Grading 1922-D Lincoln Cents

@Insider in numismatic terms, porosity refers to where other alloys have either melted or leached out of a flan during the minting process (usually in the case of silver coin), or environmentally (usually in the case of copper or bronze coin, owing to how they are alloyed). Check the Glossary of Numismatics. Rather than mocking me (even though we appear to agree in this case in principle), please understand how terms are properly applied in numismatic contexts. This coin has porous surfaces, especially on the reverse, where there are numerous planchet flaws inconsistent with circulation. I have used the term correctly... apparently you need a refresher.

Going back to the coin, I maintain, regardless of its initial disparency in strike between the obv and rev, it has undergone substantial environmental damage (including mechanical and natural) wear, as well as cleaning that have rendered it pretty much useless to any discussion of strike quality at branch mints.

*edit, please stop going back and editing your posts to try to discredit me, which is what you have done... and if so, please mark the edits so that I can address them. I also don't feel the need to use clipart to get my point across - I just know what I am talking about.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

Thanks everyone for your comments. I didn’t expect to get a bunch of people echoing the same opinion on this one, and the discussion is more theoretical than actual in regards to the Denver cents of 1922.

as far as @Insider, norantyki, he may be a bit bristly and can even enjoy a good argument, but he knows his stuff when it comes to grading.

I am grateful that he chimed in.

 

Thanks! Glad to be back!

 

norantyki, posted:"...in numismatic terms, porosity refers to where other alloys have either melted or leached out of a flan during the minting process (usually in the case of silver coin), or environmentally (usually in the case of copper or bronze coin, owing to how they are alloyed). Check the Glossary of Numismatics.

I'm not going to argue with you about what you have read in the "Glossary of Numismatics" WHATEVER THE HECK THAT IS as it reads like some clueless young collector with no scientific background attempted to look intelligent. That definition of porosity is not very good. Since I cannot locate "the glossary" on the Internet or that definition in any standard numismatic reference, I'll ask that you please enlighten me as to your source and its author.

Rather than mocking me (even though we appear to agree in this case in principle), please understand how terms are properly applied in numismatic contexts. This coin has porous surfaces, especially on the reverse, where there are numerous planchet flaws inconsistent with circulation. I have used the term correctly... apparently you need a refresher.

If you ever decide to become educated correctly, I suggest you also look up the term "lamination."

Going back to the coin, I maintain, regardless of its initial disparency in strike between the obv and rev, it has undergone substantial environmental damage (including mechanical and natural) wear, as well as cleaning that have rendered it pretty much useless to any discussion of strike quality at branch mints.

You are tossing all kinds of "fluff" around this thread that you have picked up as a collector. While a progressive or uninformed collector may like to transform the terminology, it is not helpful. Case in point. CIRCULATION WEAR on a coin is NOT CONSIDERED ENVIRONMENTAL DAMAGE! Either is CLEANING! Now, some Johnny-come-lately may reason that since corrosion on a coin may be damage from the environment so must a scratch, hole, bag mark, and friction be caused from the environment. Unfortunately, in that twisted case the wacko is correct!. Therefore just about every coin ever made is environmentally damaged. Please stop the nonsense.

*edit, please stop going back and editing your posts to try to discredit me, which is what you have done... and if so, please mark the edits so that I can address them. I also don't feel the need to use clipart to get my point across - I just know what I am talking about."

As far as this BS. When you see an EDIT in my posit it is due to me correcting a spelling or grammatical error or adding more information! I have been here a few years and I have NEVER changed a post to correct something I originally wrote that was INCORRECT. I have been shamefully embarrassed on at least two occasions because of this. Furthermore, I believe I have confessed to being wrong when this has happened. It has NOT happened in this thread.

 

porosity
(1) Fine holes or pores within a solid; the amount of these pores is expressed as a percentage of the total volume of the solid. (2) Cavity-type discontinuities in weldments formed by gas entrapment during solidification. (3) A characteristic of being porous, with voids or pores resulting from trapped air or shrinkage in a casting. See also gas porosity and pinhole porosity.

gas porosity
Fine holes or pores within a metal that are caused by entrapped gas or by the evolution of dissolved gas during solidification.

pinhole porosity
Porosity consisting of numerous small gas holes (pinholes) distributed throughout the metal; found in weld metal, castings, and electrodeposited metal.

It is my understanding that educated numismatists (principally the early copper collectors a VERY LONG TIME AGO before either of us were born) have adopted this metallurgical term to describe the pitted surface found on coins due to corrosion (actual environmental damage ).

THIS POST HAS BEEN EDITED JUST NOW TO MAKE IT MUCH EASIER TO UNDERSTAND.

 

@Insider Here is a link to purchase A Dictionary of English Numismatic Terms by Manville, commonly referred to as 'The Glossary.'

https://www.amazon.co.uk/Encyclopaedia-British-Irish-Numismatics-Dictionary/dp/1907427368

The term porosity is still very much current - an indication of how much you interact with others in the trade, and yes, I am implying that alloy has leeched due to environmental damage.

No insults, no jibes... just fact (which you refer to as 'fluff'). I'm not going to engage you further as it is clear that you are just into spewing insults. I stand very much by what I said, and you haven't actually brought anything to the table to discredit that, other than your opinion. I will say that you have much to learn though...

 

norantyki, posted: "Here is a link to purchase A Dictionary of English Numismatic Terms by Manville, commonly referred to as 'The Glossary.'

https://www.amazon.co.uk/Encyclopaedia-British-Irish-Numismatics-Dictionary/dp/1907427368

The term porosity is still very much current - an indication of how much you interact with others in the trade (porosity, smoothing, etc. are all "fluff" terms THOSE IN THE TRADE use to obscure the actual condition of the coin. I prefer to use "corroded" and "fraudulently altered tooled surface" instead! What, not in that dictionary? )
and yes, I am implying that alloy has leeched due to environmental damage.

Why not just say the coin is CORRODED which is also more misinformation as it is NOT POROUS and NOT CORRODED.

That's just in MHO. Perhaps British chaps see things differently - including things that don't exist. I can only wonder how they describe a "lamination" which is also NOT present on the coin.

No insults, no jibes... just fact (which you refer to as 'fluff'). I'm not going to engage you further as it is clear that you are just into spewing insults. I stand very much by what I said, and you haven't actually brought anything to the table to discredit that, other than your opinion. I will say that you have much to learn though..."

There is a big difference between an insult and correcting misinformation in a sarcastic manner. I do have much to learn. Now that is something we can agree on. In fact, I'm going to buy a copy of that book for my library! Thanks for the link.

BTW, as a young professional numismatist, I actually met "Harry" (Mr. Manville to me when we first met) when he lived in DC. We used him on occasion as a consultant. I knew he was a British numismatics scholar yet never knew of any of his publications. Nevertheless:

AFAIK, this is the U S of A and CT is located in the U S of A. We won the war. What goes on in Great Britain is interesting and I agree that it is best to do in England what the English do. While Mr. Manville was (RIP) a respected numismatist who has undoubtedly contributed more to BRITISH NUMISMATICS than I will ever do; I prefer that his definitions of numismatic terms don't corrupt those of the U.S. of A. You see, they do/say things differently across the pond like pooping in a "loo." Additionally, if that malarkey (non-homogeneous alloys = porosity) you posted about metallurgy is a direct quote from "the glossary," I feel sorry for British collectors.

 

"The United States and Great Britain are two countries separated by a common language." -George Bernard Shaw

 

Ignorance is not a form of knowledge. You are not the only professional numismatist on there, young or old. You should read back through this conversation think about how pomp and name dropping are not forms of knowledge, nor have they really contributed anything to the initial discussion - you haven't corrected anything, you have simply presented your opinion as fact and tried to throw your weight around. The ridiculousness of your last paragraph is particularly astounding.

Its interesting that we were in principal agreed quite early on in this whole thread before you took some bizarre issue with a legitimate term you that obviously don't understand, derailed it with name-calling and self-indulgence.

 

Huh, quite amusing to see a newbie argue with a well respected US numismatist, that has been authenticating and grading coins for over 35 yrs.

Getting back on topic.
This could be construed as being off topic but I think it is relevant to the conversation.
Just looking at the no D and weak D variety's there is only 1 die pairing that has a strong reverse, and that is die pair #2.

The dies were pretty bad this year, I can't imagine that if 3 of the 4 weak or no D variety's had weak reverses that the 22 with D was any different.
http://www.lincolncentresource.com/1922Ddievarieties.html

 

Totally agree; one side safe and snug, the other side getting,... all to'up.

 

I haven't seen anyone say so yet, but one clue that seems common sense is that all of those pennies for a lot of years, featured the exact-same reverse. Those reverse dies was rode hard, through the Wilson Administration, Pres. Harding and his parsimonious successor, Coolidge; rode hard and not put out to pasture until so far past their prime, it was stupid.

 

"Ignorance is not a form of knowledge." We say it differently over here. Ignorance is a lack of knowledge. Saying a piece of metal is porous and laminated when it is not is ah, misleading a bunch of collectors with the same amount of "knowledge" as you have demonstrated.

You brought up the "glossary." I said that definition was partially NUTS! We still don't know if you quoted from it exactly or added your personal "nonsensical filler."

Words mean something. Did you look up "Lamination?" I wonder what that is defined as in "the glossary."

As for name dropping...how's this

President Obama
Sonny Liston
Elizabeth Taylor
Elvis Presley
Doug

Oh, and Her Royal Majesty Queen Elizabeth!

 

Hail Doug

 

22D's are well known for BOTH obverse and reverse weakness. They overused BOTH dies during production.

I agree with Insider, the reverse was very weak to start and it somehow was exposed to more reverse wear than the obverse.

I grade 22D's using both sides but weighting my grade more based on the side with the best die state.

 

I appreciate everyone's input. Thanks!