Options
Here's A New One - eBay auction with coin out of slab & old no longer used coin number on slab f
RBinTex
Posts: 4,328 ✭
0
RBinTex
Posts: 4,328 ✭
RBinTex
Posts: 4,328 ✭
RBinTex
Posts: 4,328 ✭
RBinTex
Posts: 4,328 ✭
Comments
I send all of my crackout inserts back to NGC & PCGS.
-----------
etexmike
Also the description says it is out of the slab
so a buyer can take that for what its worth.
I see no deception here.
Please check out my eBay auctions!
My WLH Short Set Registry Collection
For your reading pleasure, I found this information below: http://www.stanford.edu/~clint/q/1922nod.htm
1922 no D Lincoln Cent
The 1922 no D Lincoln Cent is mentioned in most price guides without a full explanation of how to authenticate it. Some with no D showing are fakes, while others are relatively common die varieties that are only worth the same as the 1922D in grades below MS60. This means you have to look at other characteristics of the dies besides the lack of D, to figure out if a circulated 1922 cent is the valuable variety.
In a Numismatist article published between 1977 and 1982, three die pair varieties are identified as being capable of producing genuine no D coins. All 3 are valuable in Mint State. However, since 1987, only die pair #2 has been recognized as valuable in circulated condition.
The reason for this distinction is that in 1987, die pairs #1 and #3 were recognized as "filled dies", which can show a very weak D. It is not possible to reliably authenticate these as "no D" unless they are MS60 or higher, because only full mint lustre is sufficient to a detect a fake (removed D). The standard for MS specimens is that there must be no trace of the D, under 10X magnification.
However, for die pair #2, the D never appears (even weakly), because it was ground off the die by abrasives. So die pair #2 can be authenticated even in circulated grades. In addition, die pair #2 is less common in all grades than die pairs #1 and #3.
The 3 die pairs can be identified as follows:
Die Pair #1:
-Second 2 in date is weaker than the first 2.
-First T in TRUST is smaller and more distinct than the other letters.
-WE is very mushy.
-Reverse is very weak, usually with no lines in the wheat ears.
Die Pair #2:
-Second 2 in date is sharper than the first 2.
-All letters in TRUST are sharp.
-WE is only slightly mushy.
-L in LIBERTY butts up against the rim.
-Reverse is sharp.
Die pair #3:
-Second 2 in date is weaker than first 2.
-TRUST is weak but sharper than IN GOD WE.
-L in LIBERTY butts up against the rim.
-Reverse is weak -- lower left part of O in ONE begins to spread into the field as the die deteriotates.
The PCGS grading service does not distinguish between all 3 dies. The only designations they use for 1922 no D cents are "Weak Reverse" and "Strong Reverse". Only the "Strong Reverse" can be die pair #2; "Weak Reverse" corresponds to die pairs #1 and #3. This means that a PCGS 1922 no D Weak Reverse EF40 is only worth about $15. This is the same as a 1922D EF40, and about equal to the cost of having the coin slabbed by PCGS! The ANACS grading service apparently only certifies die pair #2 as "no D" in circulated grades (at least since 1987).
This information was compiled from posts to rec.collecting.coins, dated between 12/30/96 and 1/3/97, and found in http://www.dejanews.com .
Text1922 no D Lincoln Cent
Pete
That's what I thought. BUT, it might be a weak D in stead of a No D - hence the raw coin & a slab from ... (another crackout)?
I also e-mailed him with no reply.
Apropos of the coin posse/aka caca: "The longer he spoke of his honor, the tighter I held to my purse."
<< <i>"That looks like a strong reverse to me." That's what I thought. BUT, it might be a weak D in stead of a No D - hence the raw coin & a slab from ... (another crackout)?
Yep, I see your point. Coin doesn't seem to match. Either he is dishonest or PCGS
screwed up and he is very generous. I think the former
Please check out my eBay auctions!
My WLH Short Set Registry Collection