69-D No FG Cent FS-901

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.