Attribute This

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

Delete

 

S-167 (VI) or new VII?

This is a closeup of the area from (E)D to the crack from the right serif of (S)T. It has everything described on (VI) and I think further die sinking and maybe a new crack through S.

 

Could this have been a void in the planchet and still left some detail? I wouldn't think so, but I have no explanation that is satisfactory at this point.

 

Because of it's holder, I speculated about this on another thread.
https://www.cointalk.com/threads/my-experiences-with-segs-grading.263566/#post-3036273

If you're interested in my further speculation and conclusion, then you can go there. If you'd rather give the attribution a try yourself without preconditioned thoughts. then don't.

 

Your close-up gave me the answer you're looking for. It is a strikethrough. The material it was struck through is thin enough that it allowed the details of the die is still be partially impressed in the coin through the foreign material. Then when the foreign object fell away, it left a void in the coin but some of the original detail still visible down in the bottom of the depression. The coin is a true mint error.Just because coin is struck through something, that doesn't mean the details will not sure show through. If you've ever seen a modern clad coin where the outer clad layer has fallen away after striking, you'll see that the details of the die still show through somewhat on the copper center layer. You will also see this on coins with a split planchet where the planchet splits after striking.



In this the Lincoln cent that split Post strike on the split face side see traces of both the Lincoln portrait and the Lincoln Memorial. The dies don't deform just the surface of the coins the images traveled deep inside.

 

Thank you so much for the detailed explanation. Now it makes sense because I didn't think of a thin piece of material when I thought of a strike through.

 

Very Cool Lincoln @condor

 

It just arrived today and these are my initial photos. No matter what I do I can't find any evidence of the reverse crack of Breen Die State II and Noyes indicates he hasn't observed an S-220 reverse without it, though he does have his Die State A perfect Reverse listed as a possibility.


This is a S-220 reverse showing the crack I'm looking for. Also, the crumbling under 1801 is either not there or extremely light.

 

I agree, I don't see any sign of the crack either.

 

This came in yesterday and I have taken additional photos through a holder which is why they're piecemeal. I can't take a shot of the whole surface without severe reflections and interference by a scratchy holder.

 

And now the reverse:

 

Every time I think I've got a handle on it, something else gives me pause. The die clash at the curl under the ribbons should indicate S-215 Obverse 3- Noyes C, but the crack of 3-B is either too light or not there. The only other Clash I've found similar is S-220 Obverse 6-Noyes G.

Though it doesn't show in the photos, the reverse is rotated about 35 degrees similar to most S-215s.

But the Reverse has a complete left bottom loop, unlike the S-215s and the fraction bar doesn't tilt right like the NC-1. It's also definitely not a 1/000 like the S-220.

Then, the crumbling or damage at the top (I don't know which) reminds me of the S-214, but the position of the point of the 1 is wrong. And the unusual wear pattern on the reverse leaving the interior more worn than the perimeter (except where it would be helpful to see a bust incused) is odd.

I hate to say I don't know, but that's where I'm at.

 

OK, throwing in a challenge!

One of my coolest 1794's:

 

Sheldon Obverse 13, but I can't see anything on the reverse to distinguish between Reverses J, K or L. I'll keep looking.

Maybe I'm imagining it, but I might be seeing the top of the A(M) with a crack to the rim just below PEO. and a small fraction with medium length fraction bar just a bit right of center.

If so, this would be Reverse K or S-33 R6. But I could easily be wrong.

 

A red letter day for my collection and a Red ink day for my finances. I won three Heritage Auctions: 1. a 1796 NC-4 to match up with my S-99 and replacing the unattributed one I attributed too late to bid, 2. My second 1797 NC-5 and 3. a 1800 NC-3. All are very low grade specimens, but I love them. I'll post them when I pay the bill.

 

I picked this up from a coin shop for a cheap price ($9) because I don’t have this date and I like large cents. It’s a common variety (R-2) but still interesting to me.

I feel like the middle dates (Newcomb years) deserve more love. Unfortunately Classic Heads don’t have any interesting varieties, but you have lots of varieties 1816 and after.

 

I decided to aim for a little higher grade today. WOW! Can you believe this 1801 3 errors LC I just bought unattributed? NO WAY! It’s a dream come true! The dealer had no idea what he had!

 

I hope you realize you have the rare three errors S-218 in great condition.

 

Delete.

This one is definitely superior. I'm jealous!