed certify it, but to anyone paying a premium for this coin, they have a responsibility to educate themselves and understand what they're buying, not make an assumption.

[Maineman750]

Gotta admit Chris has a good point...that die crack matches the one in the link with the original post.No question which die this is.

[DoubleYou]

The 22 no d and weak d have nothing at all to do with it being grease filled at all. The Denver mint was so busy trying to get these cents out, they were the only mint making cents in 22 ,the dies became worn out, there were 4 dies used that year. Now with the exception of die 2. That never had a d engraved in the die at all. This is why 2 is the most desired. The mint did change the reverse of die 2 and hence you get the strong reverse. This is a quick nuts and bolts of it. But it had nothing to do with grease. Hope this helps.

Pardon me for asking, but where did you come by this information? The Authoritative Reference on Lincoln cents states on page 365 that 30 dies were used at the Denver mint in 1922, not 4. Are you saying that there were 4 no/weak D dies?

[rlm's cents]

Pardon me for asking, but where did you come by this information? The Authoritative Reference on Lincoln cents states on page 365 that 30 dies were used at the Denver mint in 1922, not 4. Are you saying that there were 4 no/weak D dies?
Of the 30, only 4 specific die pairs have been seen with no/weak "D"'s. If you look here (http://www.lincolncentresource.com/1922Ddievarieties.html), they and their characteristic with pictures are described quite well.

[amosamos16]

Wow, this thread has caused a response . A very positive one , this is great! For Chris, I'll try to explain this as you might misunderstand what's going on. Your saying it has to be weak or or a no d just because it's die 1. Not true . Yes we all agree it's die one. Whether it was weak or not there at all is not up for debate. The issue is a simple one. Has this mintmark been altered? Chances are yes. They remove weak d or a regular d for the purpose of making it a no d. I could care less what die markers are on the coin. The die markers are only there as a referance as to what die the coin had come from being only 4 dies made a weak or no d. The fact is the depression is suspect, and is common marker for altered coins. Most of the time if you have not seen a lot of these you can be fooled. I not tooting my own horn , but i know quite abit about these had have a good working knowledge of them. To argue that this is a no d or weak d just because it's die 1 is foolish,any and all those 4 dies are altered. Believe me!! This is fun and I hope to not sound condescending or offend anyone, it just it is what it is!

[DoubleYou]

Well, for one, I find some of your facts tend to go against some of the well-grounded opinions of experts as found in many articles and books. People throw around the popular myth that die 2 never had a D mintmark on it at all, but that has never been proven to be so; indeed, there is strong evidence that it is not so. The only expert reference I've found that agrees with that idea is the 5th edition of the Cherrypickers' Guide, which contains many other errors and controversial varieties. All other expert references are quite unanimous that these were all produced by either grease clogging the dies or extreme die polishing. Wexler's Reference is quite detailed on die pair 2, stating his belief that the obverse and reverse dies clashed, following which the mint worker heavily polished the clash marks away along with the mintmark and much of the detail in the lower part of the vest, replacing the reverse die with a new one. The main reason why die 2 is sometimes stated as having never had a mintmark is because it has a strong date and a strong reverse. How the weakness in the vest right smack-dab in the same area as the mintmark escaped them, I don't care to know.

Now none of that pertains to this coin, but I needed to get that off my chest.

Die 1 is known in earlier die states with a mintmark. Later on it gets heavily worn and loses its mintmark as well. In the process between VEDS (very early die state) and VVLDS (very very late die state), it goes from mintmark to weak mintmark to no mintmark. It is very evident by the extreme signs of deterioration seen on this coin that this was struck on the latter part of the life of die pair 1. Therefore, even if the coin as you so ardently believe, is altered, it would be an altered no D. Since there is no motive to alter a D that is nonexistent to start with, I don't believe it to be altered. I think it to be a matter of respect to the seller that we do not consider this coin to be altered when there is such little evidence to base that conclusion on.

[amosamos16]

I can not add
AnymoRe to this thred

[SAN]

I've added 8 new photos including closeups of the Date/Mint mark area.

Has this mintmark been altered? Chances are yes.............. The fact is the depression is suspect, and is common marker for altered coins.

I'm not sure what depression you are talking about. When I rotate the coin in the light and watch the reflection move across the mint mark area I do not see anything that looks unnatural. I've used a 5X eye loupe, an 8X 3 lens magnifier, and a 30X microscope. The transition from the rim is smooth and I don't see anything to indicate that the mint mark area was altered.

Regarding the pit in the mint mark area, the location of the pit is exactly where the top of the D should be. If there was any D to be seen, the rest of the D should have been below the pit. Do keep in mind that this coin was stamped from a very worn die pair as evidenced by the weak imprint on both the obverse and reverse of the coin. The mint mark area may very well look different than a 1922-D made early while the dies were still fresh.

If anyone has photos of altered 1922-D's stamped from Die Pair #1 I'd love to see them. I've searched the internet but I have only been able to find photos of altered 1922's from die pair #2.

Another question regarding alterations is how long after altering a coin does it take for the coin to brown up again over the altered area?

The 1922-D is certainly a controversial coin which even the grading companies do not seem to agree upon.

As worn as the #1 die pair that made this coin was, can there be any question that this is at the very least a weak D?

SAN

[rlm's cents]

If PCGS can call this a NO "D", yours has to qualify. http://coins.ha.com/c/item.zx?saleNo=438&lotNo=258

BTW, you might want to note the grade.

[SAN]

rlm's cents,

Thanks for linking the photos. This is a good example of why grading a weak strike is so difficult. I'd never think that a coin in that condition would grade an AU.

I'd also agree that, if in fact my penny has not been altered, it should be considered a No D. I can't see any trace of a D under a 30X microscope.

If after looking at the new photos there are still skeptics, I may need to send the penny out for grading.

There is also a possibility that I may find a buyer in the Twin Cities that would have a chance to examine the penny in person.

SAN

[rlm's cents]

rlm's cents,

Thanks for linking the photos. This is a good example of why grading a weak strike is so difficult. I'd never think that a coin in that condition would grade an AU.

I'd also agree that, if in fact my penny has not been altered, it should be considered a No D. I can't see any trace of a D under a 30X microscope.

If after looking at the new photos there are still skeptics, I may need to send the penny out for grading.

There is also a possibility that I may find a buyer in the Twin Cities that would have a chance to examine the penny in person.

SAN
Not only AU, but 58. They are graded on wear, not what details are there. Even if none of the details were there, when the coin has no wear, is MS

[SAN]

Recently I had a coin dealer look at this 1922 Lincoln Cent. His opinion was that it really needs to be authenticated by an expert. The marks in the mintmark area make it difficult to judge whether or not it is a real no D or altered.

So that brings up the question of which coin grading group would be best to grade and authenticate a 1922 Lincoln Cent. Any opinions?

SAN

[cimperialis]

I know PCGS slabs a fair number of these. They're expensive, but that would assure you get a good analysis.

[Maineman750]

ANACS is easiest and least expensive,no membership required.

[liveandievarieties]

Agreed, for a coin worth $100 or less, it hardly makes sense to pay PCGS $50 for variety attribution. I don't think ANACS will hesitate to slab the coin as the variety it is.

IN FACT- Let's make this interesting- if you send it in SAN- and they decline to call it Weak D, Die #1- I'll put my money where my mouth is and reimburse you for the slab fee. Shouldn't run more than $15 and it'll be great to put this thread to bed once and for all! I mean it, let's do this. :tinysmile_classes_t

[Brad]

PCGS & NGC do not charge a variety fee for this coin. They will either say "No D Weak Reverse" or "Weak D". I have never seen a PCGS or NGC slab with Die 1, Die 3, or Die 4 on it.

ANACS would only say "Weak D Die 1", and I would be shocked if they did not.

Not sure about ICG or SEGS.

As far as I know, no grading service will say what you probably want: "No D Die 1", but ICG or SEGS may.

[rlm's cents]

Do not use ANACS. They will call it a weak "D" and it is not. That is their terminology for all 1922's with weak reverses. That coin should go for $150 to $250. These coins vary a lot in price. For those doubters, here is a G4 that sold for $200 http://coins.ha.com/c/item.zx?saleNo=131202&lotNo=20734 and I still believe his coin will get a higher grade (like VG8 or 10) unless they have a problem with that nick. (But, that nick is high and left of the MM.) I would personally go with NGC just because their service is so much better, but there is nothing wrong with PCGS

[WaterSport]

Ok then, I will split the slab fees with Chris so we can send it to PCGS and see what becomes of it. The education here is too rich to stop, and my vote is that its a weak D VG 8. I had a grade set of 1922 Weak D's all in PCGS holders that I sold off 3 years ago so I could concentrate of other varieties. So if I am wrong, I may have to give up collecting all together !!

WS

[amosamos16]

You know my vote, NG, not gradable. As the others have said Ngc or pcgs. And there is no additional charge for variety plus because it's listed in the red book. I do truly hope I'm wrong, but know I'm not. This has been a fun thread!! Good luck! And please let's us posted.

[coop]

http://imgs.inkfrog.com/pix/coop49/1922_no_D_over_polished_die_HERITAGE_AUCTIONS.jpg

[liveandievarieties]

I think the coin is question is the '22 Weak D, Die #1 Coop.

[lara4228]

Come on SAN, either sell the darn coin or help us put our minds at ease! lol. Slab it! Slab it! Slab it! (I think I've been watching too much Jerry Springer lately:smile:)

[SAN]

The controversy won't stop even after this coin is graded. The grading companies can't even agree on what constitutes a No D versus a weak D. Some will only consider a penny stamped from Die Pair #2 a No D. Others will consider pennies stamped from Die Pair #1 to be a No D as long as there aren't any traces of the D under a microscope.

About the only thing that anyone can agree upon is that this is a 1922 with a weak reverse stamped from Die Pair #1.

SAN