This is a pickup at my local coin show. It's a 1798 with many Sheldon Varieties. Anyone care to take a guess on attribution and key diagnostics? After that, what do you detail grade and net grade it? It's feast or famine when it comes to early copper. There was none the last two years and this year I had 7 to choose from with three out of my budget.
I keep coming back to a S-170, but I can't tell if the denominator is short or long because of the corrosion. I would start it at VG and net it a G details.
I was thinking S-169 due to the relative position of the "7" and "9" in the date...the "9" is much higher than the S-170. I don't feel 100% about any attribution, though. I would give it a net AG-03...(jmho).
Not what I've come up with yet. Hint! Those who use Breen Early Cents will find this variety has the wrong photo above the description. It uses a picture of the previous obverse again. Also, Yakpoo is onto the individual diagnostic most helpful to getting the attribution.
I actually started to second guess myself and did a side by side comparison of Obverses 22 and 29. They are very close, As far as I can tell, the 9 is just a tad closer to the 7 and higher on Obverse 29 while the RT is closer on Obverse 22. Then when you go to the reverse, look at the higher and longer fraction bar and the outer leaf overlapping the wreath stem at (N)T.
Maybe it is the wear, but I do not see a 179 - not saying it isn't. When I look at the date the spacing between curl and 1, 8 and bust - just do not look right for a 179. Plus the book says the date looks in a straight line, but the bottom of the 98 are definetely high. Now the nine appears high, but not the 8. All of this could be wear, but not sure.
This might help. These are pictures used from the Holmes online auction of an actual S-179 and not the S-175 Breen uses by mistake.
Yes - look how close the one is to the lower curl on yours versus the 179 posted. Also look at the 98 - the 8 is higher that the 9, but on yours the 8 is clearly lower that the 9. I can see the curl of the 9 and the bottom of the 8 is below it. Now maybe it is wear, but still just not sure.
I hope you're right, but I only see possible corrosion or damage as explanations for the minimal differences. It's great to have a fellow attribution guy to bounce these off of. Do you have an alternate candidate?
As I mentioned I kept coming back to 170, but again I can't seem to line it completely with any variety. I will try again in a couple of days since I won't have time tonight or tomorrow. I enjoy looking at these and trying to attribute them - just not real good when it comes to some years. Conder could probably tell you in a few minutes.
It is not mentioned in Breen, but one difference between the very similar Reverses U (S-169, S-170 and S-171; Breen T) and BB (S-179; Breen AA) is the lack of a stem on the outside berry squeezed between the leaves under E(D) on Reverse U. On Reverse BB it is strong.
