1922-D Lincoln Cent, weak D variety?
Coinmattster
Posts: 6 ✭
I recently purchased a nearly complete album 1 Whitman Bookshelf, and this dandy was in the 1922-D slot:
I have handled a veritable die pair 3 with weak and wavy reverse in the past, but this reverse is strong and looks more like die pair 2, but the mint mark is faintly visible.
I find it hard to believe that the mint mark was polished off the die from one minute to the next. There must be transitional specimens.
I joined this forum especially at the recommendation of a friend, hoping to elicit an opinion from legendary expert @Tom DeLorey himself. Is it a reasonable candidate for submission to PCGS?
Thanks!
Yes, I would indeed offer it for sale. PM me, if interested.
1
Comments
Pass, not for me (I like the slabbed variety)
The smoodge on the reverse of the coin at the bottom is album debris. I failed to spot it before taking the picture. It wiped off effortlessly with a Q-tip.
I feel the same way. Especially with coins that could be tampered with (removed mm) or are traditionally rare or controversial.
Please see my message reply.
As explained in the book, the mint marks diminished for various reasons, and sometimes went away. In the case of die pair #2, the D was polished down multiple times to eliminate bulges on the die right next to the D, first weakening the D and then, during the last polishing, completely removing the D. So, in that case, the D did literally disappear from one minute to the next, or however long it took to take the die out of the press and polish it down.
Before that last polishing the obverse die, with a Faint D still showing and paired with a worn reverse die, produced Die Pair #5 coins. After the D was completely polished away, and the obverse die was paired with a new or "Strong" reverse die, the combination produced "No D" Die Pair #2 coins The book explains why they are numbered in this order.
The obverses of Die Pairs #1, #3 and #4B wore down from excessive use. Along the way, Die Pairs #1 and #3 were helped along by grease dripping on the die. Die Pair #4B reached the "No D" status only through excessive wear, but only at the very end of its die life.
The obverse of Die Pair #ZeroB is a doppelganger of the obverse of Die Pair #1, and they even share the same reverse die. Many coins out there that were attributed as being from Die Pair #1 are actually Die Pair #ZeroB coins. See the book for how to tell them apart.
TD
I am excited to receive my copy of your book, which I just ordered!
**
**, 
Huh ?
I tried my best to get you some decent close ups. Link to Google Drive folder in your inbox.
THANKS!!
PM sent.
I was able to ask coin guru, Tom DeLorey to attribute it.
Verdict:
"Unfortunately, this piece is from a relatively common die that does have a "Well Worn D," that never achieved what I call "Faint D" status, which is my equivalent to what the TPG's have been calling "Weak D" in recent years.
It is not numbered in the book because there was a question as to whether or not is was significant enough to include. It is mentioned in the "NOTE" at the end of the Die Pair #7 listing, near the bottom of Page 164. It is not a DP#7 coin."
https://whitman.com/the-enigmatic-lincoln-cents-of-1922-softcover/?srsltid=AfmBOooGYBJlN32PhDmbFTaLwUYDBitojWhwpXSiwDXij0b_Wpxy3dV_
A HUGE "THANK YOU"!
For those that already have his book and would like to play along, here are the best high res images I could get of key points:
I just found out about this book yesterday and order a copy promptly!
I look forward to seeing this book!
My YouTube Channel