As a collector ( fanatic ) of Lincoln Cents and Lincoln Cent Varieties
I will chime in to this conversation
I can say without question that
there has NEVER been a “ D “ found or even a trace of a D on a 1922 No D strong reverse. Die #2 Lincoln Cent.
However there have been numerous shadow D”s found on 1922 no D type 1 and 3 weak reverse
Lincoln Cents.
And yes this is my 1922 No D strong reverse ms 64 red coin pictured above
I applaud this decision by PCGS !
Stewart
So if all 1922 cents were lined up from the strongest D to the most totally no trace of a D, and then a second time, by all the die marriages, would there be 100% consensus of a perfect dividing line between D and no D? Would every coin that has been graded fall perfectly on the correct side of the perfect line? Would every grader agree that every coin was placed on the correct die marriage and that every die marriage was correct attributed as to strong or weak reverse?
Until this can be done, this is why I do not swim in the varieties pool.
Plus, not even mentioning calling fraudulent activities by dishonest mint employees at mint error or variety.
Conventional wisdom (or widely accepted lore) is that the cause for the weak and missing D is polishing to remove clashes. If this is true, has anyone successfully identified an early or heavily clashed die stage of any of these die pairs?
@messydesk said:
Conventional wisdom (or widely accepted lore) is that the cause for the weak and missing D is polishing to remove clashes. If this is true, has anyone successfully identified an early or heavily clashed die stage of any of these die pairs?
I am the author mentioned by Skip, and this is one of the questions I am trying to answer. As far as I can tell, the "die polished down to remove clash marks theory" is just that, a logical theory, but one unsupported by physical evidence (i.e., actual coins showing strong clash marks).
That is the way that the old-time error coin experts, such as but not exclusive to the staff of Collectors Clearinghouse, thought back in the 1960's and 70's. I know, because I was on the Clearinghouse staff from 1974 to 1978. Fred Weinberg can back me up.
I have found one 1922-D cent with a decent clash mark on the reverse, showing the outline of the back of Lincoln's neck near the C of CENT. Curiously, the corresponding part of the obverse shows no trace of any clash marks. This makes me assume that the clashed obverse die was removed and replaced. Whether it then was polished down and became Obverse 1, 2 or 3 remains to be seen. My study continues. Obverse 4 seems to have followed a different path, that ended in a "Weak D' status but never a "No D" one.
Our members here could help me immensely if you would look at ALL 1922-D, Weak D and No D cents to see if you can find any coin with any clash marks on the obverse, or any die cracks on the obverse. So far I have identified four different reverse dies with die cracks, but not a single obverse.
TD
Numismatist. 50 year member ANA. Winner of four ANA Heath Literary Awards; three Wayte and Olga Raymond Literary Awards; Numismatist of the Year Award 2009, and Lifetime Achievement Award 2020. Winner numerous NLG Literary Awards.
@DIMEMAN said:
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 !!!
But the real problem may be that it should never have been put in.
@STEWARTBLAYNUMIS said:
As a collector ( fanatic ) of Lincoln Cents and Lincoln Cent Varieties
I will chime in to this conversation
I can say without question that
there has NEVER been a “ D “ found or even a trace of a D on a 1922 No D strong reverse. Die #2 Lincoln Cent.
However there have been numerous shadow D”s found on 1922 no D type 1 and 3 weak reverse
Lincoln Cents.
And yes this is my 1922 No D strong reverse ms 64 red coin pictured above
I applaud this decision by PCGS !
Stewart
I am writing what I hope will be the definitive article on 1922-D, 1922 "Weak D" and 1922 "No D" cents. I am NOT trying to change the attribution standards or set collecting criteria of any of the major TPG's. I am merely going to list them and describe them, with their gracious help.
That said, as Skip said, he and I and other Authenticators have seen high grade Die Pair 1 and 3 coins with ZERO trace of a mint mark on them. We used to certify these coins as "No D" coins. ANACS made the decision to no longer do this in 1984. My article will explain why.
There are two different transitions that I will be exploring, the transition from "With D" to "Weak D," and the transition from "Weak D" to "No D." The second is by far the easier, either it is or it ain't! Pinning down the threshold for a "Weak D" coin has been surprisingly difficult. Any suggestions would be greatly appreciated.
TD
Numismatist. 50 year member ANA. Winner of four ANA Heath Literary Awards; three Wayte and Olga Raymond Literary Awards; Numismatist of the Year Award 2009, and Lifetime Achievement Award 2020. Winner numerous NLG Literary Awards.
@DIMEMAN said:
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 !!!
But the real problem may be that it should never have been put in.
See my comments about what was then and what is now. In my opinion they did nothing wrong putting it in a third of a century ago, and they should be commended for being willing to consider new ideas.
TD
Numismatist. 50 year member ANA. Winner of four ANA Heath Literary Awards; three Wayte and Olga Raymond Literary Awards; Numismatist of the Year Award 2009, and Lifetime Achievement Award 2020. Winner numerous NLG Literary Awards.
@mustangmanbob said:
So if all 1922 cents were lined up from the strongest D to the most totally no trace of a D, and then a second time, by all the die marriages, would there be 100% consensus of a perfect dividing line between D and no D? Would every coin that has been graded fall perfectly on the correct side of the perfect line? Would every grader agree that every coin was placed on the correct die marriage and that every die marriage was correct attributed as to strong or weak reverse?
Until this can be done, this is why I do not swim in the varieties pool.
Plus, not even mentioning calling fraudulent activities by dishonest mint employees at mint error or variety.
I agree with your premise about the difficulty in finding dividing lines. I will address that in my article.
What evidence do you have that there was any "fraudulent activity by dishonest mint employees" involved with the 1922 cent coinage? Based on what I have seen so far, the Denver Mint employees did an amazing job getting 7,160,000 cents struck within a very limited window of opportunity between the end of the coinage of the 1921-D Morgan dollars and the beginning of the 1922-D Peace dollar coinage, with a supply of dies that was grossly inadequate for reasons that will be explained in the article.
TD
Numismatist. 50 year member ANA. Winner of four ANA Heath Literary Awards; three Wayte and Olga Raymond Literary Awards; Numismatist of the Year Award 2009, and Lifetime Achievement Award 2020. Winner numerous NLG Literary Awards.
@HeatherBoyd said:
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).
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?
The study was done over thirty years ago. Two articles were published in the Numismatist magazine and they can be found in the ANA's Reprints from the Numismatist Counterfeit Detection books. Similar info is probably on line.
@STEWARTBLAYNUMIS said:
As a collector ( fanatic ) of Lincoln Cents and Lincoln Cent Varieties
I will chime in to this conversation
I can say without question that
there has NEVER been a “ D “ found or even a trace of a D on a 1922 No D strong reverse. Die #2 Lincoln Cent.
However there have been numerous shadow D”s found on 1922 no D type 1 and 3 weak reverse
Lincoln Cents.
And yes this is my 1922 No D strong reverse ms 64 red coin pictured above
I applaud this decision by PCGS !
Stewart
I am writing what I hope will be the definitive article on 1922-D, 1922 "Weak D" and 1922 "No D" cents. I am NOT trying to change the attribution standards or set collecting criteria of any of the major TPG's. I am merely going to list them and describe them, with their gracious help.
That said, as Skip said, he and I and other Authenticators have seen high grade Die Pair 1 and 3 coins with ZERO trace of a mint mark on them. We used to certify these coins as "No D" coins. ANACS made the decision to no longer do this in 1984. My article will explain why.
There are two different transitions that I will be exploring, the transition from "With D" to "Weak D," and the transition from "Weak D" to "No D." The second is by far the easier, either it is or it ain't! Pinning down the threshold for a "Weak D" coin has been surprisingly difficult. Any suggestions would be greatly appreciated.
TD
Looking forward to the article. Will it be in the Numismatist or elsewhere
Numismatist. 50 year member ANA. Winner of four ANA Heath Literary Awards; three Wayte and Olga Raymond Literary Awards; Numismatist of the Year Award 2009, and Lifetime Achievement Award 2020. Winner numerous NLG Literary Awards.
Plus, not even mentioning calling fraudulent activities by dishonest mint employees at mint error or variety.
I agree with your premise about the difficulty in finding dividing lines. I will address that in my article.
What evidence do you have that there was any "fraudulent activity by dishonest mint employees" involved with the 1922 cent coinage? Based on what I have seen so far, the Denver Mint employees did an amazing job getting 7,160,000 cents struck within a very limited window of opportunity between the end of the coinage of the 1921-D Morgan dollars and the beginning of the 1922-D Peace dollar coinage, with a supply of dies that was grossly inadequate for reasons that will be explained in the article.
TD
Nothing about the 22-d, other events. Sorry, I worded it poorly.
Numismatist. 50 year member ANA. Winner of four ANA Heath Literary Awards; three Wayte and Olga Raymond Literary Awards; Numismatist of the Year Award 2009, and Lifetime Achievement Award 2020. Winner numerous NLG Literary Awards.
@CaptHenway has your 1922-D Cent article been published? If so, I cannot find it anywhere
EDIT: I found the thread from August stating that the manuscript is DONE! Can't wait to read it when Whitman publishes what, I guess, will be a BOOK!
After reading this thread, I am a little confused by the "extensive study on the 1922 cents by the ANA" Heather is referring to -- she gives the impression that the study was done recently. Was she referring to the early 1980s study? What event transpired in 2019 to suddenly make an early 1980s study determine the status of the "No D Weak Reverse"?
The article linked by DMWJR provides the most clarity on the subject to me, and summarizes the varieties as follows:
All 1922 weak D or No D coins fall into one of 7 categories:
1. Die Pair #1 Weak D (Weak Reverse)
2. Die Pair #1 No D (Weak Reverse)
3. Die Pair #2 No D (Strong Reverse) also called 1922 Plain
4. Die Pair #3 Weak D (Weak Reverse)
5. Die Pair #3 No D (Weak Reverse)
6. Die Pair #4 Weak D (Weak Reverse)
7. Die Pair #4 No D (Weak Reverse)
So if I follow the logic correctly on the 2019 decision (based on the 1980s ANA study), "No D" from Die Pair 1, 3, and 4 henceforth are to be attributed as "Weak D" even if "No D" is present because they are from the same "Weak D" die pair. As a result, the "No D Weak Reverse" was removed from the registry (or was merged with "Weak D").
But what about the Die Pair 1, 2, and 4 1922-D cents? Should they be called "Weak D" as well? By the above logic they should. But, apparently there is a (unknown) threshold for "Weak D". If that is still the case, I would think it would (in my opinion) be reasonable to maintain a threshold for "No D", as was done for over 30 years (which is probably easier).
It will be interesting to see DeLorey's BOOK on this to see how all this shakes out based on the new info!
Comments
As a collector ( fanatic ) of Lincoln Cents and Lincoln Cent Varieties
I will chime in to this conversation
I can say without question that
there has NEVER been a “ D “ found or even a trace of a D on a 1922 No D strong reverse. Die #2 Lincoln Cent.
However there have been numerous shadow D”s found on 1922 no D type 1 and 3 weak reverse
Lincoln Cents.
And yes this is my 1922 No D strong reverse ms 64 red coin pictured above
I applaud this decision by PCGS !
Stewart
So if all 1922 cents were lined up from the strongest D to the most totally no trace of a D, and then a second time, by all the die marriages, would there be 100% consensus of a perfect dividing line between D and no D? Would every coin that has been graded fall perfectly on the correct side of the perfect line? Would every grader agree that every coin was placed on the correct die marriage and that every die marriage was correct attributed as to strong or weak reverse?
Until this can be done, this is why I do not swim in the varieties pool.
Plus, not even mentioning calling fraudulent activities by dishonest mint employees at mint error or variety.
Conventional wisdom (or widely accepted lore) is that the cause for the weak and missing D is polishing to remove clashes. If this is true, has anyone successfully identified an early or heavily clashed die stage of any of these die pairs?
Keeper of the VAM Catalog • Professional Coin Imaging • Prime Number Set • World Coins in Early America • British Trade Dollars • Variety Attribution
I am the author mentioned by Skip, and this is one of the questions I am trying to answer. As far as I can tell, the "die polished down to remove clash marks theory" is just that, a logical theory, but one unsupported by physical evidence (i.e., actual coins showing strong clash marks).
That is the way that the old-time error coin experts, such as but not exclusive to the staff of Collectors Clearinghouse, thought back in the 1960's and 70's. I know, because I was on the Clearinghouse staff from 1974 to 1978. Fred Weinberg can back me up.
I have found one 1922-D cent with a decent clash mark on the reverse, showing the outline of the back of Lincoln's neck near the C of CENT. Curiously, the corresponding part of the obverse shows no trace of any clash marks. This makes me assume that the clashed obverse die was removed and replaced. Whether it then was polished down and became Obverse 1, 2 or 3 remains to be seen. My study continues. Obverse 4 seems to have followed a different path, that ended in a "Weak D' status but never a "No D" one.
Our members here could help me immensely if you would look at ALL 1922-D, Weak D and No D cents to see if you can find any coin with any clash marks on the obverse, or any die cracks on the obverse. So far I have identified four different reverse dies with die cracks, but not a single obverse.
TD
But the real problem may be that it should never have been put in.
I am writing what I hope will be the definitive article on 1922-D, 1922 "Weak D" and 1922 "No D" cents. I am NOT trying to change the attribution standards or set collecting criteria of any of the major TPG's. I am merely going to list them and describe them, with their gracious help.
That said, as Skip said, he and I and other Authenticators have seen high grade Die Pair 1 and 3 coins with ZERO trace of a mint mark on them. We used to certify these coins as "No D" coins. ANACS made the decision to no longer do this in 1984. My article will explain why.
There are two different transitions that I will be exploring, the transition from "With D" to "Weak D," and the transition from "Weak D" to "No D." The second is by far the easier, either it is or it ain't! Pinning down the threshold for a "Weak D" coin has been surprisingly difficult. Any suggestions would be greatly appreciated.
TD
See my comments about what was then and what is now. In my opinion they did nothing wrong putting it in a third of a century ago, and they should be commended for being willing to consider new ideas.
TD
I agree with your premise about the difficulty in finding dividing lines. I will address that in my article.
What evidence do you have that there was any "fraudulent activity by dishonest mint employees" involved with the 1922 cent coinage? Based on what I have seen so far, the Denver Mint employees did an amazing job getting 7,160,000 cents struck within a very limited window of opportunity between the end of the coinage of the 1921-D Morgan dollars and the beginning of the 1922-D Peace dollar coinage, with a supply of dies that was grossly inadequate for reasons that will be explained in the article.
TD
The study was done over thirty years ago. Two articles were published in the Numismatist magazine and they can be found in the ANA's Reprints from the Numismatist Counterfeit Detection books. Similar info is probably on line.
"Weak D" 1922 Cents also had some of the reverse dies impressed with a weak mint mark to begin with.
It is a fact that during the period 1921-1925 some of the dies shipped to Denver had very weak details.
Some 1921-S Cents also had this problem, being mistaken for 1921 Philly issues.
Just saying, ya know.
Pete
Looking forward to the article. Will it be in the Numismatist or elsewhere
It will be offered to The Numismatist first.
Nothing about the 22-d, other events. Sorry, I worded it poorly.
My 22 used to be no D now weak D.....can't find my D either.
( New variety; 1922 hiding weak D?
I'd like to see an image that includes the full "22."
Breadcrumb
@CaptHenway has your 1922-D Cent article been published? If so, I cannot find it anywhere
EDIT: I found the thread from August stating that the manuscript is DONE! Can't wait to read it when Whitman publishes what, I guess, will be a BOOK!
After reading this thread, I am a little confused by the "extensive study on the 1922 cents by the ANA" Heather is referring to -- she gives the impression that the study was done recently. Was she referring to the early 1980s study? What event transpired in 2019 to suddenly make an early 1980s study determine the status of the "No D Weak Reverse"?
The article linked by DMWJR provides the most clarity on the subject to me, and summarizes the varieties as follows:
All 1922 weak D or No D coins fall into one of 7 categories:
1. Die Pair #1 Weak D (Weak Reverse)
2. Die Pair #1 No D (Weak Reverse)
3. Die Pair #2 No D (Strong Reverse) also called 1922 Plain
4. Die Pair #3 Weak D (Weak Reverse)
5. Die Pair #3 No D (Weak Reverse)
6. Die Pair #4 Weak D (Weak Reverse)
7. Die Pair #4 No D (Weak Reverse)
So if I follow the logic correctly on the 2019 decision (based on the 1980s ANA study), "No D" from Die Pair 1, 3, and 4 henceforth are to be attributed as "Weak D" even if "No D" is present because they are from the same "Weak D" die pair. As a result, the "No D Weak Reverse" was removed from the registry (or was merged with "Weak D").
But what about the Die Pair 1, 2, and 4 1922-D cents? Should they be called "Weak D" as well? By the above logic they should. But, apparently there is a (unknown) threshold for "Weak D". If that is still the case, I would think it would (in my opinion) be reasonable to maintain a threshold for "No D", as was done for over 30 years (which is probably easier).
It will be interesting to see DeLorey's BOOK on this to see how all this shakes out based on the new info!