This is a nicer grade Almost rarity. It appears to have good detail, but some corrosion. But at least it's not as bad as many coppers. It also happens to be the S-165 R4 (118-158 estimated survival). It has a large 8 with style two hair and style two lettering which makes it the Obverse 21 and which is the same obverse for all three varieties in Group 5. The distinctive reverse feature for Reverse R is the distant inside leaves and overlapping outside leaves at (N)T. Both Reverse S (S-166) with the ARC crack from E through the fraction and Reverse T (S-167) which is always associated with an Obverse crack through the 8 also have outside leaves which come close, but do not overlap the wreath. http://cgi.ebay.com/1798-One-Cent-/280692554168?pt=Coins_US_Individual&hash=item415a9479b8 This one's almost enough to make me reconsider collecting.
Marshall, I almost bid on this but could not convince myself your attribution was correct prior to the end, although I only only had 5 minutes. I see the large 8 and type 2 hair and agree that narrows it down to obverse 21. I agree it does not have the ARC crack, or the crack through 8, which by process of elimination leaves the S-165. But I want a positive attribution not a process of elimination. When you(sheldon) say the inside leaves under T are distant and the adjacent leaves cross the stem, do they mean the leaves under I in america. It looks like the outside leaves under T cross the stem on all three reverse R, S, T. But if you look at the outside leaves under I in america the leaves on R cross, S there is a space, and T just touches. s-165 - http://www.largecents.net/collection/coinpics/s165.jpg s-166 - http://www.largecents.net/collection/coinpics/s166.jpg s-167 - http://www.largecents.net/collection/coinpics/s167.jpg Can you confirm the leaves I should be checking are the outside leaves under I in america and not the outside leaves under T in United?
Funny you posted this -- that very coin caught my eye earlier, but without my books at hand I didn't want to jump on it! I'm not willing to spend that much right now anyway, but still ;-)
Yes! The leaves at I(C) do just as you say. The inside pair across from them below (N)T also vary with the S-165 being more distant than either the S-166 or S-167. On worn specimens, this gap doesn't exclude S-165 because of copper movement on severely worn coins, but if the gap exists, it confirms the identification. Please note a common way of identifying letters when they appear more than once. (N)T identifies the T of CENT whereas (I)T would identify the T in UNITED, (S)T identifies the first T in STATES and (A)T the second T in STATES. I also like using the Holmes collection the way you use Largecents.net. http://www.icollector.com/1798-S-165-R4-Style-II-Hair-with-Large-8-VF25_i8599326 http://www.icollector.com/1798-S-166-R1-Style-II-Hair-with-Large-8-EF45_i8599327 http://www.icollector.com/1798-S-167-R1-Style-II-Hair-with-Large-8-EF45_i8599328 http://www.icollector.com/1798-S-167-R1-Style-II-Hair-with-Large-8-F15_i8599329 I always sought to confirm attributions before making a purchase as well. It's prudent. By the way, I think that coin fits the description of the Frank H. Masters coin called VF20 with XF40 detail, porous and an obverse scratch. If so, it is (or was) tied for CC5.
I suspect we will see it in one of the copper dealers inventory soon at more than double the price paid.
Why do you say that, Marshall? just curious. BTW, I think you spotted a good one this time, a lot better than most. It was a good price for an R-4 in that condition, and I would also have gone for it. Just think how much you would have to pay for a 1796 R-4 in that condition -(quite) a bit more I would say. As a date, however, the 1798 LC's just do not move me much.
There are so many 1798 varieties that it's hard to get excited about them unless you break them down into smaller groups. I've become fascinated with the variations of lettering styles and Style 1 hair. I have both 1797 style 2 letter varieties and have the 1800 S-190 with the last style 1 hair obverse. 1798 just happens to have most of the other variations which catch my interest like the 1797 stemless reverses do. It probably doesn't hurt that the first Sheldon variety I ever owned was a basil state S-183. I sold it during one of those cash crunch situations and missed it for years until I acquired a slightly better one later. The second was the 1802 S-238 sold in a similar crunch for which I never really got a better one. One of the two I have is cleaned with a wire brush and the other is corroded. Anyway, I completed the collectable 1802 set last year when I acquired and S-235. That's when I moved to the 1797 stemless group. In answer to the question about collecting, I have chosen to sell my collection so my kids won't have to try and figure it out later. I can still participate in the fun of attribution which is what I enjoyed anyway. The knowledge stays with you even when the coins themselves are gone. By the way, I don't consider myself an expert. Just ahead of the game compared to many novice and non specialists. I generally ask Conder when I have questions. I've also asked Grellman and Wright questions over the years, though the contacts have been infrequent.
Thanks for confirming the diagnostics Marshall. Now I am kicking myself for not buying it... And I also use the goldberg archives version of the Holmes sale for attribution. What a collection, I really wish I had those as catalogs...
Missed out, but thanks Marshall. Really great to look at these coins and try to understand the attributions
