1794 cent grade and condition?

Hi again,

I have asked about this coin before - but hoping to get even more inputs on grade suggestions and comments on its surface qualities.

It’s a 1794 S-57 Head of 94 large cent.
The coin comes from an old-school collector who had all of his coins in the raw.

Hoping for some qualified commentaries.

Thanks again

L

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

You have a nice coin although it does have issues. The sharpness grade is EF, but it appears that some surface corrosion had been lifted from upper areas of the obverse and reverse. They are the brighter areas on both sides. I also believe that the coin has been recolored. The patina does not look natural to me.

As such I don't think that the coin would get a straight grade from NGC or PCGS. It's still a valuable item, but it's not "perfect" for the grade.

 

I agree on the EF sharpness. The waviness in the field in front of the face is characteristic of the variety. It looks like the planchet might have been tapered (mint-caused so very minor). The color doesn't look natural, and there are too many obverse marks for an EF. Otherwise, I agree with johnmilton that you have a nice coin. We in EAC are very weird. We call out all of the defects and then describe the coin as very nice. Hey, it's what we do.

 

I agree that the corrosion will keep this nice coin from getting a straight grade. I'd be happy to have it in my collection. Even in a details slab (if it was sent to a TPG and given a details grade), the sharpness of this early issue should appeal to most collectors; at least me.

 

Here is a 1794 cent that didn't make the grade 20 years ago at the TPGs. Of course back then they were a lot fussier than they are now. I graded this piece VF-30 at the time. It came back to me in a body bag. The photos are from slides I took in the late 1980s.The obverse slide could be fixed to look like the reverse with some photo editing. Both sides of the coin were the same shade.

 

I like the crusty old thing. Take good care of it.

 

Please educate me... Why did the TPGs refuse to certify it?

 

It's just for the surface. It's corroded. Be truthful, though, you like it, don't you? So do I, Jeff.

 

Sometimes when I read CoinTalk, I feel like I'm watching Jeopardy. I feel clueless! LOL. The surfarce is corroded? Really?! I can't even see where. You're right - I do like it though. But I can't afford it.

 

It's not in bad shape, really, as far as corrosion goes. But it is corroded. The surface is shot.

 

To me the upper part of the reverse looks corroded. Again, with a coin like that I could give a rats donkey what the TPGs say.

 

I thought then they would give it a "Details" grade with "Environmental Damage" or something similar?

 

The bottom looks like "i"/100 instead of 1/100. I remember my Calculus. "i" is an imaginary number. LOL.

 

Just to be clear, are we talking about johnmilton's coin or the OP's coin as "corroded"? I agree the OP's coin shows some corrosion but I don't see it on the other.

What am I missing?

 

Sometimes they do and sometimes they don't. It's a coin toss (pun, lol).

PS: I loved calculus.

 

As for me, I was referring to John Milton's coin, and (because it looks so good) was wondering why the TPG didn't want to grade it. Then the follow-up responses mentioned corrosion and I thought they were likewise referring to Milton's coin. If not, then my question's still open. Now you got me wondering if @LakeEffect and @eddiespin were referring to Milton's coin or the OP's.

 

I'm an imaginary coin expert.

 

OP's coin.

 

You are the Square Root of -1. That's what "i" is equal to. Gosh, if only my Calculus professor can see me now.

 

I

I can't differentiate between my real and imaginary friends. However both are integral parts of my life.