1853 Large cent

XF40 nice coin

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

You just reaffirmed what I originally said because all of the tells you refer to are usually impossible to spot on a well worn or damaged piece so his book is only good for attributing high end pieces, which is what I said earlier, in a roundabout way. Also, since the three I used for examples had sufficient date placement differences, if the date was on the plates you could have figured out which one was a N-2, which was coin #2. Coin #1 is a N-1, Coin #2 is a N-2 and Coin #3 is a N-3.

Ribbit

 

He covers dates and recommendations page v and vi. It states that you use the guide to eliminate those that do not belong to it. Narrowing down your choices. I also believe I read somewhere that the date can be slightly higher or lower - didn't look for it.

And here is how I eliminated them - #1 could not be an N-2 because it is center or slightly right of 8 - can't be n-2. Then #3 is eliminated because top of 5 follows curl. That makes #2 is a N-2. Using both books does make it easier.

The main problem with attributing them buy pictures is that you can't tilt and rotate the coin looking for die marks. Either you see them or you don't.

 

Not so fast....

Attribution is not a multiple choice question with 3 answers when it comes to this date. There are thirty something varieties, IIRC, and you can't just look at the date to attribute them. And guess what? It get's even worse/harder to attribute date placement in lower grades (and LDS)! However, you can attribute many of them, even in relatively low grade, because of the small die chips (in this case on the reverse in the E in CENT). In my experience and more often than not, it is the reverse die chips that end up identifying the coin, and not the date placement. I suspect Mr. Grellman and Mr. Sheldon would agree.

The bottom line is there is NO system for quickly attributing these coins -- and IMO it has nothing at all to do with a lack of scholarship on the series, but rather because of the minute differences between die pairings. It's not the book or lack thereof, it's the coin and lack of identifying features!

Respectfully...Mike

 

I agree that there is no easy way to attribute these or any coin that I know but my point was, when you do have a known variety within a group, with only medium quality obverse pics, you can't attribute it with Bob's pics, even though the choices have three distinct date placements. That had nothing to do with normally attributing these, since date placement can't be used by itself but it's a good start and I use the placement of the Date, LIBERTY, and the entire reverse on DBC's but generally speaking, I can rule out many DBC's by date alone but not with Bob's book. The average BHC on Ebay cannot be attributed by Bob's book and if it helps to have another book to use, then BINGO, Bob's book is clearly lacking! But I will admit I'm a picture attributer and I use the pics in Bowers new book and only read the writing when it matches or comes close and I use Tom Decks pics for attributing all the time and there's very little writing with his pics and when I attribute Fugios, I use the Fugio plate coins on Notre Dame, so I'm used to attributing by pics. And on Fugios, I key in on the I in Business and its placement compared to the dash above it or lack of a dash, then I branch out to the cinquefoils once I find one close and I can attribute a Fugio fairly fast with that method.

So my original point was, which had to do with the OP coin, unless it has a very distinguishing feature, it is hard to attribute BHC's using Bob's book so I won't be attributing it. :goofer: And if I find one on Ebay that I suspect may be a R-3 or better, I go to Heritage and start running down the list until I find it but I don't use Bob's book unless there is a cud or distinguishing mark of some kind.

Ribbit

Ps: Give me a Connecticut to attribute, over a BHC, anyday!

 

No - you can not (sometimes you can) just look at the date alone. But with both books you can eliminate a lot of varieties and narrow it down. Then it is a matter of being able to identify some of the die marks and etc.

 

I use CoinFacts pics all the time for attributing earlier large cents and I have a starting point, depending on the type and once I find one with that feature, I then start looking at the rest of the attributes and eventually find the right one but many times the date is crucial, since the reverse is similar on many varieties and BHC's are a perfect example of that. The reverse on each year is practically identical, except for minute details but then, like I said, you can't use Bob's book alone for attributing BHC's on Ebay, due to the average poor pic, yet, the only reason they can't be attributed is because the date is missing on the pics because the date is an attribute of them so why did he not include the date on the pics? He could have left out the reverse pics and added the date to the obverse pic and they'd be attributable but he didn't include the date. Why? :goof:

Can anyone say that the date isn't an attributable attribute of BHC's? :whistle: If you can't, which would be the correct answer, then why leave it off? Bob's book is more of a supplement to other books but that means you have to buy two books and like another post discussing which is the best book to buy, there isn't a good answer to that question, since there isn't ONE book that covers them sufficiently.

Ribbit

 

He didn't add the date pics because his system of measurements is MORE accurate than any picture could be. It ain't optimal, and pics sure would be nice, but again, it is the coin that causes it, not the method chosen to attribute them.

For the third time, the date helps narrow down the choices, but it is other attributes of these coins that confirms what the date narrows down. Even if Bob had included the date in the pics, it wouldn't help you identify coins from crappy eBay pics because the differences in date placement are so minute. Remember, these aren't Fugios with hand-made dies and huge differences in letter/device placement. These were steam-press coins with consistent devices and placement of the date by a logotype.

Also, Bob's book is not a supplement to other books, and on its own can be used to attribute those coins that have sufficient features to be attributable. IMO, it is far superior to those that preceded it.

Blame the mint, not Bob, for the difficulty in attributing these coins.

Respectfully...>Mike

 

And how often in attribution does this happen. Never, IMO.

What typically happens is you have a coin and need to attribute it from twenty to thirty or more different varieties. Not three or four or "a group".

So while your point is a valid one, it is not valid with respect to the challenges faced by someone trying to attribute a late date large cent.

Now there's something we CAN agree on!

Respectfully...Mike

 

geshh!!!!!!!

In my opinion I would say vg...looks like it was cleaned....nice though...

 

No it is not a supplement - but I find it easier to use Newcomb book to run down the table before each date to eliminate varieties. Once I get it narrowed down I read on each variety - sometimes find it(or not). BUT I then always go to the Grellman book to make the final decision. I find this easier than the numbering system to start elminating varieties. A slight shift of the date can change one of the numbers I usually end up with what looks like a pick 6 at the track.

 

Good point, the table in Newcomb is great!

 

I can agree with you there!

Ribbit

 

Not you too - seems like everyone wants to blame the mint for something or other.:mouth:

 

Here's a 1853 N-3 I picked up cheap:







Ribbit