Is it real, or is it Memorex? 1922 no "D"

WaterSport

I have a SEGS 1922 "Plain" graded at EF-40 Die #2. However, there is a divet in the worst possible location - the mintmark region. Althought the coin does have the diagnostics expected for 1922 plains, the depression causes me to question whether my coin is the victim of a removed mintmark. The following photos illustrate further.

A normal 1922-D cent, for comparison.


The coin in question. Note the divet in the region where the mintmark would be.


An overlay of the two coins, showing how the divet lines up with the D on the regular cent.

So, what do you think? Is it genuine, a removed mintmark, or something else?

eyoung429

just from finding one of my own (going to anacs on jan o4) all the coins that I have studied for the plain 22 have an extremely weak strike for the date mark. The 2nd 2 is generally weak on this strike....yours is the opposite... the 1st 2 is the weaker of the two.

WaterSport

I have read the opposite, that the last 2 is suppose to be strong on Die #2, Die #3 has a weak last number 2. This is coming from the Counterfeit Detection article which is a small booklet reprrint from The Numismatist. But regardless, Mine two is going to ANACS after jan 10th.

WS

kieferscoins

TTT for coppercoins. He will know.

Cameron Kiefer

WaterSport

I talked to Ira about this, but did not have as good photos...where are the other Lincoln folks tonight?

WS

kieferscoins

Put "lincoln cent" in the title and it just might catch their attention. The title is very vague and I bet they skim right over it.

Cameron Kiefer

merz2

WS
Looking at your closeup pics, I too would be concerned.You must remember though,the mint mark was add by hand back then.So the overlay wouldn't work.It could be just damage,definitely in a very bad place though.I hope for yor sake that is what it is.

Merc

I could tell you since I've picked out fake 1922's in a dealer's case. He thought it was real and was unhappy so he took it over to ANACS who told him it was a removed D too. Post the picture of the whole obverse. I can't tell from just the last 22 to be sure if it is the correct #2 die pair. Or you can look at the PCGS grading book. They have a nice picture of the real thing.

goose3

Is the L in LIBERTY mushed into the rim?

how about an entire obverse shot.

coppercoins

I don't know all that much about the 1922D cents. I generally avoid the issue in conversation since they are errors, not die varieties.

centmaster

This coin is extremely suspect. The damage is in the same location and shape of what the D would look like. Also, the mere fact that a $1500-2000 coin is in a SEGS holder should send up red flags. I look at buying an expensive coin in a SEGS holder as tantamount to looking at it raw, i.e., I look really hard to find out what's wrong with it because there's bound to be something. I recently was at a show and saw an 11D Lincoln in a 65RD SEGS holder, and when I asked to see it, I noticed (apart from it being a 64 at best) that the D was an added mintmark. The shape of the "D" was all wrong for the date. Photos of your entire coin, both obverse and reverse, would help.

Shamika

Looks like a lot of hocus pocus to me.

WaterSport

Here are the obverse and reverse pictures, as requested:

STEWARTBLAYNUMIS

Charles - You are only half correct.There are die varieties of the error.

Watersport - I would advise you to get a different specimen in the same grade.It is tooo much of a coincidence.Get yourself an unc and you will be HAPPY.

Stewart

WaterSport

Stewart, I would be happy with an AU, its the price tag I would not be happy with.

WS

goose3

Looks like a real deal to me now that you've posted the entire coin.

coinbuf

I agree with goose3, you appear to have the real thing. Having said that I wonder if PCGS would slab it with the damage where the mintmark would have been. Keep us posted if you send it in for a crossover.

Chris

coppercoins

<< <i>Charles - You are only half correct.There are die varieties of the error. >>



Actually there is no such thing as a die variety of an error. My terminology is correct.

A die variety, properly used, is a doubled die, repunched mintmark, over mintmark, repunched date, or an overdate - of which this is none.

The 1922 "no D" cent is a worn die, only classified as an error because of its history. In actuality the same problem on any other date coin would be completely overlooked as worthless, thus not considered an error at all.

Because there are different recognized dies of the same basic error does not make them "die varieties."

Merc

Yep, it is the die pair #2. The dig over the mint mark location might make it harder to sell. Buyers of a 1922 plain want to see a smooth plain area under the date where the D was supposed to be.

I have a 1922 plain Die pair #2 in a NGC Vf35 holder with matches yours in tems of wear.

WaterSport

You guys are making me feel better. I will be sending it to Anacs after the 10th of Jan. and will let you know what happens. Thanks for your wisdom.

WS