69-D No FG Cent FS-901

You'd be surprised how much I agree with you- I was going to take that slant, but chose to advocate for what is at least possibly a collectible variety- AND differentiate it from the worthless crap like the '69D, common bies and die chips as well as small cracks and the junk we can both agree is worthless.

I've got a 1964 DDR FS-802 1c. in EDS that's incredible. It's pictured by Jason Culivier in a recent edition of DVN. Early Die States are an underdeveloped market, I anticipate they'll eventually bring several times the value of MDS examples for the most impressive. Our hobby is constantly evolving and maturing. I hope I'll live to see the day that the significance of die states is universally recognized.

I couldn't agree more. The hype associated with these is just absolutely absurd. They are a curiosity at best. I'd be thrilled if someone gave me $3 for it, much less $300.

That's exactly why my '22 Plain slot will remain forever empty, unless against all odds I find one roll searching. Even then, I'd probably sell that one to fill some other holes or maybe get a nice '55 DDO!

I should send my coin to PCGS and see if I can get a "No Lincoln" designation. Wonder how much I could get for this? If initials are worth $300, how much is a missing Lincoln worth?

I've designated this one as 1969-S SD-001:

You cannot have it both ways - grease filled or abraded away (and I disagree with the grease filled theory - I think they were all abraded away), the point here and the hinging fact is that these dies DID have the initials on them at one time, and that is cause to say that NONE of these are die varieties in any shape or form. Remember that die varieties had their anomaly when the die was first put into use.

They are also not 'varieties' because that is an intended change in the coin's design - like the aforementioned RDV coins.

These are a simple case of abraded dies - same as the 1922 no D and the 3-legged Buffalo nickel. While these do gain marketability, their marketability is based on lack of knowledge and a complete misunderstanding as to their cause. With this to wit, I disagree with ALL of them and do not subscribe to their market values. Even as a publicly proclaimed expert in Lincoln cents and an online dealer in Lincoln cents I would never carry a 1922 'no D' cent because I think their value is completely ridiculous. My viewpoint on these 'missing initials' coins is exactly the same.

At the very most, these can be described as a very minor die error (something that develops on the die with use) and would be worth a buck or two as a curiosity if the world understood what caused them. But while we have collectors out there who have more money than sense and book authors who include stuff like this as valuable collectibles I must tolerate this as a reality in the market...but I don't have to subscribe to it.

That's pretty much why I disagree with the entire subject...because there are a few coins that with the right hype have gained enough value to WAY outweigh their like counterparts, and because they don't fit into the 'norm' they are mis-termed. When they are mis-termed, it muddies the waters of what the actual terminology (error, die vareity, variety) really means. All of them are very cut and dried and mean very specific things...but with authors and 'experts' alike allowing these terms to be used incorrectly without proper correction, it furthers the point at which the general majority of the collecting public is actually properly educated and understands the process by which these are made and why some of them are much more common thus less valuable than others.

Calling these 'missing initials' coins varieties or die varieties is a misnomer and WILL confuse those who are actually trying to learn and use proper numismatic terminology.

It's the same thing as calling 1942/1 dimes "overdates" - they simply are NOT overdates. They are doubled dies...class 3, design hub doubled dies. The difference in the designs used - the date!

so if I am reading this correctly what we are seeing is not a variety but really a Late Die State not much diffrent than a Cud but more likely to be on more coins than a Cud
just tring to learn thanks for all of this info

Yotie - Cuds don't just happen because of worn dies. They are broken dies, which can possibly happen very early in the die's life - just matters what happens to them. They are far more scarce than worn out dies or over abraded dies. They are actually collectible errors.

So far as how they are classified, you are correct - Cuds are die errors just like broken dies and die clashes, and if you want to consider them collectible, die cracks, chips, and over-abraded dies. All of these things are alike in that they develop on dies after they are hung to mint coins.

I've read this thread twice and I am confused. So the 69D no FG SHOULD NOT be a variety, but the 88P no FG or Lincon SHOULD be a variety?

I am confused on how that makes any sense. Weren't they both caused by the same thing? Die polishing?

Or did I miss the whole point and the debate is why is the 69D listed in TPG and the 88P is not?

I remarked on the ridiculous prices a silly non-error coin that appears in the Cherrypicker's guide (69D No FG)
I contend that this coin is very common, just not commonly slabbed, therefore with artificially low certified population, which in combination with the demand of FS varieties in PCGS Registry sets has caused sky high market values for a coin that shouldn't be considered collectible.
I've contended that this variety (69D) is caused by a die Struck Through Grease. I've got coins in about 3 or 4 different stages of missing FG, indicating to me that the initials were clogged my dust and grease. This is fashion in which a Dropped Letter error is created. Yes, in my photo there are die polish lines. But when I searched a couple of dozen BU 69D rolls and came up with over a dozen of these coins, I saw that there were several different dies, each with different die markers.....I sent one coin in to PCGS and it slabbed as FS-901 MS-63RD, sent a second in and it was designated as FS-901 MS-64RD. Then I sent a half dozen and PCGS refused to attribute any of them, even though they were precisely the same coins from the same dies that they already attributed.

Later in the thread someone mentioned the 88P with missing FG and Lincoln missing from inside the Memorial.
It is my own opinion that this is a [more] collectible variety, as the missing detail was physically removed from the die my overpolishing, not just clogged with gunk. In a recent conversation with Ken Potter, he expressed interest in the 88P missing FG. He's examined it, he owns examples and considers it worthy of inclusion in the next edition of the Cherrypicker's guide. I'm not simply dropping names, just simply trying to show that I'm not some crazy with silly views.