1922 No D question

It has been said that the cause of a true No-D variety was heavy polishing
of clashed dies. However, if that is the case, in order to completely
obliterate the mint mark from the die, the polisher would of had to create a
depression in the die (remember what's raised on a coin is a depression on
the die) that was slightly deeper and slightly larger all around than the
mint mark punched into the die to begin with. If this die is then applied to
a planchet in a press, metal should flow into the depression polished into
the die and create a mound or bump on the coin where the mint mark would of
been.

Now my only experience with a 22 No-D has been Ira's excellant photos in his
eBay auctions, but even in those photos I seen no evidence of any raised
metal where the D would of been. Is there any indication of a raised mound
on No-D coins that just isn't evident in photos.

My jist of the post is the question "Is the die clash, heavy polish scenario
a known documented fact from that era, or simply the best story made up to
come up with the resultant coins we see now?"

Unless the entire die was equally polished away to the same depth or close
to it, I think there should be a noticably raised area where the mint mark
would of been.

Is there more to the story that what is written about? (my reference book is
David Lange's "Lincoln Cents").

David Lanphear

On Sat, 13 Dec 2003 19:30:56 GMT, "David Lanphear"
wrote:

Is there more to the story that what is written about? (my reference book is
David Lange's "Lincoln Cents").

I read somewhere, years ago, that it was the result of a filled die.

"David Lanphear" APS applies God given reasoning
to a situation and comes up with....

It has been said that the cause of a true No-D variety was heavy polishing of
clashed dies...... If this die is then applied to a planchet in a press, metal
should flow into the depression polished into the die and create a mound or
bump on the coin where the mint mark would of been.

And it's exactly this kind of flawed urban legend that just keeps swirling
around and around ad barfinitum, because no one takes the time to critically
reason it through on even a cursory level, because either of course no one
knows, but feels compelled to blurt out something, or they're just plain stupid
or.....no one wants to challenge anyone with numismatic good intentions. Rude,
you know.....

I have asked a couple times about the flawed "accepted" logic that purports to
explain the 1800 bust dollar variety with "AMERICAI" on it. Supposedly the "I"
was a vestige of an extra "A". Not only is this absurd re the part about an
extra A (as if making a die is akin to stuttering with voice or a pen and
paper), but the I in no way, lays in the same context as any part of an extra A
would lay. Yet with all the bust collectors here on RCC, I've never gotten a
rational response.

Fortunately, such hooey isn't always the case. I have posted here a couple of
times as to why the VDB on the Lincoln cent was "all over the map" between the
wheat stalks and how could quality control at the time allow that. Other than
being told that there were a number of different obverse dies used, no one
seems to be able to answer.

My jist of the post is the question "Is the die clash, heavy polish scenario a
known documented fact from that era, or simply the best story made up to come
up with the resultant coins we see now?"

I wouldn't call it best anything, unless it left out the part about grinding
the mm concave to the surface, refilling it with weld, then grinding smooth,
which of course would continue to speak volumes for the already errant or
absent QC at the US Mint, but at least would make some sort of sense.

Always here for my fellow syngraphist or oenophile.
--=*=----=*=----=*=----=*=----=*=----=*=----=*=----=*=----=*=----=*=--

David Lamphere wrote:

It has been said that the cause of a true No-D variety was heavy polishing
of clashed dies. However, if that is the case, in order to completely
obliterate the mint mark from the die, the polisher would of had to create a
depression in the die (remember what's raised on a coin is a depression on
the die) that was slightly deeper and slightly larger all around than the
mint mark punched into the die to begin with. If this die is then applied to
a planchet in a press, metal should flow into the depression polished into
the die and create a mound or bump on the coin where the mint mark would of
been.

Now my only experience with a 22 No-D has been Ira's excellant photos in his
eBay auctions, but even in those photos I seen no evidence of any raised
metal where the D would of been. Is there any indication of a raised mound
on No-D coins that just isn't evident in photos.

My jist of the post is the question "Is the die clash, heavy polish scenario
a known documented fact from that era, or simply the best story made up to
come up with the resultant coins we see now?"

Unless the entire die was equally polished away to the same depth or close
to it, I think there should be a noticably raised area where the mint mark
would of been.

Is there more to the story that what is written about? (my reference book is
David Lange's "Lincoln Cents").

David Lanphear


That would be correct if the Denver boys had only polished out the mintmark
area. Instead, they polished the entire face of the obverse die, lowering the
strength of the design and rendering it shallow and devoid of very fine detail.
That's why the obverse always seeems about 15 points or so lower than the
actual grade and the 1922 No Ds are graded mostly by the reverse, as the
obverse always looks weak!

Good qestion, however, David.



Ira Stein

ospam (Ira Stein) adds...

Instead, they polished the entire face of the obverse die, lowering the
strength of the design and rendering it shallow and devoid of very fine
detail.

Any ideas as to what sort of logic would direct the D boys to grind an entire
die face below the level of a mm just because of a die clash?

Always here for my fellow syngraphist or oenophile.
--=*=----=*=----=*=----=*=----=*=----=*=----=*=----=*=----=*=----=*=--

Vector wrote:

I read somewhere, years ago, that it was the result of a filled die.


The only ANA recognized 1922 No D is the result of obverse die polishing, which
not only removed the die clash marks on Denver's only remaining obverse die,
but ground down much of the detail in the obverse design as well as obliterated
the already shallow impression of the mintmark. These are from Die Pair 2 only.


The coins called by PCGS 1922 No D Weak reverse, however, are the result of
filled dies. These are manifested in Die Pairs 1 & 3 and both have weak
reverses, the Die Pair 3 especially so. In my opinion, these are all weak D
variants, just diferent degrees of weakness.

The Die Pair 2 is the Holy Grail for Lincoln Cent collectors, particularly in
higher grades.



Ira Stein

Jim wrote:
ospam (Ira Stein) adds...


Instead, they polished the entire face of the obverse die, lowering the

strength of the design and rendering it shallow and devoid of very fine
detail.

Any ideas as to what sort of logic would direct the D boys to grind an entire
die face below the level of a mm just because of a die clash?


They wanted it even?

Mark adds....

They wanted it even?

Yeah, I know, but I was being more than slightly facetious.

Why didn't they use a second set of dies and if they didn't have one, why not?

Or why not an overall grind of just the field (and fonts) in the obverse,
ramping up to but not including, not the vignette?

I'll bet if I (read - anyone) did the math, I'd find that the height of the
mintmark exceeded most of the detail on Lincolns puss and the overall grinding
of the entire obverse, was in fact a willy-nilly, though metered, grinding hack
job instead.

Always here for my fellow syngraphist or oenophile.
--=*=----=*=----=*=----=*=----=*=----=*=----=*=----=*=----=*=----=*=--

Jim Stonefeel wrote:

ospam (Ira Stein) adds...

Instead, they polished the entire face of the obverse die, lowering the
strength of the design and rendering it shallow and devoid of very fine
detail.

Any ideas as to what sort of logic would direct the D boys to grind an entire
die face below the level of a mm just because of a die clash?

Always here for my fellow syngraphist or oenophile.

Sure, Jim. I'm not the 1922 No D Answerman for nothing!

Denver was close to the end of their production run with a couple of thousand
coins to go when the clash occurred. They wired the Philadelphia Mint and asked
if they could ship out a new 1922 obverse die. Philly answered that they were
too busy with winding up production of the 1922 Peace Dollars and had no time
to prepare a new die. The Denver Mint was told to just make the best of it with
what they had. Thus the heavy die polishing to remove the clash marks. Denver
had plenty of reverse dies but no more obverse dies on hand, you see.



Ira Stein

You'll see that the portion of Lincoln's chest nearest the date shows
reduced detail, also worn down (or "up", from the coin's perspective)
by the die polishing that removed the "D". This evidence of polishing
over a greater area explains why no visible mound would exist.
Besides, I wouldn't expect a polishing that removed a die clash and a
mintmark to create a visible-to-the-naked eye increase in thinkness.

--Chris S

"David Lanphear" wrote:
It has been said that the cause of a true No-D variety was heavy polishing
of clashed dies. However, if that is the case, in order to completely
obliterate the mint mark from the die, the polisher would of had to create a
depression in the die (remember what's raised on a coin is a depression on
the die) that was slightly deeper and slightly larger all around than the
mint mark punched into the die to begin with. If this die is then applied to
a planchet in a press, metal should flow into the depression polished into
the die and create a mound or bump on the coin where the mint mark would of
been.

Now my only experience with a 22 No-D has been Ira's excellant photos in his
eBay auctions, but even in those photos I seen no evidence of any raised
metal where the D would of been. Is there any indication of a raised mound
on No-D coins that just isn't evident in photos.

My jist of the post is the question "Is the die clash, heavy polish scenario
a known documented fact from that era, or simply the best story made up to
come up with the resultant coins we see now?"

Unless the entire die was equally polished away to the same depth or close
to it, I think there should be a noticably raised area where the mint mark
would of been.

Is there more to the story that what is written about? (my reference book is
David Lange's "Lincoln Cents").