Is 1922 plain necessary to complete lincoln set?

LikesCents

My whitman lincoln cents album has a hole for a 22 plain. I think of the 22 plain as an error, not as a regular strike and don't think I need to have one to call my G-VG set complete (it's not complete yet but almost there). I have a second 22-D in the 22 plain hole so it looks better. What do you think, is a 22 plain necessary?

UncleJoe

Not IMO.

Joe.

mrfred

I agree that it is not part of the set.

However, a 22-plain is a good investment. Those are really trending up, nice and steady.

LincolnCentMan

22-Pl's are no more a part of the set than a 55/55. It's an error. I dont concider it necessary for someone to call the set complete. I'm missing it in my dansco. I'll probably get it eventually to fill the hole, though.

David

cohodk

I think it is part of the set. Mr Whitman says so. Thats why there is a hole for it.

Seriously though, it was the last coin I bought for my set and i didnt think the set was complete without it

mgoodm3

Not any worse than requiring a 95P Morgan for a MS set.

haletj

No. I consider a complete Lincoln set (or a set in any series) to include all intended varieties, like 09-vdb and 09 without vdb, and 1960 large and small dates...etc. Unintended varieties or errors like 1922, DDO's, overmintmarks, I don't consider part of the set.

topstuf

Due to the "tyranny of the hole" it is CUSTOMARILY considered part of the set.

STRICTLY speaking, I don't consider a "die state" to be an "issue" coin.

haletj

I seriously think the Album makers put that 1922 plain in there so there would be 6 coins from 1921-1923 so the layout of the album would stay in nice rows of pds pds for each date. I mentioned that on the message boards before and someone thought I was crazy!

coppercoins

The 1922 "no D" Lincoln is a minor error that occurred commonly in the early Lincoln years, especially from 1921-1929. They are from grease filled/worn dies and would not command any premium at all if they hadn't been completely misunderstood when people started finding them thinking a very small percentage of the 1922 cent production actually came from Philly. We know now, in fact, that no cents were minted in Philly that year and that all 1922 cents should bear the D mintmark.

I cannot prove it, but I am certain there are other examples of cents out there from the early decades that do not display a mintmark but were indeed minted at one of the branch mints. Many different obverse dies used during that period had the same amount of harsh wear that the 1922 "no D" dies show. I have seen a number of cases, especially on 1924D cents, that had only a mere shadow of a mintmark, and have indeed been sold as 1924P or 1924S cents because the person holdering the coin couldn't make out the mintmark even though the coin graded F-EF. So, unless one would find a way to attribute these other years' cents as "no D" or "no S" cents and include them as a part of the Lincoln cent set, there's no reason to include this example either.

The reason why the folder and album companies still include it as a part of a set goes back to its original misunderstood beginnings - people thought there should be a slot for the Philly 1922 cent, they found these ugly examples where the D mintmark wore off or otherwise filled in, and demanded there be a hole for them in their book, because again they thought there actually were 1922 plain cents (on purpose). The album companies obliged and continue to do so today more out of tradition than anything else.

As to its value and why they run so high - I couldn't say for sure, seems kinda silly to me. I personally consider it a black spot on the series and wouldn't want one. It ran up and stayed high, and continues to increase in market value, but I see it as an ugly coin that is still misunderstood by many even today.

Shamika

<< <i>I seriously think the Album makers put that 1922 plain in there so there would be 6 coins from 1921-1923 so the layout of the album would stay in nice rows of pds pds for each date. I mentioned that on the message boards before and someone thought I was crazy! >>



I for one completely agree with you. I seriously doubt the designers of these coin albums were coin collectors themselves.

Jaywalker

These are not regular issues. Same thing with the Buffalo nickels, 1918-D 8/7, the 37-D three legged, etc.

I wish Dansco and the other album makers would PUT THE ERRORS ON A SEPARATE PAGE. (Sorry for shouting.) Get the errors out of the regular series. We should not have to buy error coins to make our sets look complete.

UncleJoe

PUT THE ERRORS ON A SEPARATE PAGE

I agree. I collect Buffalo Nickels and I personally think the concept and the value of the 3-legged buffalo is absurd.

What about the 2-feather Indian or the hornless Buffalo?

Joe.

kranky

topstuf wrote:


<< <i>the tyranny of the hole >>



I love that! Great expression.

I personally don't think it is necessary because it's an error.

haletj

<< <i>I cannot prove it, but I am certain there are other examples of cents out there from the early decades that do not display a mintmark but were indeed minted at one of the branch mints. >>



Have you ever seen a poorly struck Lincoln of another date with no mint mark? I don't think I've actually ever seen a poorly struck Lincoln from Philadelphia.

coppercoins

<< <i>PUT THE ERRORS ON A SEPARATE PAGE

I agree. I collect Buffalo Nickels and I personally think the concept and the value of the 3-legged buffalo is absurd.

What about the 2-feather Indian or the hornless Buffalo?

Joe. >>



I actually see the 3 legged buffalo in the same light as the 1922 "no D" cent. A misunderstood error that has always been valuable for no realistic reason.

carl

Whitman really screwed up everyone with that and a few others. My Whitman Classic binders have slots for the 22, 55 double die, 72 double die and all the proofs. That is really dumb but there the slots are and looks horrible if empty. You may want to check this forum for a weak D on the 22. I found one at a coin show and only cost aabout $20 so able to fill the slot on one book. I have 11 Sets of Lincolns and because of those dumb things, lots of empty spots. For some the books I did what you did and put a 22D in that spot. For 55 dbl I put in the poor man's dbl worth a buck or two. For the 72 dbl I got mad and put in a cent with the back turned. Now that there is this book out called Looking Through Lincoln Cents I'm afraid the Whitman people will get it and try to include all the errors listed in that book in there binders and famous Red Book. If you get that book, you'll see an error for almost every year Lincoln Cents were made. I've got several boxes full of 2"x2" holders with Lincoln Cent errors. Some have letters or numbers missing. Will those be in future Whitman binders. We should all complain to Whitman Company to make the coin books for real people. I am only missing the real 55 dbl in my set one to complete and no way will I ever find one or pay for one. Some of their binders list coins that only have a few made and are in museums or something. What a bunch of nuts. They discourage young people from becoming collectors.
Sorry to get on a soap box and scream but this subject has always bothered me for the last 50 years.

originalisbest

Always disliked the '22 plain - even a "great" one is particularly ugly.

OTOH, I love a nice '55 dd, it's a very striking coin, and is by far (IMO) the one error that MANY if not MOST "regular" issue collectors would give an eye tooth for.

But in general, I agree with those who find these oddball album holes annoying.

And for that matter, few holes annoy me more than that for an '01-S quarter I keep seeing in my old Mehgrig Barber album. Sigh!

coppercoins

Carl -

I am the author of that book, Looking Through Lincoln Cents. It was farthest from my reasoning to write the book to have anyone include what I show in that book in an album for the typical generalist collector. That book was intended specifically for people who either had a lot of coins and wanted to search them for extra value, or for people interested in the die varieties (they are not errors) who wanted a good book to read about them.

There is a lot of interest coming about in the die variety market (again, not errors). They are beginning to pick up a lot fo steam that they never had in the past. The grading companies are seeing this, the dealers are beginning to see it, and collectors are having fun with them. Missing digits, die cracks, oddly shaped letters due to coin damage and the like are NOT what people look for in value on the coins. Those oddities have always and will always be of curiosity value only. The true hub doubling or mintmark doubling are what the collectors are after, thus what I show in the book. It rounds down to one thing - doubling...and the right kind of doubling, which takes an open mind and ten minutes of seeing both kinds to understand the difference.

Point comes to this - Whitman, Dansco, and the other companies that make albums are doing what the collectors demand. It's a business like any other business, and they are out to please the customer. I can tell you from knowledge and experience that you would be hard pressed even if you wanted it to have them include slots in press-boards for even most of the major die varieties (again, not errors) like the 1972 doubled die, 1983 doubled die, etc. So I doubt you have anything to worry about regarding them making such a decision. The only varieties they make holes for are the ones that have tradition behind them that carries us back to the days when the minting process wasn't studied or understood well enough by typical collectors to know the difference. In the past two decades, and especially with the advent of the internet, so much more is being learned now than ever before. The holes that are already there are only there because of the tradition of putting them there...nothing more than that.

nwcs

No, I don't think it's necessary. But it does add coolness.

bigtonydallas

Just get a Dremmel and take the the d off!!!!!!! lol just kidding!

BillJones

It's not really part of the set IMO. It's a die state, and if you are going to collect ALL of the those, the Lincoln set would be endless.

Still there is spot for it in many albums, and most collectors feel the need to fill in the holes. So that's why so many collectors buy them.

relayer

The slot in my Lincoln album for the 22 plain has been empty for over 30 years

BillJones

Mine has been empty for almost 40 years. I still think that I have a complete set for the first album up to 1940 without it.

Steve

Great thread! My two cents worth.

This thread shows how each of us have our own opinions on what makes a complete set of Lincoln cents. I've collected this series exclusively since the early 1980's. I now have what I consider a complete set. (for me) It includes all the regular business strike and proof coins by date and mint mark from 1909 thru current. It also includes the following varieties which I consider to be MAJOR varieties because they are listed in most price listings:

1922 no D strong reverse
1944 d/s type 1
1955 doubled die
1960 sd
1960D sd
1970S sd
1972 doubled die
1982 sd and zinc varieties- 5 coins
1983 reverse doubled die
1984 doubled die ear
1995 doubled die

1936 second proof (brilliant or satin)
1960 sd proof
1965 SMS
1966 SMS
1967 SMS
1970S sd proof
1979S type 2 proof
1981S type 2 proof
1990 no s proof

So why don't I include the following in my complete set?

1909 s over horizontal s
1917 doubled die
1936 doubled die
1943 and 1944 off metal coins
1969S doubled die
1998 wide AM
1999 wide AM
2000 wide AM

1960 ld ove sd proof
1960 sd over ld proof
1971 doubled die proof

OR any of the hundreds of other varieties of Lincoln cents that have been identified over the years? Because, I, just like most other collectors, decide on what we want to collect in our set. The decision may be based on cost or it may be based on some other basis. The point is WE ARE ALL DIFFERENT IN HOW WE LOOK AT FORMING A COMPLETE COLLECTION. And that is really OK.

I do find it a little surprising that Chuck (Coppercoins) a collector whom I respect for his knowledge, would knock down the 1922 no D variety while being a major supporter of collecting ALL the other varieties of Lincoln cents. While I would quickly acknowledge the 1922 plain is obviously not a nice example of how the Lincoln cent is normally minted, it IS in fact a major variety in the series BECAUSE it is WANTED by collectors of the series in large numbers.

JMHO. Steve

carl

See what I mean old coppercoins. Just read what BillJones said. And you probably helped cause him to go collect all the wierdos. Your book did that to me also. I've just spent many, many, many hours looking through mountains of Licoln Cents and puting all the odd balls in 2"x 2" holders. I've got 5 boxes of them because of you. I used to have hundred's of rolls of wheats in plastic tubes and now opening them and looking at each one over again. The last time you were here you said there is a second book on LIncolns coming out and I will naturally buy it because it actually is a great book. But please stop eventually. I will end up spending the rest of my life looking for all the different varieties you mention. I used to use just magnifying glasses but now use a 14X magnifier. I've got my neighbors and relatives looking at every cent because of your book.
Regarless, as has been stated, there is a place for these odd balls and that should be a separate folder, sheet, book or just in 2"x2" holders or something. It is very discouraging for young kids to try to fill an empty slot that just can not be filled. One of the reasons my son just doesn't get into coin collecting. Anyway, as I've said you do have a great book on coins.

coinbuf

I like both the 22 no "D" and the 55/55 coins. Both are very cool for very different reasons some of which have been said before. I also like to collect Lincolns by date and MM and in that respect I too wish that these coins would be dropped from the albums and the registries. But you will never see this happen; if these two coins were dropped their values would drop like a stone. JMHO

Chris

coppercoins

Steve - The only reason I do not particularly like the 1922D "no D" cent is because it is a rather common occurrence for the mintmark to be completely obliterated on many of the early Lincoln issues, this one being no different from a number of others. I realize it is sought after and collected by many - the numbers in the price guides validate that. I cannot, however, dismiss the fact that if there actually had been cents minted in Philly that year, the 1922D "no D" cent would never have been noticed. In my opinion something so trivial in occurrence that was ONLY noticed because of a lack of production in a single facility doesn't mean much...certainly not to the levels the market has carried it to.

I am a person who seeks truth and knowledge. I cannot support an overblown market based on a complete misunderstanding of a simple common error. I respect others' opinions of the coin and their willingness to spend hundreds if not thousands on such examples. That's fine with me. I, however, will not call it a rare error, nor will I promote them any more than I promote the sale of 1955 cents minted with extremely worn dies as "poor man's double dies" for any more than their worth - that of a common 1955 cent. Yet another example of a very common minor error that gained attention due to a misunderstanding. If, by chance, the market for "poor man's double dies" from 1955 had blown up into the hundreds for uncirculated examples, I wouldn't be able to support it either. I know what caused them, know that it occurs in many other years, and cannot honestly see them as rare or valuable.

Perhaps my approach is too narrow for some to agree with or understand, but I sit comfortable with my opinion. I have to do what I believe is right, and pushing minor errors as rare varieties is something I cannot honestly do and believe I am doing what is best for the hobby. I'd prefer to write about and help collectors with the varieties and die varieties that are truly uncommon to rare, let the error collectors and dealers do their thing, and let the generalist market collect what suits them. Three very different facets of the same general market - numismatics.

airplanenut

If it's your set, it's complete when you think it's complete. Since you don't think you need one, then no, you don't need one to complete the set.

Jeremy

Steve

Chuck,
I completely understand your comments and where you are coming from regarding the 1922 "plain" and the 1955 poor man's DD. Your comparison is a good one but you need to understand where I'm coming from too. I'm a part of what you call the "generalist market". That is, I collect Lincoln cents that are publicized and are generally reported in pricing guides. That is why I own a 1922 "plain" but do not own a 1955 poor man's DD although I'm aware of it. I do not own a 1943 copper or a 1944 steel or even a 1969S doubled die because they are too rare to find and I don't have to spend the kind of money it would take to own one. I do own a 1909VDB Matte proof which is also rare and expensive, BUT to MY way of looking at the Lincoln coins, this was a necessary part of the complete set. Others will have different views.
Your interest in the various die versions of Lincoln cents and the many DD's that can be attributed is great too. It just doesn't perk my interest. That is why I have said each of us are different in our views of what we collect and why we collect it. I get a thrill looking at my 1990 no S proof, seeing the beauty of the DCAM and the missing S without needing a loope, and knowing only 200 or so may exist in the world and I have one of them. You may not think much of that coin, but love the 1960D repunched mintmark you illustrate on page 200 of your book. Others get a thrill owning an unusual variety that they purchased inexpensively. It is all our own perspective on what we want to collect, how much we want to spend and, in the case of things like the PCGS Registry, whether we want to be number 1 or just want to participate. That's what makes the hobby great. Steve

MrSpud

I bought an inexpensive "weak D" 22 and a "poormans" 55 doubled die for my album. If I got either a 22 plain or a real 55 doubled die I wouldn't risk putting them in an album or folder.

midwestcoin13

Yes but if the coin is very expensive it's not needed as badly.