Good morning everyone! I have been learning lots of things in my new job, so I haven't been around as much lately. I miss you all so much! I have a discussion for the experts. The 1922 No D coin is unlike any other US coi8n in that you can't reliably grade them by the obverse. I have a 1922-D Lincoln Cent that appears to have the opposite problem. It has a strong obverse and a horribly weak reverse. I suppose that the reverse was struck through something and that could account for the mushy strike, but due to the nature of the Mint in 1922 and the overuse of dies, is it possible that this coin is not struck through and just an overused reverse?
This appears to be PMD to me - its just had a hard life / possibly sat on a riverbed or something allowing the rev to wear disproportionately to the obv.
Looks like the reverse was worn a lot more than the obverse. Looks VF20 on the obv, and AG3 on the reverse. I'd grade it around VG8 overall. But it's a problem coin. Might not receive a straight grade if sent in.
which is precisely why I am asking the question. This date is notorious for weak obverses and strong reverses, so I find it odd that this coin is the opposite. as far as the reverse being PMD, I can't imagine how you can wear down one side of the coin without affecting the other. The details were likely different as they are now when struck
The 1922'S were notorious for extremely weak strikes and strong .Don't think its damage or just worn down and I agree with 75'S grading assessment.
The rev is actually notorious for having strong strikes. Its the obverse that is notorious for weak strikes. As for how it can wear down on one side only, it happens. There are plenty of ways it can happen. Like one side gets damaged really bad and it gets re-worn down. Or it spent some time in a dryer, if you've ever seen a dryer coin. One side stays normal/intact, and the other gets worn down. Then if it gets back in circulation, it gets worn down even more so you can't tell it was once in a dryer. The other side looks less worn. Thats just one scenario I can thought of.
A lot of 22-Ds came with weak reverses. This one graded PCGS 63BN. Looking at the OP’s coin one will notice clash marks on the reverse indicating extensive die wear (like on this PCGS coin). I do think the disparity on this coin is high enough to suggest uneven wear, but these dies could vary VERY widely, not just on 1922-D, but on almost all branch mint Lincolns from the 1920s. Here’s a 1921-S I have showing extensive reverse die wear:
I think the porosity of the reverse, and the fact that the coin doesn't retain an original patina speak to this being uneven wear / PMD. Although, granted, there are variations in the quality of strike of obv / rev, the aforementioned indicators, paired with the drastic difference between the two indicate that more is at play here than original strike quality.
Hey Mike this is my 22 weak D, and honestly I think it is die pair 3. The reverse on this one was struck in bad shape and not the result of uneven wear. It's a very close example of your coin.
GH#75, posted: "The rev is actually notorious for having strong strikes. Its the obverse that is notorious for weak strikes. As for how it can wear down on one side only, it happens. There are plenty of ways it can happen. Like one side gets damaged really bad and it gets re-worn down. Or it spent some time in a dryer, if you've ever seen a dryer coin. One side stays normal/intact, and the other gets worn down. Then if it gets back in circulation, it gets worn down even more so you can't tell it was once in a dryer. The other side looks less worn. Thats just one scenario I can thought of." No need to think of all the possibilities when three words describe why the reverse looks this way...VERY WORN DIE. norantyki, posted: "I think the porosity [??] of the reverse [look up the word you used], and the fact that the coin doesn't retain an original patina speak to this being uneven wear [A little of this is quite possible]/ PMD [No, worn dies and circulation wear are not PMD]. Although, granted, there are variations in the quality of strike of obv / rev, the aforementioned indicators, paired with the drastic difference between the two indicate that more is at play [] here than original strike quality.[Actually, if you study the images above you will see that nothing is involved except normal wear to a coin struck from a worn die]. Often a simple answer is the best and no more.
Mike, who knows how that reverse started out? With rare exceptions, they were all weakly struck. It looks to me like it was a mushy one from the start. The dies were way overused. To keep them in business, they were over-greased. And the quality control, it just wasn't there. Even the hubs and dies, themselves, weren't the best. Verdict from this juror, just normal wear over the bad strike. And on the grades, they cheat a little on these, and rightly-so, I think. Oh, and great to see you back, buddy!
Working and learning in a new job is tedious in itself, welcome back. Odd wear on your '22 D, good conversation piece, it's a keeper. Thanks for the post.
First of all, I'm not claiming to be any type of expert, but my very first impression is that it is uncommon wear on the reverse. Maybe a weak strike to begin with, but the appearance is definitely heavy wear. How? Who knows?
You are correct. The coin is worn. Unfortunately, when a coin is struck with very weak details (for whatever the reason) to begin with, a small amount of actual wear makes the coin look more worn that it actually is. That is a technicality as its commercial value depends on what it looks like. Example: Pricing a weakly struck Branch Mint Buffalo 5c in the 20's as a VG-F when it is technically a VF.
The fact that there's no great color disparity between the two sides suggests to me that the reverse was just much weaker than the obverse to begin with. I, too, would have graded it "back in the day" as VF/AG. When I say back in the day, I'm referring to the days before the use of Sheldon numbers.
Back when I was roll searching in the late 1950s/early '60s, I found a 1922 weak D. At the time, it fit at least one description of the characteristics of a 1922 "no D," so that's what I thought it was. It was very exciting to find, and it's one among many coins from my past that I wish I still had.
Ok, I am done beating around the bush... Why is everyone ignoring the porosity and the fact that this coin has clearly been improperly cleaned. It is damaged / unevenly worn, end of story. *Edit just to say, please go to page 2... we can all pull this in terms of dirty edits @Insider
norantyki, posted: "Ok, I am done beating around the bush... Why is everyone ignoring the porosity and the fact that this coin has clearly been improperly cleaned. It is damaged / unevenly worn, end of story." I see you have not looked up that word you have been misusing. Perhaps that is why it is being ignored. As for improper cleaning, the glare coming from the coin certainly looks that way. I guess it takes a real "ex-pert" to be able to tell. While any of us can see the "actual" damage near the reverse rim at 5 o'clock, the lower the grade of a coin, the more damage on it is ignored.