Very suspicious 22 plain

+1

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

You guys have echo'ed my original sentiments exactly... I can't figure out if they just worked a D off or if they changed the date... or if the entire coin is a fake. Also the marks on the obverse are planchet flaws and not die cracks.

This is however not a new counterfeit. I bought this coin out of one of my late customers estates and I know he has had this book for quite some time in his safety deposit box.

 

I really do not see anything on that coin to tell me that the date has been altered. So far as I can tell, that looks like a 1922 date. It was kind of weird just in general. I cannot make out anything to tell me the coin has been cast (how can you cast one with a planchet flaw, anyway). A struck coin might be possible, but not very likely from years ago. That pretty much says that the "D" has been removed although I suppose it is possible (but doubtful) you have one with a grease filled "D" from another die.

 

looks like it was a 32. Can see the bottom tail of the 3 under the 2.

 

I am more of the removed mint mark mindset. It looks to be doctored in the mint mark area, but nowhere else to me

 

looks way too sharp to be a 1922..

 

there are many well struck 1922-D cents. A well struck 1922 No D is a horse of a different color altogether

 

+1

 

The area around WE TRUST is a planchet lamination flaw and not associated with a die crack. The area below the date where the mint mark would normally be located is slightly dished and the rim in that area is also softened leading me to believe this is a altered Denver struck cent.

The alteration is rather crude, so that may make this a contemporary alteration...did not the 1922 Plains become popular way back in the 1950's?

 

Exactly. There's actually some amazingly well-struck 22D's out there. I sold one a few months ago that had the beard detail of a 1916. However, I've never seen a no D with that kind of detail. Remember, these were over-used obverse dies, that's how the D was removed, over-polishing.

 

Lincoln looks to happy.

 

This is why I'd stay away from it.

 

I don't like it. Too many flags. Among them, a no-D die #2 with that obverse would have a much better reverse. Or, said another way, the obverse is too sharp for the reverse. Lots of other good observations have already been made.

Still, if it were mine I'd send it in to be graded...just for finality. But I'd expect it to come back "questionable authenticity".

FWIW, here is a die #2, PCGS VF30, for comparison. Nice, mushy obverse and crisp wheat lines.
Lance.

 

I cannot, for the life of me, understand how that could happen. Would you please explain?

 

If I can be allowed to speak for BadThad, what he is saying is the Denver Mint employee was overzealous about removing die damage. The die was polished to remove whatever offended, and in the process he polished off the D mintmark. Maybe it was TGIF and beer was flowing?

Remember, this was near the beginning of a sad period (throughout the '20's) where the branch Mints had to make do on their allotment of dies. The dies were overworked and the struck coins were marginal.

The funny thing is, the general public did not realize that Philly wasn't minting cents. And a long time passed before anyone realized that a "1922 plain" was a Denver SNAFU.
Lance.

 

They have "Coors" back then?

 

I agree with the crowd. Altered coin and I think it's a removed "D"

 

"D"? There's no "D" in Coors.......

 

GROAN!!!:help!A:

 

The dies started to fill with grease , that's why they have different stages like weak D and such .