Attribute This

Some recent buys:

Probably an S-208, but it looks like there is an overdate.



S-195? Looks like an unrecorded reverse die break in the lower left.



1797 S-125 R.5, terminal die state.



1798 S-145, R.3

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

1. Consider Obverse 3 and S-194 for the top. The 1 is too distant from the curl for most obverses and other diagnostics rule out the others which are close.

S-195 looks right, though it might be PMD on the bottom left.

S-125 Terminal Die State looks right.

I don't think this is a S-145. The position of T is too far left. I haven't found a good alternative with a complete C (not abrupt or shortened bottom of C(E)) eliminating the alternatives I've checked. I think this is one I'd be going back and forth on and never really feeling that it's properly attributed. It actually looks more like Reverse N of 1800.

 

The 1 is way too far from the hair to be 1800, and the second digit looks like a clear 7

 

Maybe S-168, S-169, S-170, S-171, S-173, S-176, or S-179.

I concur it isn’t S-145

 

The problem I have is that the C looks like those not used until 1800 which come back to almost vertical. It's very unusual in 1796 through 1798. This leads me to conjecture that the top of "7" may not be what it appears. It's not unlike the 1/000 reverse which wasn't. the general reverse layout also looks like the Reverse of 99.

I'm certain something will become obvious with further study. Are these your photos are the sellers? I suspect sellers since yours are usually better. That could bring some clarity.

 

I have just looked at it under a loupe, and I see the whole 7. The third digit is high, which lead me to isolate it as S-179. The reverse matches.

They were mine, and they were quickly taken

 

The Obverse looks right. But check the reverse. Here are the S-179 and the S-202 and tell me which looks closer?

 

Honestly, looks closer to S-179

And you had the right call on the S-194

 

It wouldn't be the first time I was left with an attribution with something which bugged me. Like a broken loop that isn't supposed to be broken. This one is a C that looks too complete with the top and bottom too close to closing for the variety. The closest C in 1798 is S-187 and that has other counter-diagnostics.

I don't know whether they tried to fix the hub die or they just touched up the dies as they were made, but there is far more variation in the Cs than one would expect from a HUB die.

 

How about S-167?

 

The berry stems are too long

 

I don't know if this helps any. Y'all have a better eye than me.

 

It shows they are really close except for the bottom right of the C.

 

Another Island of misfit coins pickup. Excellent detail and severe rim damage, but pretty clean surfaces otherwise.

 

Yes, I am leaning towrds S-202.

 

Take a gander at the date positions:

 

I'm still open to a new mule or even a new die.

 

I have no doubt it's not a S-202, but looking only at the reverses of S-187 and S-202, it appears to be a reverse of 99 using a strong C from either a repaired HUB or a corrected die like the repaired B punches of 97. The S-179 has a definite shortened C reverse typical of 98s, but not universally true.

The obverse eliminates many obverses and the reverse eliminate many reverses. Between the two, it might be possible to eliminate all known varieties which leaves a new die or new mule.