http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dl...MDCe1bk%3D&viewitem=&sspagename=STRK:MEWNX:IT This is a little beauty I overpaid for because I initially saw something that wasn't there. Between the bad image and the wishtribution, I convinced myself that I saw an Obverse 5 which is either rare or very rare, depending on the reverse. It was a buy it now that was expiring so I hit the Bid without double checking. Well, upon closer examination, even of those poor pictures, I knew it was that old familiar S-224 with the leaf under the left upright of the M. Now what do you suppose happened when I photographed it to see what you guys thought about whether this was an upgrade or not? New Old
My personal opinion is that it is an upgrade. You have less distractions to look thru to see the coin itself. Plus I think if you put it on a black background like the other coin it will look even nicer. Good pickup.
This turns out to NOT be the familiar S-224, but the S-223 where the leaf is under the right foot of the left upright. On a slightly better example you could make out the 000 in the fraction. Now this particular coin is interesting because the die state is a transition between State 5 and the very rare die state 6. The coin is cracked along the edges between the bust tip and the rims where the CUD will soon develop. Cracks at this location are not mentioned in state 5 and state 6 already had a fully developed CUD. On the reverse, the die crack on the left of the fraction and on through the stem seems more developed than even the state 6 example, but that is probably due to wear. While the variety is only an R1, I needed it in my set and the interesting die state makes me feel lucky indeed.
I was not trying to attribute the new one - just figured you got it right. I was busy trying to find a double strike, a crack or something like that. It never even crossed my mind to doubt your attribution.
I saw your filename was S-223, so the cat was out of the bag for me. But I was looking for that cud and saw scant evidence of it, although I was fairly sure it was a 1/000 and I was trying to make it if the left stem was pointy or not and so on. Now I see my mistake: I didn't bother to crack out the books ;-)
When I saw the pictures I knew the attribution of one of the two coins was wrong because they weren't the same, but you found your error yesterday before I saw the post. You say it is later than State V, but I don't really see the cud through RTY as being that strong.
My die state conclusion is based primarily on seeing the cracks that will develop from the drapery and form the top and bottom of the CUD there. The CUD at RTY I was just discounting due to excessive wear there. But die state attribution on my coins is more of an art than a science since they are usually faced with problems of either wear or corrosion. It could eaily be a IV or V if the cracks on the drapery occur earlier, but without mention.