The Crack-Out Game: Hunting Upgrades on the 1922 No D Cent Varieties

Introduction: When the Plastic Holds the Coin Back

Sometimes the plastic holder is holding the coin back. Let’s talk about the risks and rewards of trying to upgrade this piece across grading services. As a professional “crack-out artist,” I spend my days staring through acrylic, trying to determine if the coin inside is truly graded accurately—or if it’s a victim of third-party grading inconsistencies.

Few coins present a more fascinating—and frustrating—challenge in the crossover game than the 1922 Lincoln Cents. These pieces sit at the intersection of die failure, minting chaos, and collector obsession.

Recently, a fascinating discussion erupted on the Collectors Universe forums regarding the definitive varieties of the 1922 cent. Tom DeLorey, a leading researcher, is compiling a comprehensive article on the 1922-D, “No D,” and “Weak D” varieties. While his research focuses on die states, minting mechanics, and debunking long-held numismatic myths, his findings have massive implications for collectors holding these coins in third-party slabs.

If you are sitting on a 1922 cent in an NGC or PCGS holder, staring at that grade on the label, wondering if it’s worth the gamble to crack it out and resubmit—this guide is for you.

Understanding the 1922 Cent Varieties: A Brief Primer

To understand the crossover game, you must first understand what you are looking at. The 1922 cent is unique in the Lincoln series. It was the only year where the Denver Mint was the sole producer of cents, and the only year where the mint mark was largely obliterated on certain dies—creating the famous “No D” variety.

The Die Pair Hierarchy

There are several recognized die pairs for the 1922 No D. The most common is Die Pair 1, which features a strong reverse but a completely missing obverse mint mark. Die Pair 2 and 3 also exhibit missing or very weak mint marks.

However, it is Die Pair 4 that presents the most intriguing case for the crack-out artist.

Die Pair 4 is known as the “Weak D” variety. Unlike the others, it never fully loses the mint mark, but it is often so faint that it appears as a ghostly smear. As Tom DeLorey points out, this die is frequently overlooked because it doesn’t present the dramatic “No D” appeal. Yet it is the key to understanding the true nature of the Denver Mint’s die failure in 1922.

The “Lobes” of Die Pair 4

One of the most critical diagnostic features for Die Pair 4 is the presence of die deterioration “lobes” beneath Lincoln’s lapel. In late die state, these lobes are greatly exaggerated—looking like blobs of metal flowing downward. In early die state, they are absent entirely.

If you are looking to crossover a coin, identifying the specific die state is crucial. A late die state with heavy lobes might grade lower due to apparent “softness” of strike—even if the surface is pristine. Conversely, an early die state with sharp, well-defined features might be a strong candidate for a grade bump.

The Crossover Strategy: NGC to PCGS

When we talk about “crossovers,” we are referring to the practice of cracking a coin out of one grading service’s holder and submitting it to another—hoping for the same grade or an upgrade. For the 1922 cent varieties, the most common crossover attempt is moving from NGC to PCGS, or vice versa.

Why Attempt a Crossover?

The reasons are straightforward: population reports, price guides, and market liquidity. PCGS generally holds a slight edge in liquidity and price premiums for Lincoln cents—especially in Mint State red designations.

If you have an NGC MS64RD and you believe it is a solid coin, cracking it out and submitting to PCGS might yield an MS65RD. That single grade jump could double the numismatic value of the coin overnight.

The Risks of the Crack-Out

However, the crack-out game is fraught with peril. Let’s break down the risks:

• The “No Grade” Risk: PCGS might look at a coin that NGC graded MS64 and decide it doesn’t meet their standards for any grade—returning it as “No Grade” (NG) for cleaning, environmental damage, or questionable color. You are now left with a raw coin and a wasted submission fee.
• The Downgrade: The most common outcome. You crack an NGC MS65 to chase a PCGS MS65, and PCGS calls it an MS64. You’ve now lost time, money, and the coin is sitting in a lower-tier holder.
• Variety Attribution Discrepancies: This is huge for 1922 cents. NGC and PCGS do not always agree on the specific die pair attribution. If your coin is attributed as “Weak D” on the NGC label, but PCGS doesn’t recognize that specific die pair as a distinct variety, they might just label it “1922-D” without the variety—potentially affecting the population count and perceived rarity.
• Surface Damage: The act of cracking out a coin risks scratching it, or worse, dropping it. A raw cent on the floor is a tragedy no collector wants to experience.

Identing Undergraded Coins: The 1922-D Dilemma

While the “No D” coins get all the glory, the 1922-D is the true sleeper. With a mintage of just 7,160,000, it is the lowest mintage regular-issue Lincoln cent by year. Yet because it lacks the dramatic missing mint mark, it often trades at a steep discount to the No D varieties. That discrepancy is where opportunity lives.

The “Smearing” Effect

As researcher Pete noted in the forum, many 1922-D cents are “smearing” rather than missing the D. The dies were improperly hardened, leading to rapid deterioration. This creates a mushy, indistinct mint mark.

If you are hunting for an undergraded 1922-D, you need to look for coins where the “D” is faint but the surfaces are incredibly sharp. A coin with full, blazing luster but a weak D might be graded lower by a grader who mistakes the weak mint mark for actual wear on the coin. That’s a die characteristic—not a condition issue—and it’s costing collectors real money.

Clash Marks and Die Cracks

Tom DeLorey’s research into clash marks is vital here. He notes that he has yet to see a 1922-D cent with obverse clash marks—despite long-standing theories that the “No D” dies were ground down to remove clash marks. However, reverse clash marks do exist.

If you find a 1922-D with a reverse clash mark running from the bases of “CE” of CENT up to the “E” of E PLURIBUS UNUM, you have a coin in a specific die state. That kind of provenance adds collectibility and helps pin down exactly when your coin was struck.

Furthermore, the progression of die cracks on the reverse is a key grading marker:

1. The crack at 2 o’clock came first.
2. Then the big crack through the “O” of ONE.
3. Then the crack at 9 o’clock.
4. Allegedly, a fourth crack exists around 4-5 o’clock, though it is rarely seen.

If you can identify a coin in an early die state—lacking the later cracks—with full original luster, you might have a crossover candidate that is currently being penalized for “weakness” that is actually a die characteristic.

Debunking the Myths: Why the Dies Failed

Understanding the history of the dies helps you identify the coins. There are two major myths about the 1922 cents that need to be addressed, as they directly affect how the market values these coins.

Myth #1: The Mint Was Short on Dies

Some have claimed the Mint was short on dies, using them over and over. Tom DeLorey’s research debunks this. The Denver Mint was given ten obverse dies initially, and then ten more. Using 1920 averages, these 20 obverses should have been good for about 5,440,000 gross strikes. They made over 7,200,000.

This is clear overuse—not a shortage of dies. The Mint pushed the dies beyond their limits.

Myth #2: Peace Dollar Production Hurt the Cent

Another myth is that the Mint was busy making Peace dollars, so cent production suffered. DeLorey points out that all three mints were cranking out cents, and the Denver Mint had enough dies. The real reason the Denver Mint struck cents in 1922—and the other mints did not—is tied to the broader economic conditions of the time.

The Real Cause: Improper Hardening

The consensus among researchers is that the dies were improperly hardened. As one forum member noted, if a die isn’t hardened correctly, more of the die’s surface goes away during final polishing. The mint mark, which isn’t struck as deep as the date, is the first thing to disappear.

When put into the press, rapid die deterioration mushes out the design and finishes off the mint mark entirely. This explains the “smearing” effect and the “lobes” under Lincoln’s lapel. It’s not a minting defect—it’s a metallurgical failure.

Actionable Takeaways for the Collector

So, should you crack out your 1922 cent? Here is my professional advice as a crack-out artist:

• Do Not Crack Out High-Grade Coins for Minor Upgrades: If you have an MS65RD, the risk of a downgrade to MS64RD is not worth the small chance of an MS66RD. The value difference is simply too high, and the eye appeal required for that top pop grade is rare.
• Target the “Solid for Grade” Coins: Look for coins graded MS63 or MS64 that have exceptional eye appeal. If the luster is booming and the surfaces are clean with an attractive patina, they might cross at the same grade—or even upgrade.
• Focus on Die State: If you can identify an early die state Die Pair 4 with sharp features and no heavy cracking, you might have a coin that is significantly undervalued in its current holder.
• Check for Clash Marks: A 1922-D with a documented reverse clash mark might be a strong candidate for resubmission—especially if you can get it attributed correctly and tie it to a specific die state.
• Beware of “Wood Grain” Toning: As one collector noted, some 1922-D cents exhibit beautiful wood-grain toning. While visually striking, this toning can sometimes mask underlying weakness or damage. Make sure the toning is not hiding a cleaning or other surface issue before you invest in a resubmission.

Conclusion: The Enduring Appeal of the 1922 Cent

The 1922 cent—whether it be the dramatic No D, the subtle Weak D, or the underrated 1922-D—remains one of the most fascinating issues in Lincoln numismatics. The research being done by Tom DeLorey and others is shedding new light on the exact mechanisms of die failure, debunking decades of numismatic folklore, and giving collectors the tools to truly understand what they are holding.

As a crack-out artist, I see the plastic holder as both a protector and a barrier. It shields the coin from the elements, but it also freezes its identity at a specific moment in time. For the 1922 cent, that identity is often tied to a specific die state and a set of die characteristics that are still being fully understood by the hobby.

If you are going to play the crossover game, do your homework. Study the die pairs. Look for the lobes under the lapel. Check for the progression of die cracks. And most importantly—know when to leave the coin in the plastic. Sometimes, the best upgrade is the one you don’t attempt.

Related Resources

You might also find these related articles helpful:

• Emergency Money: Wartime Coinage, Metal Rationing, and the Survival of History’s Most Desperate Strikes – Introduction: When War Changed the Mint During times of global conflict, mints had to adapt quickly. This piece represen…
• Building a Winning PCGS/NGC Registry Set with 1922 Cent Varieties: Die States, Pop Reports, and the Hunt for Top Pops – Introduction: The Registry Set Phenomenon and the 1922 Cent If you’ve ever spent a late night tweaking a registry …
• Branch Mint Chronicles: How Carson City, San Francisco, and New Orleans Shaped the Coins We Love – I’ve always believed where a coin was struck matters just as much as when. That simple truth has fueled my obsessi…