1922 “Weak D” 64RD

MrEureka · November 7, 2023 8:57AM

Everyone makes mistakes, so no need to start bashing. But there’s another lesson here. Ultimately, the buyer paid a big premium for a 22-D cent because the mintmark was just a little weak. If it weren’t for the price guides and registry sets, would anyone ever consider paying a premium for that little bit of weakness? Shouldn’t the coin bring a discount, not a premium? The lesson is to always consider what you think a coin should be worth, not just what the market tells you it’s worth.

rec78 · November 7, 2023 9:09AM

Wow! That's not that weak a "D". I have a few of those myself, but much lower grade. Some people have a lot of money to burn.

CaptHenway · November 7, 2023 9:16AM

This is a middle die state of a known and recognized (in a much later die state) 1922-D variety, but it is not that rare in this die state. I can trace the die states of this die from almost new (and extremely insignificant) to extremely late (and highly desirable).

By coincidence I am polishing up my manuscript for my book on the Cents of 1922 and just happened to be working on this variety.

MrEureka · November 7, 2023 9:35AM

@CaptHenway said:
This is a middle die state of a known and recognized (in a much later die state) 1922-D variety, but it is not that rare in this die state.

Yes, of course.

It’s worth explaining that the late state version is worth a big premium because an imperceptible mintmark makes the coin look like it was struck at a mint that didn’t strike cents in 22, which is cool. A clearly visible but weak mintmark lacks that coolness factor, so should logically be valued differently. Doesn’t really matter what we call any of them.