something funny about the 1922 plain Lincoln Cent.

WingedLiberty1957

i think 1922, was the only year of wheatbacked Lincoln Cents, where no coins were produced at Philly. Someone correct me iif I am wrong. And that's the ONLY reason we noted the 1922 plain lincoln error. Had philly produced 1922 lincolns (of course with no mint mark) ... those 1922 no mintmark cents produced at denver would be impossible to detect. Makes me wonder if there were OTHER years where Denver produced lincolns with no mintmarks. We'd never know about those.

Steven59

Well you also have to take into account the different reverse die varieties the Denver mint used in 1922 for the cent also. Now would Philly mint of had those too?

CaptHenway

There are four different 1922 Cent obverse dies that produced “No D” coins at various times in their die lives, for three different reasons. They will be explained in my book on the cents of 1922, currently at the publishers.

Ronsanderson

I only see two cases where this could occur.

First, if the dies are shipped to the branch mint without mint mark (as was normal), and the branch mint forgot to punch in the mark. This would be hard to catch, but could be identified if the same reverse appeared on coins with and without mint marks.

Second, the mint mark could get plugged up with grease, or the fields around it were ground down by die polishing. This might be easier to track down. Look for weak mint marks that are barely present. Perhaps they soon faded away completely! Then use the reverse and see if that reverse also appears on any coins without mint marks.

Given the volume of coins generally produced by Philadelphia, this could be a Quixotic quest. If we had extensive photographic databases, there might be a way to perform some pattern matching and get this automated.

oldabeintx

My rationale for not including the 22 plain in my Lincoln cent set: I don’t collect error coins. Well, that and I’m too cheap.

jmlanzaf

There are likely numerous no mintmark coins of other years just from grease. There may be others from polishing. This is often discussed in coin circles. Marketing matters.

CaptHenway

@Ronsanderson said:
I only see two cases where this could occur.

First, if the dies are shipped to the branch mint without mint mark (as was normal), and the branch mint forgot to punch in the mark. This would be hard to catch, but could be identified if the same reverse appeared on coins with and without mint marks.

Second, the mint mark could get plugged up with grease, or the fields around it were ground down by die polishing. This might be easier to track down. Look for weak mint marks that are barely present. Perhaps they soon faded away completely! Then use the reverse and see if that reverse also appears on any coins without mint marks.

Given the volume of coins generally produced by Philadelphia, this could be a Quixotic quest. If we had extensive photographic databases, there might be a way to perform some pattern matching and get this automated.

Back then the mint marks were put on the dies in Philadelphia. All four dies show a mint mark in their earlier die states.
Only two of the dies were affected by grease, after other things happened.

BillJones

@oldabeintx said:
My rationale for not including the 22 plain in my Lincoln cent set: I don’t collect error coins. Well, that and I’m too cheap.

Technically the 1922 Plain Cent is a date state, not an error or die variety. Die states are a reflection of the concept that everything wears out. Die states are marked by die cracks, die polishing marks and a general loss of detail caused by friction the die experiences while it is in use.

robec

According to Conder101 Denver produced Lincoln cents in all three years during the 1965-67 coin shortage years.

1965
Cents:
Philadelphia 301,470,000 Denver 973,364,900 San Francisco 220,030,000

Nickels:
Philadelphia 12,440,000 Denver 82,291,380 San Francisco 39,040,000

Dimes:
Philadelphia 845,130,000 Denver 757,472,820 San Francisco 47,177,750

Quarters:
Philadelphia 1,082,216,000 Denver 673,305,540 San Francisco 61,836,000

Half Dollars:
Philadelphia 0 Denver 63,049,366 San Francisco 470,000

1966
Cents
Philadelphia 811,100,000 Denver 991,431,200 San Francisco 383,355,000

Nickels:
Philadelphia 0 Denver 103,546,700 San Francisco 50,400,000

Dimes:
Philadelphia 622,550,000 Denver 683,771,010 San Francisco 74,151,947

Quarters"
Philadelphia 404,416,000 Denver 367,490,400 San Francisco 46,933,517

Half Dollars:
Philadelphia 0 Denver 106,439,312 San Francisco 284,037

1967
Cents:
Philadelphia 907,575,000 Denver 1,327,377,100 San Francisco 813,715,000

Nickels
Philadelphia 0 Denver 75,993,800 San Francisco 31,332,000

Dimes
Philadelphia 1,030,110,000 Denver 1,156,277,320 San Francisco 57,620,000

Quarters:
Philadelphia 873,524,000 Denver 632,767,848 San Francisco 17,740,000

Half Dollars:
Philadelphia 0 Denver 293,183,634 San Francisco 0

renomedphys

Here’s my 12 star 1808. The thirteenth star vanished due to a sinking die IIRC, but that doesn’t mean it wasn’t intended. Same with the 22 no D. It was supposed to be there, but there were other factors at work. It is an error in the sense that a feature of the die essentially “wore out” due to normal use.

In a strict sense, both of these are die states and should be collected as such. I have spoken to a few other collectors about the 1922 no D who don’t consider it essential to a complete set of Lincolns for this reason, as well as the fact that it is just so poorly made and not “worthy of inclusion” in their set.
The highest grade example I have ever owned was a light chocolate brown AU 50. I never really saw a reason to go higher since even the uncs look about the same if not worse.

*edited for clarification

CaptHenway

@BillJones said:

@oldabeintx said:
My rationale for not including the 22 plain in my Lincoln cent set: I don’t collect error coins. Well, that and I’m too cheap.

Technically the 1922 Plain Cent is a date state, not an error or die variety. Die states are a reflection of the concept that everything wears out. Die states are marked by die cracks, die polishing marks and a general loss of detail caused by friction the die experiences while it is in use.

I have addressed this issue in the book, using as examples the 1918/7-D nickel, where the die was made that way, and the 1937-D 3-Legged nickel, where the die deteriorated to create the variety. Both are collectible as they are.

CaptHenway

@renomedphys said:
Here’s my 12 star 1808. The thirteenth star vanished due to a sinking die IIRC, but that doesn’t mean it wasn’t intended. Same with the 22 no D. It was supposed to be there, but there were other factors at work. It is an error in the sense that a feature of the die essentially “wore out” due to normal use.

In a strict sense, both of these are die states and should be collected as such. I have spoken to a few other collectors about the 1922 no D who don’t consider it essential to a complete set of Lincolns for this reason, as well as the fact that it is just so poorly made and not “worthy of inclusion” in their set.
The highest grade example I have ever owned was a light chocolate brown AU 50. I never really saw a reason to go higher since even the uncs look about the same if not worse.

*edited for clarification

I was always under the impression that this was a die sinker's error, the die sinker having punched 12 stars and then getting distracted and never finishing the die.

renomedphys

@CaptHenway said:

I was always under the impression that this was a die sinker's error, the die sinker having punched 12 stars and then getting distracted and never finishing the die.

According to Noyes, the S-277 12-star variety is a result of the reverse die sinking. S-277 can be (most commonly) found with all 13 stars. If you look at the corresponding area on the reverse, the TA in STATES is incompletely struck as well.

I showed this to Steve Feltner last year and asked him if PCGS would label it as a variety. He seemed quite compelled due to the obviously missing star and asked if I would send him photos for consideration but I never did 😣

CaptHenway

@renomedphys said:

@CaptHenway said:

I was always under the impression that this was a die sinker's error, the die sinker having punched 12 stars and then getting distracted and never finishing the die.

According to Noyes, the S-277 12-star variety is a result of the reverse die sinking. S-277 can be (most commonly) found with all 13 stars. If you look at the corresponding area on the reverse, the TA in STATES is incompletely struck as well.

I showed this to Steve Feltner last year and asked him if PCGS would label it as a variety. He seemed quite compelled due to the obviously missing star and asked if I would send him photos for consideration but I never did 😣

You learn something new every day. You are correct. I guess I had never studied the variety before.

Studying the TrueView image on the PCGS site, I might quibble with the diagnosis of a sunken reverse die. If just the area around the TA of STATES had indeed sunken below the surface of the die, then I would have expected a slight bulge in the surface of the coin in that area. I would suggest, subject to peer review of course, that the retained die cud within the curved die crack from the D of UNITED to the second S of STATES had tilted rather than sunk, taking the TA of STATES further from the obverse die than say either S of STATES.

That said, since the net effect of a "tilted retained cud" is to move part of the retained cud further away from the opposing die and create localized weakness, that may have been what Noyes meant, in which case we are in agreement.

The_Dinosaur_Man

Thinking back to the OP, the known 1870-S $3 falls into a similar situation. The die was shipped without its mintmark whereby a mint worker hastily engraved a crude "S". Had that not occurred, the famous piece would only be considered a damaged Philadelphia example.