Very suspicious 22 plain

Remember that the D on the die is incused , polishing it out would leave a deep shallow area , the dies gradually filled with grease .

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

That is true for die #1, die #3, and die #4, but not die #2. It is believed to have occurred after a major die clash. The operator then polished the obverse die. He polished it until the "D" disappeared and then replaced the reverse die. Thus die #2 has no weak "D" and a strong reverse.

And, no, it would not "leave a deep shallow area". They polish the entire die removing the shallow detail for the entire die. That is one reason the no "D"'s have such notoriously weak obverses.

 

Thanks for correcting me rlm , that's what I read out of the Standard Catalogue of US Altered and Counterfeit Coins . Apologies to Bad Thad and lkeigwin . Learn something all the time .

 

eBay removed those 2, However, he has relisted them again both as die #2 again. They are still not die #2. After eBay pulled them once, I doubt they will be very happy pulling them again.

 

I like his " unsearched " 1909-S and 1909-S-VDB rolls too . NO RETURNS , I wonder why .

 

Probably because of his complaints he keeps getting from these rolls...why do they keep buying them? SHEEZ

 

I guess people want to believe they're getting a great deal , and the wrapper does say San Fransisco .

 

Yes, now that's how they're supposed to look! Even if that coin was raw I wouldn't have questions about it....I'd look closer with a loupe, but my initial impress would be "legit".

 

Fake

 

I'm still not getting it.

If they removed the D by polishing and "removing the shallow detail for the entire die", why isn't the rest of the lettering obliterated? Is the mintmark that much shallower than the rest of the detail (for instance date and lettering)?

 

All I can do is quote Lange. However, 2 facts I can assure you of. First, the dies are not spot polished. The entire die is ground (although I imagine that the die can be tipped to preferentially polish one side). Second, all of the 4 dies have been severely over used/polished and the lettering and date are not strong at all.

If you really want my stab, Lange is wrong about die #2, but who am I to say Lange is wrong. I would add that die #2 was also not grease filled since there is no evidence of a D on any coins attributed to die #2. I am not sure just what else is left, but that must be it.

 

To add to it, here is a quote from http://lincolncentresource.com/1922Ddievarieties.html. Due to the similarities, I strongly suspect they basically copied it from Lange.

 

I agree. Not a genuine.

 

I agree, #2's are not from grease filled dies at all. The D was polished off of the die due to a bad clash. It was bad enough the reverse die had to be replaced.

 

Typically yes it is since it is punched in by hand and hubbed into the die with a multi-ton press. Start with a die that has the mintmark weakly punched in to begin with, use it til near the end of its life so it is heavily worn, polish it extensively and the mintmark disappears. And you will find other weak areas as well from the polishing as well. By the end of the year many of the cent dies were being used well beyond their typical lifetimes.

 

I think it is fake, doctored some way or maybe a real counterfeit.
Thanks ,.Jim​