Attribute This

Maybe?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

Yeah. That's where I'm at too. Neither Breen nor Noyes show this die state, but it was mentioned at the sale of the Holmes collection where I found the comp.

 

Apparently both NOYES and Breen do show more than one State B which is the equivalent of what would be Breen II. Looking at the photos. it is about as common as State I, however; there are a couple that are late IIs with heavier breaks.

It's really a toss up whether to give those a later Die State or not and Noyes has not.

"1796 NC-4 R5+ Draped Bust. VG-8. Fairly glossy dark chocolate brown with steel brown toning on the highpoints. The surfaces are mostly smooth and free of defects for the grade. The notable marks are a small dig in the field just left of the hair ribbon, a small planchet chip right of the L, a thin nick on the jaw near the throat, and a long diagonal nick over the N in ONE. The date is clear and the legends are strong. Extremely rare terminal die state, Breen state II, with a strong die crack through TES, and the area above this crack is sunken into a retained cud. Tied for CC#3 in the Noyes census as F12 net VG8, his photo #32703. Called VG8 and tied for CC#4 in the Bland census. Most likely the finest known of the die state. This die state was not known to Sheldon and is not plated in the Breen or Noyes books. A very important cent. DWH #2417."

I misinterpreted the line about not plated as unknown. Breen lists it and calls it extremely rare. Noyes actually plates 2 in the die states and other census examples can be seen. Because of wear, most only show right of S to the rim.

 

It came in and is much lighter than the photos. Maybe because he was highlighting the counterstamp.

Here is his photo and mine follows. I think the closeup shows the earliest beginnings of the State II crack.

 

This is a S-262 R3 variety. But it is the extremely rare Die State III with a break over STAT.

 

I was about to say, I have never seen that break before. That’s super cool!

 

This is a rare time my photo shows the break better than the seller's photo.

 

This is a head-scratcher. The reverse appears to be solid as 1798 Reverse N. But the LIBERTY spacing seems like a solid Obverse 16 and the date and break seem like a solid Obverse 19.


Note the small crack not usually mentioned from the bottom of 1 to just above the bottom left of 7 on both the subject and the 19 comp.

There is no good explanation for this since both are supposed to be diagnostic of the obverse die. I checked on a possible mis-attribution of my comps and that doesn't really work since each looks properly attributed.

It was purchased as a S-163.

 

This is really odd. The crack looks right, but the 9 tilts wrong, the 1 & 7 seem to be at a different spacing over the dentils.

 

Looks like S-159 to me

 

I struggle with this post. I have many friends here and I'd love to give each a personal heads up on this one. So I'll share it with all.

https://www.ebay.com/itm/1796-DRAPE...984763?hash=item2d1f7058bb:g:PHAAAOSwSAtf1tBp

I currently have high bid, but that won't last long. I'll let you each confirm it's attribution independently.

This is the money shot:

 

Nice! I’ll keep an eye on it.

 

I was able to make a buy it now deal with the seller. It will disappear from eBay, but rest assured it has found a good home where it will be appreciated.

 

I know it's considered Scudzy for moderate to severe corrosion. But what you you guys think this will details grade and net grade?

ps You can confirm ID as well.

 

25/10? Maybe 25/8?

ok. NC-2

 

I like the detail, but the comps are pretty toughly graded In my humble opinion. I think they might have net graded in order to get a straight grade. It appears to be the equal of the VF20 Details, but would definitely net lower. A VG10 Details also looks sharper than the grade given, but is not as sharp as this one.

I think this would make 5 or 6 in the census.

Perhaps a TPG VF20 net F12, EAC F15 net G6. But I'm not much of a grader.

This would be the 11th or 12th known, so it's definitely R7- now. The P1 Details sold for $1400 a couple of years ago and Friscomint has an AG3 Details listed for $2300. Other than that, another new discovery at VG10 Details sold twice. First for $7000 and then for $5500.

I think I purchased it at a good price.

I'm going to have to refinance the house. LOL!

 

After a little research, it appears that both the Details and the Net Grade are discounted when there is corrosion. A straight graded VF has far less actual detail than a corroded VF Detail. This is a grading comp (S-117) Graded F-12 Details and an estimated EAC G6 which looks comparable. This will move down my census estimate a bit to between 4 and 6 depending on the net grading of the two new examples. The only notable difference with the comp is a bit of colored corrosion on the comp and less edge detail because my coin is on a convexo-concavo planchet.

I am disappointed they have taken this route since I would prefer a strict distinction between detail and net grading rather than both. I don't mind a XF Details netting AG3 when warranted, but calling it a F details net AG3 causes confusion.

 

It would not be the first time I have heard of this, but it does not make the practice any less stupid

 

Good Morning Guys and Gals!

I just woke up this morning and made a new discovery. I had tranferred the Noyes photos of 1796 NC-2s onto my computer so I could enlarge them for comparison. Imagine my surprise when one is a photo of an NC-3 rather than a NC-2.

Thinking I had made a mistake, I double checked the photo in Noyes and there it was, two leaves at (N)T, though the image looks darker in the Noyes book than in my photo.

Now there are two possibilities left.

One is a publication error similar to what happened several times with Breen's Encyclopedia where the wrong photos were used in the publication. But this would be the first I've found in any Noyes book, even with the much larger number of photos.

Two, it is possible that a well known coin was mis-attributed initially and thereafter changed hands without further attribution like what happened with the 1793 NC-6 I discovered a couple of years ago.

If it's a case of the second, There would be only 10 NC-2s with my new one.

I'm not sure who I could contact to find out which possibility has occurred.