Who else thinks the 1922 "no D" is an overated "error"

relicsncoins · May 1, 2010 10:20AM

There are too many states, weak D, weak reverse, etc. The coin is readily available at every show, and on ebay on any given day, and over polished dies are just not all that fascinating.

tjc2120 · May 1, 2010 10:24AM

Me

relicsncoins · May 1, 2010 10:26AM

<< Me >>

That's funny.

DHeath · May 1, 2010 10:31AM

I think the abraded die coins are interesting if you find die state interesting. The no A.W. WL's, the no FG 66,82,83 Kennedy halves, etc are other examples of abraded die coins that don't command much premium. Granted, none are missing a mint mark. Whitman's inclusion of the 22 no D likely impacted the desirability of the coin. I'm sure a Lincoln collector can confirm or refute that assumption. One man's compulsion......

TheRegulator · May 1, 2010 10:43AM

I think they are kinda cool for the incredible coincidence that there were no Philly coins struck that year. Now the '37-D three-legged buffalo is another story and in my opinion is a real yawner...

Walkerguy21D · May 1, 2010 10:46AM

I'm no specialist by any stretch, but I do not see many of the true No D, Strong Rev coins in grades above VF and higher. Since I don't actively seek them, maybe they are around, but I'm never offered any in these grades. I do see a number of VG's and Fines. When I think overrated Lincolns, I think of the 09-SVDB and the 31-S.

GrumpyEd · May 1, 2010 11:23AM

Me.

It's one of the few Lincolns that I don't care about.

JRocco · May 1, 2010 11:39AM

A lot of people who don't own one.

Broadstruck · May 1, 2010 11:41AM

Hopefully there's a HUGE temporary price drop after this thread!

Batman23 · May 1, 2010 12:03PM

<< Hopefully there's a HUGE temporary price drop after this thread!

>>

That would be nice! I think this is an overated "error" and I am not too impressed that Dansco included the 22noD hole in thier book. It is the only hole I have left in my book but I can't see spending 5K right now to plug it

keets · May 1, 2010 12:11PM

opening the keets Numismatic Dictionary i find these definitons:

overrated-----high demand.
underrated-----low demand.

Walkerguy21D · May 1, 2010 12:44PM

<< opening the keets Numismatic Dictionary i find these definitons:
overrated-----high demand.
underrated-----low demand. >>

The same dictionary that lists "dreck is the future tense of widget" I hope!

RedTiger · May 1, 2010 12:49PM

Someone at the local coin club read a rant from a book, quoting some noted numismatist from many years ago (like 40 years ago), about the 1922 plain, and how stupid it was for collectors to want it in their sets. I don't remember the specifics, but the indignation was all there.

renomedphys · May 1, 2010 1:22PM

Some Lincoln collectors like them because they fill a desire to complete a Whitman folder or a Dansco album. That and that the Red Book includes it. However most advanced collectors tend to see it as a die variety, and devalue it as such.

Overdate · May 1, 2010 1:33PM

<< I think they are kinda cool for the incredible coincidence that there were no Philly coins struck that year. Now the '37-D three-legged buffalo is another story and in my opinion is a real yawner... >>

There are likely other branch mint Lincolns out there with the same error, but the owners think they're Phillys . . .

I like the 1922 *with* D, the stronger mintmark the better. It's the key to the Lincoln date-only set.

doh · May 1, 2010 1:34PM

*raises hand*

scotty1418 · May 1, 2010 3:25PM

The Lincoln set is one I have dedicated much energy. I dont plan to get a 22 no-d for my set when all is said and done, although I'm not looking to add errors to my set.

kurtdog · May 1, 2010 3:48PM

<< there were no Philly coins struck that year. >>

There were no other coins struck that year through halves.

themaster · May 1, 2010 4:11PM

The strong reverse has my respect. Much more than the 13 V-nickel or the 33 double eagle. JMO

Have a Great Day!
Louis

1Mike1 · May 1, 2010 9:46PM

Overrated no.
Overvalued yes.

PerryHall · May 1, 2010 10:08PM

<< The strong reverse has my respect. Much more than the 13 V-nickel or the 33 double eagle. JMO

Have a Great Day!
Louis >>

I agree the 1913 Liberty nickel is an overrated fabricated rarity but why no respect for the 1933 double eagle which was a legitimate regular issue coin ?

keets · May 1, 2010 10:42PM

I agree the 1913 Liberty nickel is an overrated fabricated rarity but why no respect for the 1933 double eagle which was a legitimate regular issue coin ?

Perry, an arguement could be made in the other direction so that your statement looks like this......................I agree the 1933 double eagle is an overrated fabricated rarity but why no respect for the 1913 Liberty nickel which was a legitimate regular issue coin ?

PerryHall · May 1, 2010 11:15PM

<< I agree the 1913 Liberty nickel is an overrated fabricated rarity but why no respect for the 1933 double eagle which was a legitimate regular issue coin ?

Perry, an arguement could be made in the other direction so that your statement looks like this......................I agree the 1933 double eagle is an overrated fabricated rarity but why no respect for the 1913 Liberty nickel which was a legitimate regular issue coin ? >>

You can argue anything you want but in this case you would be wrong. The 1913 Liberty nickel was not authorized and was fabricated by a "midnight minter" while the 1933 Saints was regular issue coin with several hundred thousand minted and only a few escaping the melting pot.

BillJones · May 1, 2010 11:32PM

I'm not a big fan of the coin. Actually there are three variations, and all of them are die states, not true die varieties. As such they are really something that a Lincoln cent collector should be allowed to ignore and still have “a complete set.”

Back in the early 1940s when the popularity and recognition of the 1922 Plain was just emerging, an article in The Numismatist stated it would be okay of collectors took a 1922-D cent and hammered the "D" mint mark flat if they wanted to fill that hole in their collections. The coin has always had its detractors.

ziggy29 · May 1, 2010 11:52PM

These coins would be worth little more than the non-"error" variety if Philly minted cents in 1922.

Rampage · May 2, 2010 12:10AM

<< These coins would be worth little more than the non-"error" variety if Philly minted cents in 1922. >>

Actually, I would think that is Philly minted cents in 1922, then there would be no difference between the Philly coin and the Denver minted No-D coin, and thus, no difference in value at all. However, this opinion would change if there were specific die diagnostics to distinguish between the two, such as the Die 1 and Die 3 of the weak reverses (both of which I also own).

okracer · May 2, 2010 12:25AM

I just put my complete Lincoln set in a Capital set holder......it doesn't have a slot for the "22 no D".....

.....but, sure enough, I bought a 22 no D later anyway!.....

Mowgli · May 2, 2010 12:32AM

<< I think this is an overated "error" and I am not too impressed that Dansco included the 22noD hole in thier book. It is the only hole I have left in my book but I can't see spending 5K right now to plug it

>>

I showed my "completed" Dansco to several people and they all noticed the hole for the 22 no D. Coins like that should be put at the end of a Dansco album so people have an option to include it or not.

Steve · May 2, 2010 12:52AM

If you are a Lincoln cent collector like me you need to decide what Lincoln cent varieties do you want to collect. Do you want to collect the Wheat series? Do you want to collect the Memorial series? Do you want to collect the 2009 Anniversary series? Do you want to collect the 2010 onward Shield series? Do you want to collect the ENTIRE 1909 to date series? Then you have to decide do you want to collect Lincoln cent PROOF coins? Then you have to decide do you want to collect the so called "MAJOR varieties"? And finally, if you REALLY love this series you have to decide if you want to collect the so called COMPLETE Lincoln cent collection of all business strikes, all proof strikes, all Major varieties and all minor varieties. Me, I decided to collect the entire series including MOST major varieties so the 1922 plain die #2 is in my collection, but not die #1 or die #3. I made a very conscious decision of what coins I collect or don't collect and the PCGS Set Registry categories DO play a part in my decisions. I now own the 1998 and 1999 close AM proof coins primarily because PCGS requires them in their Major variety group for Proof Lincoln cents. I do not own the 1998, 1999 or 2000 wide AM business strikes because I made a decision years ago not to attempt to holder the vast majority of my business strike Lincoln cents. And so, it all comes down to each INDIVIDUAL'S decision and desire when collecting coins in this hobby. JMHO. Steve

bigtime36 · May 2, 2010 12:57AM

Well there are alot of rip offs of the coins, with people long ago using fine tools to romove the D, but I dont think its over rated if you have an original NO D... My gramps has 2 of them taken out of serculation and they ar lagit, i think thats cool that they wernt bought but were found in change over time.

Jim

keets · May 2, 2010 4:07AM

You can argue anything you want but in this case you would be wrong. The 1913 Liberty nickel was not authorized and was fabricated by a "midnight minter" while the 1933 Saints was regular issue coin with several hundred thousand minted and only a few escaping the melting pot.

Perry, i'm not "argueing" anything, only saying that the case could be made contrary to what you posted.
-----1913 Liberty nickel-----TDN would be the one to "argue" about this coin. he always had a logical opinion that justified the existence of the coins and cast doubt on the assumption that they were un-authorized. i would defer to his knowledge/opinion before either of ours.
-----1933 double eagle-----i never "argued" that this wasn't a regular issue coin. looking at the reversed paste, i only offer the suggestion that its rarity is fabricated based on the circumstances we know about it, still in limbo BTW.

i would add that it isn't a foregone conclusion that i'd be wrong about either coin.

ziggy29 · May 2, 2010 4:17AM

<< 

<< These coins would be worth little more than the non-"error" variety if Philly minted cents in 1922. >>

Actually, I would think that is Philly minted cents in 1922, then there would be no difference between the Philly coin and the Denver minted No-D coin, and thus, no difference in value at all. However, this opinion would change if there were specific die diagnostics to distinguish between the two, such as the Die 1 and Die 3 of the weak reverses (both of which I also own). >>

Indeed, I would imagine these would have been thought to be Philly coins for many years until a die variety specialist actually confirmed it was using Denver dies. So I think we'd know today that these are Denver coins, but they would just be an interesting variety with little premium and likely not listed in the Red Book.

kurtdog · May 2, 2010 4:33AM

<< There are likely other branch mint Lincolns out there with the same error, but the owners think they're Phillys . . . >>

The only reason the "No D" and for that matter "Weak D" 1922-D cents go at premiums is because that's the only coin minted at any Mint bearing that year through halves and the error relates directly to that only Mint of origin. As such, the desirability of the error (although, conceded, a very common error) is accentuated for that. That's the only half-way reasonable explanation I can think of for it.

droopyd · May 2, 2010 6:00AM

<< If you are a Lincoln cent collector like me you need to decide what Lincoln cent varieties do you want to collect.... And so, it all comes down to each INDIVIDUAL'S decision and desire when collecting coins in this hobby. JMHO. Steve

>>

For me, including the 1922 no-D (die pair #2) was a no-brainer, as is the 1955DDO and 1972 DDO (and one day I shall actually get those!) -- but other "minor" die varieties aren't of interest to me.

DMWJR · May 2, 2010 6:41AM

FWIW - my understanding of the die pair 2 makes it easily the more collectible of the "no D" 1922's, and for good reason. The die pair 2 was the result of a bad clashing of the obverse and reverse dies. The reverse was discarded and a new reverse was used. The obverse was reworked by a mint worker who removed all traces of the D, whether on purpose or inadvertently. This is different than other "errors" such as overstrikes, capped dies, and other one time occurrences during production. Those are not really collectible in the sense that it can be fit into a somewhat traditional set, but the "no D" can. Plus it is one of the "naked eye" varieties, and not some minuscule variation that requires a glass to see. This combination of origin, availability, and "noticeability" make it the wonder coin that it is.

I would suspect that this has occurred numerous times throughout the years, but is not easily proven except on the 1922 since the Philadelphia mint was making coins with no mint mark at the same time (save later years in the Memorial series). The other varying forms of 1922 "no D" Lincolns were the result of grease filling the mint mark, which IMHO is a non-event. It would be similar to a kit car Ferrari that looks like one on the outside, but it is not the real deal on the inside.

Flame away if you disagree!

keets · May 2, 2010 7:01AM

good reasoning. my question would be to ask if there's a variety where the "D" can be seen on the reverse from the clash you mentioned??

DMWJR · May 2, 2010 7:08AM

<< good reasoning. my question would be to ask if there's a variety where the "D" can be seen on the reverse from the clash you mentioned?? >>

The belief is that it was so badly damaged that it was discarded without being used again, hence the new reverse (aka "strong" reverse).

droopyd · May 2, 2010 7:10AM

<< good reasoning. my question would be to ask if there's a variety where the "D" can be seen on the reverse from the clash you mentioned?? >>

Not to my knowledge - but there are varieties showing the reverse die cracking in various states before it shattered completely - I remember that Charmy had posted one of these a while back.

Shamika · May 2, 2010 7:44AM

<< Who else thinks the 1922 "no D" is an overated "error" >>

This is nothing compared to the 1937-D 3-legged buffalo nickel. Virtually every Heritage Auction has more 3-leggers offered than the standard 4-legger, and yet the price is 1,000x more for the 3-legger. It baffles the mind.

keets · May 2, 2010 7:53AM

the three-legged Buffalo is confusing for me, also. i was just at TeleTrade and there are 3-4 of them listed. i see them at virtually every show and at virtually every auction site i visit. they are touted as a coin which is rare and desirable.

they seem to always be for sale and noboby seems to want them!!

i wish that 10 years ago i would have noted some insert numbers so i could tell how often some of the coins are sold.

machoponcho · May 2, 2010 7:54AM

<< 

<< Who else thinks the 1922 "no D" is an overated "error" >>

This is nothing compared to the 1937-D 3-legged buffalo nickel. Virtually every Heritage Auction has more 3-leggers offered than the standard 4-legger, and yet the price is 1,000x more for the 3-legger. It baffles the mind. >>

Just like going to a major coin show, 1877 dated Cents are the most common date at the show! But it is the demand that brings them to the forefront.

I tend to think the 1922 no D is a bit overrated. I personally find the 1982 no P Dimes more desirable.

johnny9434 · May 2, 2010 8:10AM

Its really not a must have in my collection

Who else thinks the 1922 "no D" is an overated "error"

Comments

Leave a Comment

Who else thinks the 1922 &quot;no D&quot; is an overated &quot;error&quot;

Comments

Leave a Comment

Who else thinks the 1922 "no D" is an overated "error"