Producing uncommon 'wheatback' specimen

So according too popular belief; there is the 1¢ of a 1922 S, D, weak D, and no D. I believe this to be no D on a 5° rotated reverse, mushy obverse, strong reverse, first 2 stronger than the second 2. Now what do you think about PCGS' findings, and I quote "The 1922 No D is believed to exist due to a pair of dies clashing with one another without a coin being in between the two dies. As a result, it is believed that a mint employee obtained an old obverse die and filed it down in order to improve its appearance. But instead, the mint employee ended up filing the D mint mark too much, and in return, created the 1922 No D Lincoln cents." However a number is believed to of never having a mm at all as well.. I'd say this to of having the description of PCGS report. Alright let's hear your criticism, and what you would grade it?I bought this raw last year. They're still a couple of those left, I hear.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

All I can say is the date might be 1922. Below the date seems to be some sort of PMD.

 

I can see there is a date there, but exactly what the date is, I'm not sure.

 

That is not a 1922 no D. On the real coin, the IN GOD WE is mushy. Even if it were, it could not be authenticated with that damage on the MM. It appears to me to be a ground find or acid treated coin.

 

Wow.. that Cent is in really bad shape. I don't think you have anything. I also see PMD under the mystery date. Hope you didn't pay too much for it.

 

Here's a 1922 weak D

 

I see 193...

 

Say What?

So according too popular belief (says who?); there is the 1¢ of a 1922 S, D, weak D, and no D. I believe this to be no D on a 5° rotated reverse, mushy obverse, strong reverse, first 2 stronger than the second 2. Now what do you think about PCGS' findings, and I quote "The 1922 No D is believed to exist due to a pair of dies clashing with one another without a coin being in between the two dies. As a result, it is believed that a mint employee obtained an old obverse die and filed it down in order to improve its appearance. But instead, the mint employee ended up filing the D mint mark too much, and in return, created the 1922 No D Lincoln cents." However a number is believed to of never having a mm at all as well.. I'd say this to of having the description of PCGS report. Alright let's hear your criticism, and what you would grade it?I bought this raw last year. They're still a couple of those left, I hear.

Great story...Where did this come from?

 

http://lincolncentresource.com/1922Ddievarieties.html
And "The Complete Guide to Lincoln Cents"

 

There are no 1922S wheats as far as I'm aware, and if their are they're counterfeit. No cents were minted in Frisco that year either

 

Since a die is an incuse item/design, how can a 'D' mint mark be filled off?

 

I'd find the "clash polishing" explanation a lot more believable if there were anything from the reverse which could clash in that area of the date. There is not. One could posit a die rotation which would bring the center bar of the E in ONE into play, but in that case the lower bar of the E would also clash in a manner requiring the whole date to be polished away to remove it.

What, exactly, was being "polished away," and how did the person doing the polishing manage to limit the damage - don't forget, the last 2 in the date of a Die #2 Strong Reverse is complete - to an area approximately two millimeters wide? Only the first 2 in the date is even weakened....I can't buy this.

I'm sorry, but the "conventional wisdom" simply has to be questioned here.

 

A clash is polished away by polishing the fields of the die where it happened. As you polish, you lower the level of the field. If you overdo that, the field is lowered to a level where the detail of the devices is no longer any lower, and it disappears. The 3-Leg Buffalo is a good example, and at least in that case there's a prime culprit of obverse detail to give reason for the polishing.

 

PMD or an attempted alteration in the MM area. IMO, the coin is worth 5 cents or so.

 

Thanks! However, as I read it, IMO the OP's post was incomplete. And...as pointed out, there was no 1922-S. Furthermore, the "Clashed Die Theory" for Die Pair #2 has been proved enough to satisfy me. IMO, no evidence exists on the actual coins that one die had no mintmark at all.

Perhaps, I was just being too picky ; but authentication of these coins (1922-Plain) has been a mess up until the two ANACS studies were published. After that, lots of coins that had previously been bought/sold/certified as 1922 Plain cents BECAUSE THEY HAD NO TRACE OF A MINT MARK became virtually worthless. Then, like it or not, a "standard" was set.

 

This is NOT EXACTLY TRUE. While the "2" is complete - On all GENUINE Die#2 coins the field inside the upper curve of the second "2" is "naked-eye" wider! This was one result of the polishing that diminished the mint mark.

PS. Hope someone posts this diagnostic too as SuperD has me on ignore and cannot see this

 

Here is my die pair 2. Only cause I like to show it off. Probably grades VG-8.

 

That one looks as one of the; never had a mm at all, specimen. But there is still PCGS story, called inadvertently omitted.

 

Excessive mm filing from the mint employee, in lieu of improving its appearance or.