A Sheldon-289 in a late die state. It has even surfaces, no flaws and appealing brown colour. Not a scarce variety, but in nice condition. S-289 has a large, wide date and the top leaf on reverse pointing midway between 'S' and 'O'. The other is a S-288, a slightly scarce variety with large date and leaf point barely beyond 'S'. How would you grade the S-289? S-289 S-288
I’d say VF30 for the S-289 and VG10 for the S-288. Both look very nice. How many of the other varieties/dates for this series do you have?
Thanks, guys for your comments and input on grade. Much appreciated. NSP, to-date I have in my collection: 1808 S-277, 2 examples in varying die state 1808 S-278 1809 S-280 1810 S-? (need to look this one up, but it is not the overdate) 1811 S-287 1812 S-288, S-289. 1814 S-294 Still missing an 1813. I am finding this one difficult to obtain for some reason.
Mentioning that I collect Ancients + Latin American & Brazil, I'm going to throw in my 2 cent piece. I've always loved this type but they have been incredibly hard to find for non-specialists such as myself. I know I'm wrong but I'll guess VF-30 -- typed without looking at any other responses. That's how I'd grade a 1812 Brazilian 40 reis. On 2nd thought maybe a 35. No the small scattered ticks bar it from a 35, I'll say 30.
Really nice, on solid, non porous metal, very scarce as such! I'm not going to embarrass myself by trying to GTG, LOL, I'm terrible at old copper.
This one may be difficult to grade if you are not familiar with how die wear (die state) affects the quality of strike. For example, when this coin was struck both obverse and reverse dies had seen extensive wear. This naturally affected the quality of strike, making any coins produced from the worn dies look flat and/or show other particularities, like for example 'flow' lines 'pulling' the peripheral devices (stars, legends, etc) into the rims and making it appear as though they merge with the rim. So, one needs to take such issues into account when evaluating the condition of early coppers.
Nice eduard!!! I'd go 20 net 15 on the 289, for digs in focal area and rim ding. I'd go straight 8 on the 288. Are these two the years of really terrible planchets, where the planchets were corroded before they were struck?
Thank for your comment, beef1020. I checked both Breen and the mega Red Book regarding the quality of the Classic Head planchets. Both these sources mention that planchet blanks used to coin the Classic Heads were imported from the english firm of Boulton & Watt, and that 'later dates' in this series tend to be dark and rough and also porous. The presumed reason is that the supplier used a lubricant, or change in the source of the metal used took place. The Red Book specifically mentions the following dates are often found on dark, rough and porous planchets: 1811 (often dark and porous) , 1812 (often dark and somewhat granular), 1813 (often dark and granular), 1814 (often dark and porous, more so than other dates). So, it would seem that the later dates in this series (specifically 1811-1814) are the ones which tend to be found on dark, granular, and corroded planchets.