That too. I wasn't familiar with this coin. When I found it, I picked it up and just put it in my shirt pocket. I louped it when got home and noticed the initials were gone. I knew it couldn't be that great of a find, because if it were, I would have read at least a thousand threads about it on here, so I Googled it. I was quite surprised with what I found, including threads on Coin Talk. Many start with the argument that it's a filled die and others say it was left off the die. I wouldn't know, I wasn't there. What I do know from my limited research, is it is listed in Cherry Pickers as FS-901.
It can't be left off the die, as it's part of the hub that's used to make the die. It would be like leaving off Lincoln's bow tie. It's probably an overpolished die, which would also explain the floating rooftop.
I agree. The floating roof is a dead giveaway. A filled die, as in the 22 no D, is considered a veriety, but an over polished die is an error or should be. I read a lot of arguments for both on this one. I noticed the mint mark on this coin wasn't struck square with the surface. In fact the bottom of the D almost doesn't show, so that would, or could be a marker for this coin. I saw photos of others that in fact, did look like a partially filled die, showing a very weak FG, but no floating roof. I'm thinking, from what I've seen and read, is that there are 2 types out there, one being an error, the other a veriety. Am I wrong?
You have a couple things backward here. The 1922 No D is a result of a worn and polished die, and is considered a die variety, as are other coins struck from dies that have been effectively changed by preparation, wear, and/or maintenance. A filled die is when mint schmutz finds it way into the recesses of the die and the coin is struck through the schmutz, resulting in the design element being missing. As this is not in the die itself, it is considered a striking error, much as if the coin had been struck through a wire, sawdust, or schmutz not precisely filling a design element. Perhaps, but there were many other obverses in use for 69-D, all of which had the mint mark punched by hand, so there are probably others with the bottom of the D weak. This still was probably a polished die, just not as heavily polished as the OP coin, and wouldn't really be considered either a variety or an error. A filled die leaves a different look on the coin, as the schmutz interferes with the way the luster is supposed to look on a struck coin. Take a look at the 1921-D VAM 1A or 1921-S VAM 9A on VAMWorld and you see this funny, mushy shadow of the missing letters. These used to be listed in the VAM catalog as varieties, but this practice has been discontinued, as they have been acknowledged as being striking errors.
