This is a 1794 Large Cent I acquired a few years ago. It's not in great condition (and my lousy photography doesn't help), but it has an interesting attribution (imho). Anyone care to give it a try?
Man, if the coin looked the same as the back on both sides, I would've thought that it was an unstruck large cent! j/k
Nothing wrong with the photos, A little out of focus but you got the majority of details or the lack of details. Nice job
Ding! Ding! Ding! ...we have a Winner, Johnny! ...but can you explain the Reverse? (Hint: Breen's remarks for S-70)
Don't have breens book. But in my penny whimsy S-69 has reverse II and S-70 has reverse JJ. The reason I went with 69 was because the book said 70 almost always has a crack between T&Y.
I need Penny Whimsy! I was thinking along the same lines as you (S-69 due to lack of Obv die crack). In Breen, his remark for S70 states... In the "Oops!" chapter, page 841, Breen describes "Uniface" as... I picked this coin up on eBay for $60...no one wanted it!
I believe so. There's no evidence the reverse was ever struck and the weight's correct for a piece in this condition. One of these days I'll send it in for certification.
OK! I'll weigh in on Definite Obverse 36 due to the pole only extending to the end of the bust and not on toward the rim. Hair matches up. Now I may be very imaginative, but I suspect just wear rather than a uniface. I think I see the last evidence of the ribbon loops, but this is far from certain. Now for the final attribution... I'm going with S-70 Die State I. There IS just the faintest trace of the die break from the rim to the left top of Y (I Think). There is no mention of this break appearing prior to the changing of the reverse, though it's very possible. It could never be proven with this example.
S70 was certainly a candidate. However, even die state #1 should show a very slight crack below the level of the letters. I really want to see some evidence of a crack, but can't. I also thought (as you) that the reverse was simply worn down beyond all recognition. I took it to my local numismatist for an opinion. After examining it and weighing it, he was the one that attributed it as a Uniface error. I later noticed that Breen noted a uniface error find under the remarks for S70. If you click on the picture, you can see more detail. I viewed the reverse (under 60x magnification) for a long time and couldn't see any evidence of a strike. At the time I didn't know about Uniface errors and wanted desperately to see some detail. You can see a rim bump at 8:00 on the Rev and a corresponding bump at 10:00 on the Obv...but that's it.
Vnickels Did you read the posts above? This coin is known to have uniface examples, which they believe this to be. Richard
I certainly hope this is a uniface, but I often get disappointed with an initial conclusion which doesn't hold up to scrutiny over time. I guess I'm getting skeptical. But I hope it holds up to further examination and it certainly deserves to be investigated.
According to the Numismatist that authenticated it as "uniface", the weight of the piece is consistent with normal wear. He felt it would weigh far less if the reverse were normally struck, but worn to the extent where no detail remained. I need to have it certified, anyway. I'll probably just do that and post the results. I had eight (8) free PCGS certs that I let expire. They ****ed me off when I bought a Platinum membership and they wanted additional $$ for CoinFacts (or whatever they call it). I'm strictly NGC from here on out!
I feel there is a slight problem with the uniface theory. If two planchets were put in the press at the same time,that would greatly increase the pressure, and since there was no restrining collar the coins would most likely be larger in diameter than normal and have elongated denticals. The reverse dies for the 1794's were cut very shallow and it is not unusual for them to be worn smooth while the obv still grades G - VG. I would not trust an attribution of a "Uniface cent" on a 1794 unless the grade was fairly high.
