69-D No FG Cent FS-901

That's exactly it. As you can see, the initials weren't on the die when the coin was struck, there's absolutely no traces of them.

Coop, your facts are exactly what I've attempted to convey. A portion of die detail can't be "left off" in the production of the die. These are die variations which occur after the die goes into production.

We agree on facts, now to opinions. It's a little harsh to condemn someone's interest in the same type error as the 3 legged buffalo. Simply an abraded die. Yes, it happens commonly. BUT please look at the photos- with the naked eye Lincoln is entirely gone. Yes- it was polished off. But then this die went on to produce examples of something that the mint didn't intend. If this specific die were noticed by QC at the mint (yeah I know it's an oxymoron)- the die would have been pulled from production.

There are indeed many, many worthless "errors" which the inexperienced attempt to promote with catchy names. But let's not discount everything. To do so would invalidate the 3 Legged Buffalo, the '36-D 3 1/2 legged which brings over a thousand $, all of the 2 feather varieties of Buffalos, the 45P No AW Half, all of the NO FG Half varieties........


<<edited by the Staff. Please review the rules you agreed to when joining.>> I say this because the coin has been a recent topic of conversation with a couple of different well known figures in the field. We can agree to disagree, but I've got enough confidence to hold my breath. Let's see what 2 years from now brings. I'd wager a friendly bet that it'll gain more acceptance than one might think.

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