Am doing research on the 1922 "With D," "Weak D" and "No D" Cents. Help requested.

CaptHenway

As mentioned in this thread:

https://forums.collectors.com/discussion/1014831/ok-heather-why-was-the-1922-no-d-weak-reverse-deleted-from-the-lincoln-sets#latest

I am writing what I hope will be the definitive article on 1922 Cents of all varieties, and not just the "No D" coins. I am receiving valuable cooperation from all of the major certification services, including our gracious hosts. Not sure yet where it will be published, but it will be offered to The Numismatist first.

Right now I am trying to confirm, or refute, the decades-old theory that one or more of the "No D" or "Weak D" dies was the result of one or more die pairs clashing heavily , the obverse die(s) subsequently being ground down to remove the clash marks. I have been researching images of 1922 cents looking for examples of 1922-D cents with clash marks on the obverse die that might have been ground down later. To date I have not seen ANY coins with ANY obverse clash marks.

I ask that you please check any and all 1922-D cents that you might have for signs of obverse clash marks, or for signs of any die damage in the date/ mint mark area that might have been the cause of the die having been subsequently ground down. I have seen a coin with clash marks from the back of Lincoln's neck in the area of the C of CENT, but there were no corresponding clash marks on the obverse, presumably because the obverse die was swapped out. This area, behind Lincoln's neck, would be a good area to check.

I can also use images of any intermediate die states of Die Pair 4, which has a Weak D but never a No D so it is often overlooked. This die is noted for elongated lobes of die wear, or die polish, on the bottom of Lincoln's lapel. I have pictures of late die state coins with the lobes greatly exaggerated, and early die state coins with the die erosion just begun, but I would like to see some intermediate die state coins to try to prove whether the erorion was caused by excessive die erosion or by mechanical die polishing.

Finally, I could use high resolution images of any other interesting 1922-D Cent ephemera or errors, such as an original bag or roll for 1922-D cents, or major errors such as the massive die cud coin illustrated in David Lange's book "The Complete Guide to Lincoln Cents."

Thanks,

Tom DeLorey

messydesk

Good luck!

One thing popped into my mind when you mentioned die erosion. 1921-D Morgan dollars seldom show much die erosion. The typical 21-D Morgan is sharply detailed. The dies did often develop interesting cracks and breaks. 1922-D Peace dollars I haven't studied as closely to see if they seem to have been similarly hardened. If 1922-D cent dies frequently "mushed out", what was so different between them and the dollar dies? Perhaps it was just who prepared which set of dies when, and someone screwed up hardening a bunch of cent dies. Perhaps the lessons of all the cracked and broken dies in 1921 caused them to change their procedures for 1922.

CaptHenway

Well, it is my understanding that the Mint used to buy die stock rods in different diameters, with the smaller diameter rods being used for smaller diameter dies and the midsize rods being used for midsized dies, etc. Thus the cent and dollar dies would have been prepared from different batches of die steel.

I do have some interesting and possibly relevant data on die life from cents of other years that will be presented in the article.

CaptHenway

Here is an example of a Die Pair 4 with what I am calling deteriorated die "lobes" beneath Lincoln's lapel. A later die state exists, as well as a very early die state with the lobes just beginning and a perfect die state coin with no lobes at all, but enough die characteristics to link it to the VEDS coin. I am looking for intermediate die state coins with these same lobes but shorter.

CaptHenway

WaterSport

Never heard the Clashed dies theory and never seen one. There are a lot more MS examples and photographed so that should help your research.

I began to research some of what I call, Numismatic BS on the 1922 Cents years ago and never kept the article/info. But there were 2 issues I had researched. First, in 1922 the Numismatic BS claims the mint was short on Dies and used what few they had over an over thus the worn dies and eroded D mint mark. That is BS. I think if you research the number of dies made- (I think it was in the 24 -27 obv and rev each) you will find it was the in the ball park of the number of dies made for cent production in previous years??

1922 Numismatic BS # 2 - the Mint was busy making the new Peace dollars and production of the cent fell short because of this. I doubt this since all 3 mints were cranking them out and again, the Denver mint had enough dies albeit they were the only mint making the cent BECAUSE the economy sucked and they still had 1917 bags of cents still in the vaults so why make more of something you do not need.

Not sure any of this helps your research, but it is part of the lore of the 1922 cent. Feel free to prove my old research wrong.

WS

claychaser

I am looking forward to the article! Especially if it can help me clear my brain fog about the "weak D" varieties.

ThePennyLady

I have over photos of over 30 1922 No D's from G to MS grades and don't see any clashing on any of them. I do see the die deterioration at the bottom of the bust on several, including these

I also have photos of 20 + 1922-D's and don't see any with die clashing, though a few have some interesting die deterioration in the same area as the No D.

Let me know if I can help in any other way.

CaptHenway

Thank you, Charmy. Could you please email me those four 1922-D images? I think I see something I can use.

ThePennyLady

If you right click on the photos here, you can save them to your computer. Also, if you end up using them in your article, please give photo credit to Todd Pollock/BluCCPhotos.

BuffaloIronTail

Great stuff, Charmy. I must say again that I believe a lot of the "weak D" Cents are due to lightly displayed mintmarks.

If you look closely at the rim area, there are flow lines showing cavitation and overuse. Clearly, for whatever reason, Denver could not coin the required amount of Cents with the dies supplied.

They reworked the obverse dies that were already terminal and gave them another go. Clearly the dies wore prematurely due to improper hardening, creating smeary looking examples.

Pete

messydesk

@CaptHenway said:

Are there any other Lincolns that show this kind of die deterioration? Simply overpolishing a clash wouldn't draw the devices closer to the rim, rather it would widen the gap. If the die hadn't been properly hardened in Denver prior to use, when given its final polishing, more of the die's surface would go away than normal. The mint mark, which is not as deep into the die as the date (perhaps @rmpsrpms could measure a few coins of assorted dates to show what's typical), would be the first to go. When put into a press, rapid die deterioration would mush out the design and finish off the mint mark. I'm thinking the die would become a little work hardened from use and then the rate of deterioration would slow down.

CaptHenway

@ThePennyLady said:
If you right click on the photos here, you can save them to your computer. Also, if you end up using them in your article, please give photo credit to Todd Pollock/BluCCPhotos.

That worked. Thank you!
TD

CaptHenway

@WaterSport said:
Never heard the Clashed dies theory and never seen one. There are a lot more MS examples and photographed so that should help your research.

I began to research some of what I call, Numismatic BS on the 1922 Cents years ago and never kept the article/info. But there were 2 issues I had researched. First, in 1922 the Numismatic BS claims the mint was short on Dies and used what few they had over an over thus the worn dies and eroded D mint mark. That is BS. I think if you research the number of dies made- (I think it was in the 24 -27 obv and rev each) you will find it was the in the ball park of the number of dies made for cent production in previous years.

1922 Numismatic BS # 2 - the Mint was busy making the new Peace dollars and production of the cent fell short because of this. I doubt this since all 3 mints were cranking them out and again, the Denver mint had enough dies albeit they were the only mint making the cent BECAUSE the economy sucked and they still had 1917 bags of cents still in the vaults so why make more of something you do not need.

Not sure any of this helps your research, but it is part of the lore of the 1922 cent. Feel free to prove my old research wrong.

WS

Well, in 1920, the last previous year that Denver struck cents, they used 184 obverses and 183 reverses to do roughly 50,040,000 gross strikes (before the coins were inspected and the rejects were culled, but those strikes still affected the dies.) That is roughly 272,000 strikes per obverse die and 273,500 strikes per reverse die.

The Denver Mint was given TEN 1922-D obverse dies to start out with, and had to ask twice before getting ten more. That was all they got. They had to use 27 reverse dies left over from 1920 and 1921.

Using the 1920 coins per die averages, these 20 obverses should have been good for about 5,440,000 gross strikes. They made over 7,200,000 gross strikes. To me that is overuse.

The 27 reverse dies used should have been good for about 7,384,500 gross strikes, and they were. However, as we all know some 1922 reverse dies are just god-awful. I believe I have discovered the cause for this, and it may surprise you when you read the article.

As to the dollar production affecting the cent production, it did. I have discovered why the Denver Mint struck cents in 1922, and why the other Mints did not. This will be covered in the article.

dbldie55

Looking forward to reading your article.

WaterSport

Great stuff and better than my 15+ year ago effort. Looking forward to what you have found.

WS

seanq

The 27 reverse dies used should have been good for about 7,384,500 gross strikes, and they were. However, as we all know some 1922 reverse dies are just god-awful. I believe I have discovered the cause for this, and it may surprise you when you read the article.

The reverse dies would have been good for that many strikes had they been new, but as you said the Mint had to reuse dies from 1920-21. I assume some of those "left over" dies had already been used to strike an average of 275,000 coins before being (literally) pressed back into duty.

Sean Reynolds

koynekwest

@dbldie55 said:
Looking forward to reading your article.

As am I.

CaptHenway

@seanq said:

The 27 reverse dies used should have been good for about 7,384,500 gross strikes, and they were. However, as we all know some 1922 reverse dies are just god-awful. I believe I have discovered the cause for this, and it may surprise you when you read the article.

The reverse dies would have been good for that many strikes had they been new, but as you said the Mint had to reuse dies from 1920-21. I assume some of those "left over" dies had already been used to strike an average of 275,000 coins before being (literally) pressed back into duty.

Sean Reynolds

Actually, the die records indicate that no USED reverse dies were used in 1922.

seanq

@CaptHenway said:

@seanq said:

The 27 reverse dies used should have been good for about 7,384,500 gross strikes, and they were. However, as we all know some 1922 reverse dies are just god-awful. I believe I have discovered the cause for this, and it may surprise you when you read the article.

The reverse dies would have been good for that many strikes had they been new, but as you said the Mint had to reuse dies from 1920-21. I assume some of those "left over" dies had already been used to strike an average of 275,000 coins before being (literally) pressed back into duty.

Sean Reynolds

Actually, the die records indicate that no USED reverse dies were used in 1922.

Wow... it's a shame some enterprising worker didn't try to rework a couple of leftover obverse dies from 1920. that could have made for some fun varieties.

Sean Reynolds

CaptHenway

Sean...they did receive 1921-D obverses that were never used, and there is no notation in the die ledger that they were ever condemned or returned, but that is normal for leftover obverses.

The only note that I can find of dies being returned to Philadelphia was with the 1913-D Nickels, where all of the leftover Type One reverses were inventoried by die number and sent back. A copy of the letter of transmittal was pasted into the die book.

Mark

@CaptHenway When you get this published, can you please revive this thread and tell us where it will be?

Thanks in advance!

STEWARTBLAYNUMIS

Captain Henway - Never heard you
mention that some of the same deteriorated obverse Denver dies used in
1922 were also used in 1924.
When the Museum of Connecticut
hoard of Lincoln cents were auctioned in the 1990’s I saw many 1924 weak D and no D cents

CaptHenway

@STEWARTBLAYNUMIS said:
Captain Henway - Never heard you
mention that some of the same deteriorated obverse Denver dies used in
1922 were also used in 1924.
When the Museum of Connecticut
hoard of Lincoln cents were auctioned in the 1990’s I saw many 1924 weak D and no D cents

I never said that. Dated obverses cannot be used in following years.
Some unused reverses made in 1921 and available to have been used in 1922, but never used in 1922, were used in 1924.

Insider2

@STEWARTBLAYNUMIS said:
Captain Henway - Never heard you
mention that some of the same deteriorated obverse Denver dies used in
1922 were also used in 1924.
When the Museum of Connecticut
hoard of Lincoln cents were auctioned in the 1990’s I saw many 1924 weak D and no D cents

Good to know, I'll be on the lookout for some of those 1924/2-Weak "D" cents.

CaptHenway

Bump

CaptHenway

Still doing research on my article. Found some interesting items in the old Numismatists you might find of interest. Like, how about a 1922 silver Proof set????

CaptHenway

In 1931, a BU 1922-D cent sold for the same price as a BU 1909-SVDB cent! I will explain why in my article.

Jimnight

I can't offer much in the line of research on this coin ..... other than if you want to own an example in AU and upward into BU.... you will need access to lots and lots of green!

1Mike1

Hi Tom, I'm not sure if you know how to get ahold of RogerB as he seemed to have access to a lot of older archives in the way of letters but not so much in photos. I checked my 22D and didn't see anything different about it. Please let us know when you write your conclusions.

CaptHenway

We are in constant touch, and he has been of great help. Thanks to him I have viewed some amazing mint correspondence that will be included in the article.

CaptHenway

Does anybody know where this 1922-D is now? It has a clash mark on the reverse from between the bases of the CE of CENT up to the E of E PLURIBUS UNUM. I need to see if there is a corresponding clash mark on the obverse. The former owner of this coin says it has a strong D and a fairly normal obverse otherwise.

Batman23

Nice die cracks on that reverse, looks like it was nearing it's end.

mr1931S

Looking forward to reading your article.

Yes, me too.1922-D is among my favorite date Lincolns.

Fact: The 1922 dated cent, with 'D', weak 'D', no 'D' no matter, at just 7,160,000 pieces made, is the lowest mintage regular issue by year of all the Lincoln wheat cents.

Rosco

This one is poorly cleaned, but has significant damage on both sides that appear to be as struck
from damaged dies.

StrikeOutXXX

If it helps you, this coin on Heritage has the same reverse clash. You can probably blow it up better than my screenshots. Cert # has no entry, so was likely reholdered to see the truview

https://coins.ha.com/itm/lincoln-cents/small-cents/1922-d-1c-ms65-red-pcgs/a/1169-3306.s?ic4=GalleryView-Thumbnail-071515

StrikeOutXXX

Here is another one:
https://coins.ha.com/itm/lincoln-cents/small-cents/1922-d-1c-ms65-red-pcgs-pcgs-population-103-14-ngc-census-24-2-cdn-1-125-whsle-bid-for-problem-free-ngc-pcgs-ms/a/1299-7269.s?ic4=ListView-ShortDescription-071515

dbldie55

Here is one that seems to be missing the die break on the left side.

BuffaloIronTail

It's hard to believe that the 1922-D obverse above ever looked that good (especially after viewing all the weak ones for this date).

Pete

lusterlover

@BuffaloIronTail said:
It's hard to believe that the 1922-D obverse above ever looked that good (especially after viewing all the weak ones for this date).

Pete

I acquired this one about 2 years ago. The most hammered strike I had ever seen for this date.

drwstr123

Walkerfan

Beautiful wood grain toning!

CaptHenway

@dbldie55 said:
Here is one that seems to be missing the die break on the left side.

This one has a clash mark running down from the C of Cent to the top of the I of UNITED that I have not seen before, but it does not have the clash mark up to the E of EPU. I would presume that there were multiple clashings.

Could you please email me the original picture?

It does seem to have a faint beginning on the die crack at 9 o'clock. The crack at 2 o'clock came first, then the big crack through the O of ONE, then the crack at 9 o'clock. Allegedly they is a fourth crack somewhere around 4-5 o'clock that I have never seen.

CaptHenway

@StrikeOutXXX said:
If it helps you, this coin on Heritage has the same reverse clash. You can probably blow it up better than my screenshots. Cert # has no entry, so was likely reholdered to see the truview

https://coins.ha.com/itm/lincoln-cents/small-cents/1922-d-1c-ms65-red-pcgs/a/1169-3306.s?ic4=GalleryView-Thumbnail-071515

Pretty close to what I have seen. Thanks.

CaptHenway

@StrikeOutXXX said:
Here is another one:
https://coins.ha.com/itm/lincoln-cents/small-cents/1922-d-1c-ms65-red-pcgs-pcgs-population-103-14-ngc-census-24-2-cdn-1-125-whsle-bid-for-problem-free-ngc-pcgs-ms/a/1299-7269.s?ic4=ListView-ShortDescription-071515

About the same.

CaptHenway

@drwstr123 said:

Nice coin with no problems. Early die state. Do you have True Views of it I could use as just an example of what a new die 1922-D should look like?

Also, if you have the coin in hand, can you take a closeup of the V.D.B. on the shoulder and email it to me? All of the 1922-D's that I have seen where you could see the initials (they wore off the dies in many cases) show the "B" as basically a "D" with two raised dots inside it to simulate a "B." I would like to illustrate this, and this coin is as sharp as they come.

TD

drwstr123

No TVs but will provide as you ask.

CaptHenway

@lusterlover said:

@BuffaloIronTail said:
It's hard to believe that the 1922-D obverse above ever looked that good (especially after viewing all the weak ones for this date).

Pete

I acquired this one about 2 years ago. The most hammered strike I had ever seen for this date.

This is the prettiest 1922-D I have seen. Could you please email me a copy of the image?

How does the V.D.B. look? Does the "B" look like a "D" with two raised dots in it? Any chance of getting a closeup of the initials?

Thanks,

TD

seanq

@BuffaloIronTail said:
It's hard to believe that the 1922-D obverse above ever looked that good (especially after viewing all the weak ones for this date).

Pete

I bought one in the mid 1990s over the counter at Stacks on 57th Street in NYC, I watched them pop it out of one of several date sets of Indian and Lincoln cents that had been stored in National Coin albums. It was absolutely hammered on both sides, and remains the nicest I have ever seen of the date. Eventually I got it graded by PCGS as MS65RD.

I sold it right before my wedding in 1996, and some days if you asked me if I'd rather have her or that coin, I'd hesitate a second before picking her.

Sean Reynolds

dbldie55

@CaptHenway said:

@dbldie55 said:
Here is one that seems to be missing the die break on the left side.

This one has a clash mark running down from the C of Cent to the top of the I of UNITED that I have not seen before, but it does not have the clash mark up to the E of EPU. I would presume that there were multiple clashings.

Could you please email me the original picture?

It does seem to have a faint beginning on the die crack at 9 o'clock. The crack at 2 o'clock came first, then the big crack through the O of ONE, then the crack at 9 o'clock. Allegedly they is a fourth crack somewhere around 4-5 o'clock that I have never seen.

You can access the "max" trueveiw image with this link:

https://images.pcgs.com/TrueView/36653615_max.jpg

Here are links to others with the same reverse die cracks.

https://images.pcgs.com/TrueView/34585962_max.jpg
https://images.pcgs.com/TrueView/34700107_max.jpg
https://images.pcgs.com/TrueView/34781212_max.jpg
https://images.pcgs.com/TrueView/35083688_max.jpg
https://images.pcgs.com/TrueView/37003335_max.jpg
https://images.pcgs.com/TrueView/83723071_max.jpg