1793 Large Cent Fake or Unique?

This is currently posted on eBay and I suspect a fake. The reason? the border over the L shows dentilation rather than the beads and also evidence of dentilation right of Y. By far the most likely situation is a counterfeit by an engraver working from a worn 93 and a 94 or later for edges. But the detail is very good for the variety.

The alternative is far less likely, but this could be a unique early experiment with dentilation on the old S-5 Obverse die.

What do you guys think?

http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=370521645146

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

Tough call. If he didn't have a reserve and the other bidders thought it a fake and one could get it for a few hundred dollars, it might be worth it to find out. But, not at that price.
Guy

 

Since my attention has been drawn to the S-5, I have looked closely at the R and compared it to the R on other coins of 93 and 94. It appears to be unique itself with neither the long skinny tail of the Chains and the early Caps nor the more upright R of later caps. It has a thick tail going just past the curve of the top of the R. This lends some weight to the unlikely scenario of an experimental piece done contemporaneous with the minting of the Late 93 Caps. Perhaps the S-5 belongs at the end of the wreaths or even in the middle of the Caps of 93. Hmmm.

 

I would exercise extreme caution with this coin.

My reasons are similar, but slightly different, from Marshall's original post. I have concern with the die crumbling around the obverse rim.

Let's recall the conditions at the fledgling US Mint in 1793 were very primitive. They had poor die steel and very little experience making dies; thus, the dies had a distressing tendency to crumble and crack after very little use.

And here's the key issue...

Numismatists have long tracked and catalogued various stages of die breakage. Certain coins show the early die state (with few problems), some a middle die state (with some new problems, plus further deterioration of the first problems), and late die states.

According to Breen (and several photos I've checked), the eBay coin does NOT match any known die state.

In known S-5s (inluding Breen's plate coin), serious die crumbling occured over the obverse BER before die crumbling messed up the obverse beads between 1 o'clock and 3 o'clock. That's not what this coin shows.

That said, these pieces experienced a lot of difficulty both in minting and thereafter; obviously, the eBay piece has been hit pretty hard. It's quite possible the issues on the right obverse rim have nothing to do with die state but rather trauma of strike, planchet, or just 218 years of livin'. In that case, casual observation reveals nothing for me to call this one a fake.

Be careful !

 

It's quite possible. My guess is they were first.

One clue is the large letters of "LIBERTY" and numerals of "1793" on the S-5s only; all other Wreaths have small letters. The "bust of Liberty" device on Wreath cents was much larger than Chain cents, and thus crowded the word LIBERTY. My guess is they made the S-5s first, then corrected the error by using smaller letters.

Another clue is the existence of a very few prooflike S-5s. It's possible the Mint wanted to put their best foot forward after the dabacle with the Chain cents, and put special care into the first Wreath cents. That suggests the S-5s were the first.

Inconclusive, but interesting chat for us coin geeks !

 

That is the current thinking and it makes sense. But the R punch of the S-5 is different from the R punch of the Chains and at least the first two or three Liberty Caps when they returned to the larger punches for LIBERTY. I believe it is also different from the later Caps. It's possible it was retouched by hand as many 1797s were when the B punch broke. But a return to the original punch for the Caps works against the S-5 preceding those Caps. I'd be interested to see which other denominations used the large sized punches. It might be interesting to see if there is a match.

 

Forget this!

Further examination shows a gradual deterioration of the punch through use. The thing that throws me off is the obvious difference between when the preparation of the dies occurred which is evident by the deterioration of the punches and when those dies were placed into service.

 

This Marshall guy knows his large cents !

 

I'm thinking the coin is real and the die state is somewhere between State I and II it has the rim crumbling over LI but it hasn't developed yet over BER. The crumbling over LI in Breen for die state does show the dentical like appearance. The oddity is the way the bead to the right of the Y are drawn to the edge to look like denticals. This does not seem to appear on die states II or III. I'm at a bit of a loss to explain that. As for where S-5 comes in the emission sequence, the punches for LIBERTY seem to me to more closely match those on the chain cents than the ones on the caps. So I would put it at the start of the wreaths. The real question then becomes does it come before or after NC-2 and NC-3? Breen put them after S-8 but I think that has to be wrong. Since the have the strawberry leaf under the bust it would seem to make sense to put them before S-5 as an initial design that was rejected and the they went to the olive(?) leaves under the bust. The problem is they have the small size letters in LIBERTY like those that come after S-5. Another problem though is the edge. The edges on NC-2 and NC-3 do not match any of the other wreath cents. The edges match the dies used to edge the chain cents (That's why they don't belong after S-8) This would seem to indicate they belong before S-5.

No matter what the emission sequence for the wreath cents is screwy.

 

I thought I knew a lot about coins until these guys post !

 

I thought I'd post some S-5 images here for comparison:

Die State I


http://coins.ha.com/c/item.zx?saleNo=460&lotNo=2004#Photo


http://coins.ha.com/c/item.zx?saleNo=1143&lotNo=3024

Die State II

While called Die State II, this example also appears to be between Die State I and Die State II like the subject coin.


http://coins.ha.com/c/item.zx?saleNo=1147&lotNo=3162

I'm beginning to change my opinion toward Condors after looking at this comparison coin with similar "dentilation." The dentilation on the subject just seems so much stronger. But then again, it also looks to have a bit of rim damage at the same location which might enhance the effect.

Subject Coin



Die State III


http://coins.ha.com/c/item.zx?saleNo=414&lotNo=144

 

I am no expert like you guys, however I have been watching very interested in the discussion.

As a casual onlooker, I was drawn to the fact that the coin in question has beads, but then 2 spots had denticals, which are 2 different animals. I was under the impression that the coin was real, but maybe the denticals were added during some sort of repair or conservation effort. I figured the denticals would be easier to 'add' in a repair than the beads.

However, after looking at this example posted, I realized that the 'deformed' beads in the same locations might just take on the appearance of denticals after circulation wear and/or environmental damage that the coin in question was exposed to.

Close examination of the sample coin shows the beads in the same exact location are elongated and appear something between beads and denticals.

 

Another thing that can cause difficulty is that the appearance can vary depending on the centering of the coin. These were struck in an open collar and the coin can be shifted one way or another between the dies.

 

Yes. That's my hunch as to what happened. My thinking is the eBay coin is genuine with imperfections of die, strike, and planchet (as made) compounded by 218 years of beatdown.

 

I think I'll join the consensus adding the subject coin looks to be on an ever so slightly larger planchet, perhaps enhancing the dentical effect.

 

When presented with two options, choose the third.

 

Is there a (c) none of the above?

 

Nice catch Marshall, I went straight to the heritage auctions as well and found the coin they listed as die state 2 that matches pretty closely the coin in question. I would say real.

A

 

This has got to be one of the most informative threads, about any coin, I have read so far. Outstanding guys, thank you.

 

Now, assuming it's authentic, How do you price such a coin with great detail and great damage? MS Detail ? Net ? Does the fact that there are an inordinately large number of high grade examples of this variety lower the net more than usual? How corroded must a coin be before it loses Detail evaluation or does it ever?

Whatever else this coin is, it's a great learning tool.