Tweet
This is the first time I've heard anyone say that the No D was the likely result of the dies clashing - I thought the die pair #2 was thought to never have a D. Is the writer referring to the die pair #2? It's the die pairs #1 and #3 that are thought to have had the D but it was obliterated during heavy die polishing or resulted from a filled die, right?
-
Last edited by VAB2013; 04-27-2019, 11:01 PM. -
What they are saying matches what most experts have said for years.
Die 1-3-4 were grease clogged so they can have a weak D, in the old days they also listed some as broken Ds where it has like a valley in the center so it looked like a broken punch (but was probably just clog dislodging in the center) and they all had a worn out weak rev die. Those dies were pretty much filled by grease and could clear then fill again (making weak and broken Ds) and I'm not sure if polishing had much to do with them, maybe it was mostly die wear and grease clogging.
Die 2 was polished probably from a clash and they fully obliterated all traces of the D and might have replaced the reverse die with a better one giving it the strong reverse. That is why it is the only one that always (atleast after that event) has no trace of a D and a decent reverse.
So what they said doesn't really conflict with anything the experts have been saying.
There never was one that was from the mint with no D ever punched according to any of the experts.
This is why I always said giving them die numbers is strange since to get the die numbers they must have no D but the same dies all produced coins with the D at some point but no TPG will label the ones with a D with the die numbers. I know it's nitpicking but to me die numbers are for identifying a given die but they are using it to identify given dies only in a certain state where the D is not showing. -
Thank you Ed for explaining! I haven't ever found a 1922 to see if it had a D or not and this has always been confusing to me!Comment
-
Thanks for bringing this up Viv and thanks for the tutorial Ed!! That was a nice condenced version that explained it very well!
I've never taken time to understand the no D 22.
Comment
-
Thanks for the link, Vivien, and for your analysis, Ed. I agree with you. To me, the idea that this die never had a D is just another fantasy in which I do not believe. Polished away, worn die fits what I see. I will never buy one of these, so if that means to some that my set is incomplete, then that's just the way it is. But think about it. How many other similar polished-away things have been listed as varieties?All opinions expressed are not necessarily shared by willbrooks or his affiliates. Taking them may result in serious side effects. Results may vary. Offer not valid in New Jersey.Comment
-
Well, It seems logical with all that has been written and said here. But this cent has had lot of speculation over the years so we may never really know just what the heck happenned. I remember another story that Denver did not receive a sufficient number of dies to make a good run so they kept using what they had to run up the expected production numbers. Only I recall looking into that and they did get enough dies. Now another unproven point I would like to share is that this cent, along with just about every other cent from 1911 (when Denver first started minting cents) through at least 1925 and then again in 1930 - has a boat load of cracked dies. I think the presses were over adjusted or the press operator was not that observant, etc. to create so many broken dies. But regardless, I won't hold anything against Will for not wanting to own one LOL. But here is my 1922 D (Ms 64 Red) Weak D (MS 62) and No D (VF 35) to ponder.
1922do.jpg1922dr.jpg1922weakdo.jpg1922weakdr.jpg1922nodstrongo.jpg1922nodstrongr.jpgLast edited by WaterSport; 04-29-2019, 12:03 PM.Comment
-
Pondering... thank you WaterSport Bob for showing us these awesome 1922's from your collection! And thank you for sharing what you know... and your thoughts! Now, I will just go back to pondering
Last edited by VAB2013; 04-29-2019, 11:20 AM.Comment
-
Those are some awesome 22s!But here is my 1922 D (Ms 64 Red) Weak D (MS 62) and No D (VF 35) to ponder.Comment
-
I could not resist adding my 2 Lincoln cents to this as I think collection definition is an interesting aspect of the hobby.
In my opinion the 1922 so called die pair 2 is a true variety and belongs in a collection of regular mint issues. Varieties are “intentional and unintentional changes to dies before coins are struck”. When the mintmark was removed from the obverse die and mated with a new reverse die, the mint knew what would be produced before the coins were struck. The other 1922 cents with weak and partially missing mintmarks were produced by dies that were worn and/or contaminated. These fit the definition of errors as “unintentional mistakes or abnormalities made during striking” since they were actually trying to produce ‘D’ cents. Such coins belong in an error collection.
Since it is unrealistic to obtain every example of each variety, my objective has been to include a select example of each variety in the highest affordable condition. I have not been able to find a definitive list of types of varieties, so I have used the variety types that PCGS shows in their population reports as a guideline. Based on this, the 8 types of varieties (with the example I have included) would be:
Alternate Composition [1982] (The others are astronomically expensive)
Close/Open AM [1999S, 2000]
Doubled Die [1955]
Large/Small Date [All]
Missing Mintmark [1922D] (The other would be the 1990S and it is quite expensive)
Over Mintmark [1944 D/S]
Re-punched Mintmark [1909S/Horizontal S]
Restyled Mintmark [1979S]
Any and all comments welcome....Comment
-
Sort of but they had already used that die to strike coins and the 22-D was the only regular issue for the year.In my opinion the 1922 so called die pair 2 is a true variety and belongs in a collection of regular mint issues. Varieties are “intentional and unintentional changes to dies before coins are struck”.
I think what made these fit a lot of peoples idea of a "complete set" is that a lot of folders had a spot for it and it was in the redbook.
I've had several and sold them all, one I bought was a weak rev was sort of a mistake purchase when I felt I needed one to have a complete set. Later I sold it because I changed my mind and thought if I did need one it had to be a strong rev.
Twice I found strong reverses in dealer sold wheat bags. Sort of blew my mind to find them. I think the reason was that dealers use helpers, they might hand them a pile of folders and say "pull the keys" and give them a list and overlook that some of those folders had the spot for the 22-P and their helpers dumped them. Other than that it made no sense, dealer bags rarely have a key date.Comment
-
I've got another one for you. How about 10-S RPM#3. The only Inverted/Inverted of the seriesComment
-
It would be awesome to look over several of the 22 No Ds in hand... The images of the ones in the article are in decent shape but there does not appear to be any signs of polishing in the location where the MM should be??? If the MM was polished away wouldn't there be evidence of that by having an area inrelief or convex??? Seems like a lot of metal to be removed and leave a nice flat field??? I also do not know what polishing tools they had available in the 20s... Did they have the small dremel style of grinding and polishing bits??? I would think the BEP (Bureau of Engraving and Printing) would have something at least close to that???Jim
(A.K.A. Elmer Fudd)
Be verwy verwy quiet... I'm hunting coins!!! Good Hunting!!!
Comment
-
You bring up a very good point that has always bothered me. Mine is an AU55 and I can see no trace of the D or surface irregularity under a scope. Like all others, the lettering is weakest on the left side and gets stronger to the right with the characteristic 2nd D much stronger than the first. But how could the D be removed without removing the date? One might say that they very carefully repunched the date, but if so why would they not put the D back at the same time? Of course, neither is possible since they say all the punching was done at Philadelphia before the dies were shipped.Comment
-
Without knowing any facts I'll think about it.
First of all, look at a weak D, it might not take much to polish it off.
I doubt they truly repunched the date, remember these coins were made in Denver. The dies were made in Philly (not sure if the MMs were punched D or P) if they fixed up the 2s in Denver they might have used tools not a punch and they would not have a date punch in D, even in P the dates were not punched in dies. They might not even have a MM punch in D (if they were punched in P before shipping) and even if they did, I can't think of any cent die ever repunched while in use. Remember, dies are only used a short time like hours or days so if they polished and reworked it was a quick on the fly thing not a big effort.
22 is a wildcard, people say they scrounged to get the dies to last, no telling what they really did.
The whole question exemplifies why I do not like experts giving die numbers for what really is a die state. If they did the work to fully ID the die in all states then the question would be easier like we could see a weak D die then later it becomes a no D with a fixed up 2 paired with a new reverse (for the strong rev) but the experts never did that, they only note these dies by die numbers in later states not earlier and it might not be possible to go beyond if every marker was gone. Unless an expert had lots of high grade examples of every state it's not really possible.Comment
Comment