I bought an old Whitman Bookshelf album and this was the coin in the 1922-D slot. I looked up the diagnostics for the weak D varieties and this seems to match on the die pairing #3. Granted, I did get the coin in the cardboard flip slightly off plumb, but I still say the counter clockwise rotation on the reverse is apparent. Can anyone offer their insight?
This is challenging, but I don’t think it is a weak D. Yes, the reverse is wavy. But the O in ONE is fine. All of IGWT looks about the same to me - but I don’t know the degree of deterioration they expect to see. Yes, the L in LIBERTY is against the rim, or is it just pretty close? The die looks appropriately rotated - but how many degrees is expected? The D itself looks like it could simply be smashed post-strike, but then again, maybe it’s one stage of the die deterioration. Hmmm….
Well, as the coin's current handler, I want to believe, so I'm useless in this debate! LOL! To me, IGWT is almost exclusively mushy, save for the terminal US. But, with my sexagenarian eyesight, so is just about everything else too these days. Hard to tell with the degree of wear. Do I get to grade this a VF? Will we agree on that grade? We already know the early 20s were rough for branch minted cents. I intentionally put the coin in a square cardboard flip to most accurately and objectively gauge the rotation. I put an overlay on it and came up with some 12° after rotating the merged image in photo-shop. Does that fall somewhere within the scale of the numismatic terms of "a bit", "a little", "a lot", "somewhat", and "Holy COW!"? You mention "wavy", and I don't understand that term. How did you hit upon that observation? I'm curious.
And I see no signs of PMD around the mint mark whatsoever. This could be an early strike of the die marriage ultimately destined to fail, just as the clog was starting to form.
I went by the way light varied across the back. The green areas looked like hills and the red looked like valleys. So it looks wavy to me. And it’s pretty cool to have a protractor marked in radians. That would have helped me build an intuitive understanding of the idea way back in high school in the ‘60’s.
A wealth of information! Thank you, Ron. Still advocating for that one coin that would exceed the value of the whole purchase! I love when that happens! And with the 360 protractor, the photoshop was supposed to have another line creating a vector with a second line running from 180 to 0. Of course, this is roughly estimated without scientific measurement. But I forgot to save the image! Darn!
I don't know the diagnostics on these but just a casual observation - to me it looks like someone mushed the D in an effort to turn it into a No D.
I also did not rule out any post-mint manipulation. But searching the affected area and the corresponding spot on the reverse, I can't see an irregularity, like filing marks, or a dimple, or a, what's the opposite?, a "bumple" on the reverse within the blue circle.
I also did not rule out any post-mint manipulation. But searching the affected area and the corresponding spot on the reverse, I can't see an irregularity, like filing marks, or a dimple, or a, what's the opposite?, a "bumple" on the reverse within the blue circle. (But, again, very thick, mushy letters in the motto.) Additionally, on the topic of IGWT, I tried an overlay of this 1922 with another coin of a similar grade. It's as if the practice of "phoning it in" arose almost immediately upon the introduction of the telephone!
Again, thank you, Ron Sanderson for taking up this topic with me. Refreshingly, I have garnered one opinion within my circle of friends (who also has not seen it in person) who gives me a thumbs up on this one. Seriously considering submitting it for slabbing and official attribution. I guess a life sentence in a plastic prison is the only way to be sure.
To me it looks like a very old attempt at an alteration of the MM that's long since toned over. I've never seen a 22D with a MM flattened and spread-out like that, it reeks of attempted manipulation. On a genuine weak D, there are simply very faint traces of the MM, but they're in the original position.
Also, keep in mind, the TPGs (except NGC I believe) call no-D DP's 1, 3, & 4 "weak D". They SUCK for doing so as the other die pairs are as legit as DP2 for having no trace of a D. To us collectors, a weak D is just super weak and barely visible. There are some "diagnostics" out there as I recall but I don't trust them. It's simply a filled die and it can happen at any point of the minting process. Here's an example in my collection that I would qualify as a weak D. Note how the devices, especially IGWT are also weak. It's telling a story about the die condition, a lot of other elements besides the MM were getting filled with goop. Add in the poor die state to start and the mint made some very interesting 1922-Ds!
ANACS called my no-D a "weak D"! It was a free grade and I didn't realize they suck too on labeling TRUE no-D coins as "weak".
I was compelled to try more close-ups of the mint mark with my terribly inadequate camera. I see how the D is more elongated, possibly exposing manual trauma. I'm gonna have to take it to my LCD at this point. It's holdered, and very tough to photograph through the mylar. (And have any more at the moment !) Although, I do see an advancement for my crusade; the second 2 is definitely weaker in the bottom photo.
Not being an expert on this issue, but this coin appears to be a regular 1922-D weak reverse, with damage to the MM that someone tried to remove. Not a weak D.
