Question On 1922-D Lincoln

Sounds like a debate is ensuing here. My 1922 plain IS a weak reverse and I qualify it as a official "NO D" coin. It is NOT a worn D as there are specific characteristics that qualify the die pair used as a no D. Just look at the PSGS, the have certified many no D weak reverse coins.

As far as "no such thing as a weak D" I say BAH. I have one such example and they are well accepted by Lincoln collectors. Take a look at mine:

https://goccf.com/t/21113

Clearly, this is a true "weak D" example because of the strong reverse. If the faded D was caused by wear, the reverse on this coin, for example, would have no lines left on the wheat heads because the mint mark on Lincoln's are pretty resistant to wear. If you've examined enough Lincoln's, you'd know the wear order and the weak D defies all that logic. It's purely die wear.

Some more info on these:

http://www.coinworld.com/news/072803/bw_0728.asp

http://www.stanford.edu/~clint/q/1922nod.htm

Direct mention of the "weak D":
http://www.lincolncentresource.com/...rieties.html

quote:

---

Ok Thad, than why are no D's with a weak reverse so inexpensive and no D strong reverses many factors more in price? If it is the result of a worn die why the difference in cost? Help!

---

Because the strong reverse (Die 2) is more highly sought after by collectors. If you can buy the Die 4 (see last link) for $35 you better jump all over it because that's a fantastic price IMO. Mine is a Die 4 and I'd NEVER sell it for anything close to that. While it might not be as desired by most collectors, I RARELY ever see a Die 4 no D coin ANYWHERE. I contend that it exists in far lower numbers than the Die 2 because it was not hoarded by collectors and the general public/casual collector tossed it aside as a worn piece of junk. Looks can be deceiving!

Another funny thing, I don't like how these are graded. The entire grading scale should be tossed out the window IMO for these. Think about it, and I'm happy to argue this with anyone, this is purely theoretical:

When a coin comes out of the mint, totally unworn, we classify it between MS60-MS70. Now, here comes the 1922 D Lincoln Cent....straight out of the mint and into a collectors hands. It has absolutely NO WEAR from handling. Send it to any grading service and it will come back from G - XF. That's bull IMO because THERE IS NO WEAR. Now, I do understand we can't change the grading scale to accomodate a single series....but I don't have to agree with that in this case. I contend that my Die 4 is MS65 because it has no circulation wear....hehehehehehehe.

"If you can buy the Die 4 (see last link) for $35 you better jump all over it because that's a fantastic price IMO. Mine is a Die 4 and I'd NEVER sell it for anything close to that. While it might not be as desired by most collectors, I RARELY ever see a Die 4 no D coin ANYWHERE"

You aren't kidding Thad. Harlan J Beck had one on his website this morning. I called them to buy it and it was gone! At least he still had a nice, almost F-12 1909-S that I did buy. The competition for these on ebay is fierce and I have been sniped out of every 1909-S I have bid on the last two weeks. Tom and Laura both told me that demand for Lincoln cents in the better dates is very strong. Thanks for the education! Guess I will keep looking for a no D weak reverse to fill that hole. Leave it to me to finish my set when interest in wheaties is so strong.

quote:

---

Ok Thad, than why are no D's with a weak reverse so inexpensive and no D strong reverses many factors more in price? If it is the result of a worn die why the difference in cost? Help!

---

'No D's with the Weak Reverse are NOT inexpensive by any means. It just so happens that the Strong Reverse does command more. I think you might be confusing the price difference between a NO D and a WEAK D.

quote:

---

I saw a No D weak reverse on their website yesterday for around 40 dollars.

---

What I'm telling you though is that $40 is waaaaaay under priced for a true No D, even with the Weak Reverse. Check Heritage closing prices. At that price it had to have been a "Weak D", as opposed to a No D with Weak Reverse.

I'm not arguing. I'm just giving you my opinion. Sometimes the D on a Weak D are so faint there's no way it will appear on a picture, unless it's one of those ultra high res pictures commonly used for errors. Either that, or it was a once in a lifetime buying opportunity.