Reply to Thread

Message:: [QUOTE="Insider, post: 2540734, member: 24314"]Thanks!  <img src="styles/default/xenforo/clear.png" class="mceSmilieSprite mceSmilie11" alt=":rolleyes:" unselectable="on" unselectable="on" /> 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 <img src="styles/default/xenforo/clear.png" class="mceSmilieSprite mceSmilie87" alt=":sorry:" unselectable="on" unselectable="on" />; 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. <img src="styles/default/xenforo/clear.png" class="mceSmilieSprite mceSmilie3" alt=":(" unselectable="on" unselectable="on" />  Then, like it or not, a "standard" was set.[/QUOTE]