1798 Draped Bust Large cent

And both would be wrong in my opinion. The Technical Grade should be higher than AU-50 and then the discoloration noted. How you treat the discoloration is HUGE. Is it early verdigris (thus a body bag) or impurity in the copper planchet (thus a Grade)? TPGs often split the baby by lowering the Grade below technical merits in order to NET the value.

To me as an EAC member (or former member depending on finances), I like to keep technical merits and value considerations separate. I have no problem with a AU58 technical grade and ANY reduction to approximate the market value as a Net Grade. In your example, the new owner's AU50 was what the TPG considered it's value in order to insure value. SO I would call it AU50 [Net] (AU58 Details).

The TPG just calls it AU50 GRADED. And calls an unwillingness to insure Value either Detail (always below Technical Wear) or gives it a body bag.

It is what it is, but it's more confusing than it should be because of different meanings and usage of the same terms.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

And you correctly reduced my complaint to it's core.

Consistent LABELS, not arguing VALUES.

 

Hi again!

Finally got this 1798 cent in hand. Looks good!

I am wondering about the Sheldon-attribution. I onlu have the Bowers Guide Book to LC and HC's. From what I can see of the coin its:
- Style 1 Hair
- Small 8
- Style 1 Letters

When I look up the S-157 in Bowers its stays: "Style 1 Hair, Small 8, Style 2 Letters and Three Fused Denticles below 9". The latter is hard to verify like you point out - but I don't get why the S-157 in Bowers (see photo below) is under the "Style 2 Letters" heading. The R in LIBERTY sure looks like a "Style 1 Letter"...or?

Thanks for any clarifications!

 

Part of the confusion is lack of specificity, There are two Obverse Lettering styles I. Style I is limited to a few early Large 8 Type I obverses. It features the flatter L foot (and E serifs) and straight foot of R. Obverse Style II, introduced on the final Obverse of 1797 and most Obverses of 1798 and all after features a taller serif at L E and curved foot of R.

But 1798 also features at least two REVERSE Letter Types (I believe there are three) which is confusing when not specific.

I use you're Obverse photo to show it is a Style I Obverse, Style II Obverse Lettering, The Reverse is also Style II Lettering (Large D is easiest feature to distinguish.) A smaller D is a feature on Type I (and I believe Type III) Reverse Lettering.

I hope this helps.

It is also a small 8.

 

Love to see early large cents like the OP's!

Attribution is always easier for me with these than grading, especially when you throw in surface quality/ EAC type grading.

This particular example from my collection (S-139) went through Noyes as VF30 average and tied for condition census 18:



Also seen as AU details by 2 different TPGs...

 

Yes, tell me about it. They body bagged this S-139 too, but graded it for someone else after I sold it. This was a condition census piece when I bought it in the mid 1970s, something like # 5 or 6.

 

Just a bonus thought:

This may be a later die state than Noyes D or at least identifiably later than the typical D. Your coin, as well as photo 59264 on the last page of Noyes Die State photos show a new crack from the rim above E to the top of the right serif of E. One might be PMD. Two is probably a break.

 

Interesting; mine is a struck counterfeit...

 

I wonder if the counterfeit die cracked?

 

Thanks for clarifying! What confused me I think was the photo of that Style 2 letter “R” that looked a little rough. Mine seems much smoother so I guess I confused it with the Style 1 lettering.
Thanks again!

 

No problem. It also doesn't help that many times the lettering was touched up making the dies to repair punch errors and broken punches.