OK Heather - why was the 1922 No D weak reverse deleted from the Lincoln sets ????
WaterSport
Posts: 6,800 ✭✭✭✭✭
I hope this is a Technical oversight and not a another PCGS quietly (but failing to inform) removing a coin from the registry with out an opinion of those who collect them, or worst yet Laura complaining again, or some other issue? What gives ??
WS
Proud recipient of the coveted PCGS Forum "You Suck" Award Thursday July 19, 2007 11:33 PM and December 30th, 2011 at 8:50 PM.
10
Comments
Fishing for a bug badge?
Nope, just looking for answers. Not good customer service to just drop a coin, with no explanation, warning, or opinion.
WS
I noticed they are not listed on the price guide now as well. Had to look it up by cert #.
That is an odd one to delete considering what all is in the set still.
Still there, just listed as a minor variety, you have to expand 1922-D
Collector, occasional seller
This can't be good for its value.
I am confused. Is the 'strong' or the 'weak' reverse '22 plain the 'real' plain, or they both classified as varities?
This is not right. Once a variety is included in a set and collectors go out and pay money for the variety.....it should NEVER be taken out,,,,,keyword is NEVER !!!
Probably been refuted by the experts.
As an individual with recent and dramatic first hand knowledge about this subject, I'd like to lend a part of what transpired and what I was subsequently told by a high ranking member of PCGS management.
To preface what I have to lend I'd like to state that personally I've experienced the recent management change at PCGS to be exponentially fantastic. I believe there will be normal and expected reorganization and growing pains but I truly believe, due to what I've personally experienced to be a major influx of genuine integrity, the end result will be outstanding.
As far as the 22 No D Weak reverse: I had a 63RB example in for regrade at PCGS when this recognition transition transpired -and- while a major management shift was transpiring. There's no need to go into detail about my personal coin except to state there was a tremendous amount of drama.
Ultimately what transpired, which generated a new found respect for PCGS by me, is that the new management listened to my point(s), genuinely respected, considered and valued them, took responsibility for weaknesses in their protocol and then made what I feel were respectful, reasonable, mutually beneficial decisions and subsequent implementations. There were zero "excuses" and none of "if you don't like it, too bad".
Nobody can make everybody happy all the time. In my personal opinion the only thing anyone or any entity can do to pursue this impossible goal is to function with genuine integrity and I feel the new PCGS management is interpersonally committed to this fundamental paradigm.
The following is what I was told about this variety on February 09, 2019: "Our policy on this variety is now as follows: We will grade no “new” coins this designation (or PCGS spec number) but will honor the designation on all existing coins in PCGS holders."
IMHO I don't think that just because PCGS doesn't recognize this variety means the remaining collecting population and other services don't, won't or most importantly can't CHOOSE to continue to recognize it! Registry sets are only a fraction of what drives the collector marketplace. We all have the ability to make our own decisions, right? As individuals we have the ability to CHOOSE whether to be "people" or "sheeple". Just because "X" says a coin exhibits a Weak D doesn't mean a coin that exhibits No D has a Weak D! We can all CHOOSE to point at the D that's not there, aggressively disagree and CHOOSE not recognize their lack of recognition. Seriously, does someone being labeled an "expert" give them the superpower to point to something THAT'S NOT THERE and convince otherwise seemingly intelligent people that it is?
The subsequent future value of the coin could easily increase in light of no more being graded at PCGS. The (PCGS) populations won't increase thus intrinsically increasing the gap between supply and demand.
Lastly, with all due respect, I whole-heartedly disagree with PCGS's decision to remove recognition of this variety. However I also don't claim to know their reasons for doing so. If I did maybe I'd feel differently. Personally I feel public explanations and warnings for such actions would be a good protocol and I expect the future PCGS will provide such.
"The subsequent future value of the coin could easily increase in light of no more being graded at PCGS. The (PCGS) populations won't increase thus intrinsically increasing the gap between supply and demand."
Without it's inclusion in the registry, there will be little demand.
What prompted the change in policy with regards to this coin?
I'm still confused and would like to hear from someone at PCGS. Does this mean future No D coins will not have a "strong" or "weak" reverse differentiation on the label?
https://pcgs.com/setregistry/showcase/2819
The1922 No D Weak Reverse is no longer attributed at PCGS due to an extensive study on the 1922 cents by the ANA. This study found that all 1922 cents that had a weak reverse were simply Weak D’s. Now all 1922’s with a weak reverse are called 1922 Weak D (PCGS spec#3110).
Heather Boyd
PCGS Senior Director of Marketing
Thank you for the explanation @HeatherBoyd.
Interesting, Heather do you have a link to a report from this study so that Lincoln collectors can read about the study and its results?
My Collection of Old Holders
Never a slave to one plastic brand will I ever be.
I know of at least one variety recently deleted that was a completely unique, single known example and had an unexplainable origin.
I don't think it's fair for someone to unknowingly start competing in a set that is literally impossible to complete or only possible for a single person to complete when there's a good chance the average collector may not be aware that's the situation.
There's a difference between a challenge and an impossibility. If I owned a coin that was removed from the registry I wouldn't really care knowing it's still a known variety and I own it, registry set or not.
This is speaking in general and not specifically of the No D Weak Reverse....
Great transactions with oih82w8, JasonGaming, Moose1913.
I have always felt the 22 no D weak reverse was just a later die state or weak strike. I bet there are markers to show it is from the same dies. Now if lincolns get collected like Bust Half's then maybe it will be recognized again in the future!
Thank you Heather.
WS
I feel much better now knowing that the D that isn't on my super-clean No D mint state 64 example is still there....somewhere. Off I go now to hunt for it. Maybe that trickster Lincoln has it in his pocket! I guess I better check the outside of the rim as well.
In light of this new education I just had to post this recent find of a 1966 Lincoln Weak S
As much as I appreciate the answer, I don't understand the conclusion. I have seen many No D weak reverses that have no trace of a D whatsoever.
https://pcgs.com/setregistry/showcase/2819
"As much as I appreciate the answer, I don't understand the conclusion. I have seen many No D weak reverses that have no trace of a D whatsoever."
Thank you.
I would like to read this study by the ANA.
Here is a link to a resource that describes how I learned the differences 20+ years ago regarding the four known die pairs. I'm having trouble understanding what new information has been learned.
http://www.lincolncentresource.com/1922Ddievarieties.html
There are many examples in the past where PCGS has refused to listen to the small cent experts. The 1856 in MS, 1858/7 weak, switching of the 1970-s and the 1971 DDO in the major set, etc.
I hope my detractors will keep their comments out of the discussion. I'm not a know-it-all **BUT I WAS THERE and THEY WERE NOT!
Time for a little history. It is a long story and I'm going to leave out most of it - sorry. Perhaps some of the ANA authenticators who did the excellent research that was published in the Numismatist magazine column will follow up.
A long time ago, in a far off galaxy...
At one time, any 1922 Lincoln cent with no trace of a "D" was bought/sold/traded and collected all day long by numismatic professionals and collectors as A 1922 Plain cent! As most of you know, in the right light, many of these coins show evidence of a surface change where the "D" was. Often it manifested itself as a tiny, partial bulge. Many of these coins were altered to remove a trace of anything under the date. Bret Harsche published a pamphlet showing the diagnostics of the genuine 1922 Plain. As best I can remember, no mention of the coin's reverse was ever mentioned.
We authenticated these coins in the early 1970's. When there was no trace of a "D" the coins were certified as 1922 Plain cents. Truthfully, we got really tired of Playing God! When the staff of the Certification Service (except for one) stayed in DC and started a competing company which eventually became the first coin authentication and GRADING service (INSAB) we tightened our standards. Years later, the authenticators at the ANA's Service wrote two articles on these coins and fell into line with us. The standard of "must have a strong reverse to be the PLAIN var" was now the norm.
As many of you know, the second "2" on the genuine examples is shaped differently than the first. This occurs on coins with a weak reverse too so I've never been 100% comfortable with our decision but it was much better than having to decide if a little "shadow" under the date nixed the coin from being a 22-plain.
@Insider2
The old theory was that a die pair was used for an extended period of time and the D became filled with grease, debris, or whatever. This was the original die pairing. Then, the reverse die was replaced with a new die, giving the reverse a sharp strong strike, while the obverse continued its progression through later states. Therefore, there were two reverse pairings with the same obverse. Decades ago (50's maybe?) collectors saw this absence of a mint mark and a strong reverse (Die pair 2) as possibly a rarity escaping from the Philly mint, giving birth to the legend of the 1922 plain (which has never really existed).
Do you disagree?
The old "theory?" I'd like to see where you came up with this: "Decades ago (50's maybe?) collectors saw this absence of a mint mark and a strong reverse (Die pair 2)..." There was no Die pair 2 in the 50's or 60's or early 70's!" The dies became numbered when the ANA articles were published. Furthermore, I have never heard of anyone who I considered to be informed EVER SUGGEST IN A MILLION YEARS that a 1922 obverse die (without a "D") was used to strike 1922 Plain cents. This is plain stupid! Well, maybe not stupid as there were a number of ignorant, so-called Ex-Perts around back then.
Sorry, it's late and you "pushed a button."
I learned long ago to avoid expensive varieties because of this precise sort of thing (reclassification, delisting, new debates or controversy). I'm glad I dumped my 1914/3 ch bu buffalo nickel.
Agreed. The coin probably just lost 30-40% of its value. Exclusion from the registry will reduce demand which will inevitably drop prices. Is it still listed in the Red Book? If not, it will be ignored by set collectors and would pretty much be a doomsday scenario IMHO.
Don't be an a$$, pardner. I didn't say it was numbered in the 50's but rather this pairing was always the desired "true" 1922 plain, even before it was numbered. Average collectors were "informed" by their local brick and mortar shop selling the dream of a 22 plain ...
I didn't say it was right - I said that 22 philly mint never existed.
And yes I have read older ANA articles, but the statements above led me to believe there was something new.
So I take it you are in agreement with what I said.
Question then...is the ANA looking at other series with a strong and weak sucjh as the 1982-No/P Strong/Weak Roosevelt Dime?
Later, Paul.
@HeatherBoyd You should take a look at the 1858/7 Strong vs. Weak. These two PCGS varieties are the same dies.
If so, now is the time to dump the coins.
This is not right. Once a variety is included in a set and collectors go out and pay money for the variety.....it should NEVER be taken out,,,,,keyword is NEVER !!!
how 'bout this --- once Dimeman has made a declaration it can never be changed, no matter how much evidence to the contrary refutes that opinion. I'm sure you don't agree with that assessment but it is how you post sometimes. it is to anyone's credit, including PCGS, when they can admit a mistake. in this case, judging by Heather's explanation, it wasn't even a mistake. it seems more like a refined explanation that clarifies things.
.
Doggedly collecting coins of the Central American Republic.
Visit the Society of US Pattern Collectors at USPatterns.com.
Only that no unmintmarked coin was sent to Denver. The rest is rubbish, partner.
Read MY post - again. This A$$ wrote that you don't know what you are talking about and are spreading seriously uninformed misinformation on the most popular coin forum with the most members to read it!
NO ONE HAD A CLUE THAT THE REVERSE OF A 1922 CENT HAD ANYTHING TO DO WITH ANYTHING until the INS authenticators, US Mint Lab authenticators, and EVENTUALLY the authenticators in Colorado who got around to publishing this knowledge and assigning the Type #'s to the dies.
Now if you were around in the 1950's, 1960's, or the early 1970's and what I wrote to dispute your post is not factual, please site the PUBLISHED reference where you or your friend "discovered" that a TYPE 2 1922 cent (strong reverse) even existed (before the ANA authenticators numbered the dies).
PS Up until the mid 1970's the majority of coin dealers were selling ANY 1922 cent with little trace of the "D" as 1922 Plain cents.
Question to you EScott, are you implying that the "old management" at PCGS was low or lacking in "genuine integrity"? Can you explain that with specifics? Your statement is making my imagination run wild. I am curious what you meant.
My Coin Blog
My Toned Lincoln Registry Set
@Insider2 - Skip Fazzari? Can you focus on the subject matter of the post, or are you having attention problems? Do your company partners know how you talk to potential customers and collectors? Does Numismatic News know you talk to their customers like this? Maybe that's why PCGS continues to let you post on their board.
The question to PCGS is why PCGS dropped this variety from the complete variety set. There are 500 coins in the set, so why this one? So far, you've contributed nothing to the issue. My, My, My. If you don't have the "insider2" scoop at PCGS and know the answer, keep it to yourself.
I said it was a myth used by dealers in the past to pray on the uniformed and take their money, fabricating the dream that a 22p might exist. Twist my words like you want so you can keep the insults coming from behind your keyboard. You've successfully burned any goodwill I had for you because you go straight to personal attacks Stupid? I've tried to be polite to you and even mailed you a token of goodwill. You will get no slack from me from here on out.
I always miss the fun posts.
Lots of interesting comments!
To the question posed by WingedLiberty1957: I'm not an "imply" personality. I'm a "say" and courageously own it personality. What I meant was exactly what I clearly stated. However I'm curious: You posted Your statement is making my imagination run wild. What are you imagining?
No one has mentioned the time lost in the old days carefully scraping off "D's" from countless 1922 D pennies.
Just to clarify, the previous attributions were:
3285 - Pair 2 - no D, strong reverse
2542 - Pair 3 - weak D, weak reverse
3112 - Pair 1 - no D, weak reverse
Now both 3112 and 2542 are merged into 3110 from here on out. (presumably Pr 4 too) So we have a grouping of die pairings collectively known as 3110 - Weak D. The fallacy I guess is that they are all technically Weak D's, even 3285, but collectors favor this pairing and pay more for it so PCGS will let it stand alone.
This reminds me of 1857 Flying Eagle Obverse of 56 which is broken into two - S-1 with repunched date (#410433), and S-2 (#410434), which is a grouping of 5 different die pairings, but all of which use a 56 obverse.
I think there will come a time where the entire variety goes up in smoke. Kind of been going that way for years. Weak D, no D, bah.
There was no cent struck in Philadelphia in 1922, so it really shouldn't matter just HOW weak the Denver mintmark is or if it was abraded off the die completely.
All of these are struck in Denver.
Dead Cat Waltz Exonumia
"Coin collecting for outcasts..."
No different than the weak leg/no leg buffs though right?
@DMWJR said: "I said it was a myth used by dealers in the past to pray on the uniformed and take their money, fabricating the dream that a 22p might exist. Twist my words like you want so you can keep the insults coming from behind your keyboard. You've successfully burned any goodwill I had for you because you go straight to personal attacks Stupid? I've tried to be polite to you and even mailed you a token of goodwill. You will get no slack from me from here on out."
Well mystery man, let me answer your question. YES, YES, and PROBABLY. As to PCGS letting me post, that's their business and I have no say in the matter.
I have no clue who you are, what you know, what you PRETEND to know, if you are a collector or dealer, and how long you have been in the hobby/business. That said, I was around. I have a 1/2 inch file containing articles, images, and diagnostics of 1922 cents. As I posted, actual 1922 - Plain cents and any 1922-D cent missing the "D" were bought, sold, auctioned, traded as the expensive "hole filler" back then!" There was no myth, and most dealers/collectors were perfectly honest and UNINFORMED at the time. That's why 1922 cents were one of the popular Lincolns sent for certification.
IMO, you have posted disparaging misinformation. I was not professionally involved in numismatics until 1972. I did not know a thing about 1922 Lincoln cents, filled dies, double dies (that's what I formerly called them) the minting process, etc. You see, I was a poster child for 75% of collectors during any time period INCLUDING TODAY. I will repeat that AFAIK, by 1973 no knowledgeable numismatist even considered that a die without the "D" was used for these coins. However, it seems to me that you may know a bunch of those 75 percenters and that's why you believe what you have posted.
Now I must confess to a very bad character flaw of mine.
I don't care how anyone feels about my abrasive nature. That's their business.
PS As to dropping a coin out of the Registry, that's out of our hands. It comes down to who makes the rules. For example, letting a hit across the bands, bell lines, steps of an otherwise fully struck coin eliminate it from receiving a designation is STUPID IMHO.
Quite Paul.....don't give them any ideas!
Back to the subject. My guess is the FE and the Weak var. are being dropped because of their perceived value to folks who don't know what they are doing yet are buying a "label." I was shocked when the FE coins were not to be considered the overdate any more!
The1922 No D Weak Reverse is no longer attributed at PCGS due to an extensive study on the 1922 cents by the ANA. This study found that all 1922 cents that had a weak reverse were simply Weak D’s. Now all 1922’s with a weak reverse are called 1922 Weak D (PCGS spec#3110). But the ANA does not have a research department so who did this so call study?
Folks tend to be trapped into their own time period. This is one of those cases when a poster refers to something they are not aware of as "SO-CALLED."
I'll bet most of us know that at one time the ANA had a Certification Service. Right from the beginning the authenticators researched coins and changed/coined new definitions (whizzing/EM), while adding/dropping coin varieties (no such thing as an 1869/8 1c). This research continued "in -house" by another generation of graders when the service was moved to CO. I don't have the desire to post any exact dates for you - look it up - or try to figure what authenticators eventually published what has been considered the final word on these 1922 coins - look it up - but it happened in the late 70's or early 80's.
Still trying to figure out how much of the Mint mark just be missing to qualify as a “ Weak D.”
Can't help it.......I just love this coin. (Not mine, but a great specimen):
Die 2. Go ahead.........find the "D". (I don't think ya can)
Pete
At this time, one of the members of CU (with input from several specialists) is doing what may become the final chapter on 1922-D cents. Unlike some other "ex-perts" relying on second and third-hand whispers, he was also there at the time 1922 coins with no trace of a mintmark and a weak reverse were considered 1922 Plain cents.