Darn '22 No D And '55 DDO. Or, What Is A LWC Set?

Great idea!

I would buy several of those. Any entrepreneurs out there looking for an entry point?

This exact debate was going on when I was in high school 50 years ago. It will never change.

Side note: KenKat, thanks for that link to your 7100. You have a good eye for finding very attractive coins. That's a beautiful collection.

KenKat, that sounds like a good plan. As I noted, the set just looks really nice the way it is. I don't think anyone would quibble over the condition of that 1914-D. It looks good, and as you say, UNC is crazy at this point. Also, thanks for the encouragement to tell the tale on mine. It's a very humble set compared to yours, but it's been a lot of fun.

You could just have wheatchaser140 draw you a '22...





Or you could do something funny like put in a tiny round picture of a gold $, or a frown face. Maybe a Smiley face with $$ eyes, and a frown...

I would if the prices weren't insanely high. The prices for both are disproportionate based on marketplace availability. You can buy these 24/7 in quite a few places like the SVDB.

Now, compare the prices for those versus a MS-67 1909 VDB (~$1000 coin). How often do you see a 67 VDB in the market?

I agree with most who have commented, the basic set is complete without either coin. The same way, a Flying Eagle "set," small as it is, doesn't need an 1856 since that was a pattern and not part of the coins made for the public.

It seems evident from all the comments above that thoughtful and experienced collectors make different, and equally valid, decisions on this issue. With regard to the albums, it would be interesting to interview the person or the committee who makes these decisions. Regarding Dansco, if I am observing correctly, either the 7100 or the equivalent combination of 7103 and 8102 include the 1922 Plain, 1960 and 1960D large and small dates, 1970S small date, and all the 1982 date permutations. Notably, the 1955 DDO is *not* included, nor are any of the other doublings or OMM coins. I'm guessing that the rather obvious reason is that dates are varieties and the others are not, but that's more a question than a statement. To my inexpert observation, the term "variety" is somewhat slippery. At any rate, there may be a practical side to this, as the date variations seem to be fewer and easier to define, while doubling and mint mark issues open the floodgates to an much larger and much harder to define set of coins. That brings us back to the 1922 Plain, which stands out, in least in Dansco terms, as sort of an outlier in that it seems to be more error than variety, but there's the port (the word they use more elegantly than "hole"!) (Let me interject here that I'm no expert, I'm just an interested observer, and I invite both discussion and correction of things I'm saying incorrectly.) Again, if I had to guess, going from the little I know about the events of 1922, I would speculate that they would assert that when the mint workers actually worked on the die and removed the D, that became more a variety than an error. The ANACS practice of only calling Die Pair 2 a "No D" coin would seem to be in harmony with this approach. (As one might guess, I'm deriving most of my background information here from the excellent essay on the 1922 coins at The Lincoln Cent Resource.)

Bottom line: at this moment, I'm going to relieve myself of the obligation to secure the dreadfully expensive 1955 DDO, even though it remains one of my favorite coins. But if I can find a 1922 No D at anything resembling a reasonable price, I might jump for that. Of course that leaves the 1970S small date as an issue for another day, because I have this funny habit of feeling squeamish about paying substantial prices for coins that were minted when I was already of drinking age.

Again, let me footnote that I presume no expertise. Just looking for enlightenment.