THAT'S a "2." I just verified with my 1927 Lincoln - the space between the top of the last digit and the vertical stem (term?) of its lower half are simply too close for it to be a "7," in my opinion. Of course, that means you have either a 1922 weak (really weak) "D" or a 1922 "plain." If a few other posters here agree with my opinion on the date, I'd say you should try and get it verified by a third party grader. Of course, the piece is corroded, so it won't be encapsulated, but it least try to get it authenticated by a TPG.
Eno, maybe the base was corroded away - the top just looks too curved to be a "7," and the middle section of that last digit curves to the left far too close to the top of the digit to be a "7," as I see it. I held a 1927 up to the photo (which I enlarged), and the photo looks nothing like my 1927. Just my thoughts....
That is a 1927. There is no way that is a 1922. It is obviously not a weak reverse because your reverse is way too well struck. It is not a strong reverse because your obverse has none of the characteristics for die #2. Aside from all of that, your "7" just does not look like a 2.
It is still not a 2. If you want to ask if someone has played with the 7, that is entirely possible, but it is kind of hard to tell the difference between an accidental nick on that coin and where someone has played with it.
