I thought I'd see if anyone can see what intrigues me about this eBay posting. http://cgi.ebay.com/1799-Cent-ELECT...90?pt=Coins_US_Individual&hash=item3f090acf2e It might not be the obvious thing.
OK. I 'll go ahead and say it. #1. Type I hair with Type 2 Lettering. Definitely NOT a 1799 Obverse. The 1797 Obverse (21) with this pairing doesn't match the unusually wide spacing of LIBERTY. The 1798 Obverse closest to this one is Obverse 15 of 1798 NC-2 though that is not an exact match. Next would be Obverse 11. The known Obverses are Obverses 7-20 of 1798. The type one hair was only used one more time on Obverse 1 of 1800, though it was paired with 4 Reverses that year, but the E isn't in the rockin' chair on that one either. Neither of these is paired with Reverse HH of 1798 which is the reverse on this electrotype. This is an electrotype of a counterfeit or an unknown obverse with the 1798 HH Reverse. Note the hanging berry at top inside left which is diagnostic.
Maybe its that his whole listing is about huge pictures, but when you click on the picture, it is actually smaller than its regular display on the listing
You actually get good pictures if you scroll down and click the link in the description rather than enlarge the icons.
Since I know nothing about 1799 electrotypes, I'll have to defer to Marshal and Leadfoot and guess it's the "Free Shipping".
FWIW, mine was a blind guess. I don't have a photographic memory for these coins that Marshall or Conder does. The date just looked all wrong and the pitting typical of an electrotype was visible. Lucky, I suppose.
I think the entire date has been redone on the electrotype because the digit font and spacing doesn't match anything. And I think the obverse has been based on the obverse of 1798 S-155. Nothing else has that huge gap between the ER of LIBERTY with the highest wave centered between the E and R. The obv of 98 NC-2 is similar, but the highest wave is closer to the R. I also think the Junction of the hair and forehead is further left than on the NC-2 and as it is on S-155.
I think Conder101 has hit the nail on the head for the obverse pattern. It's odd to see an electrotype of a mismatched pairing (obverse of S-155 with Reverse of S-187) which has been altered. It's sort of like a course on fakes wrapped up in one coin. I still hope no one actually pays the asking price for this acknowledged fake. Of course I know someone collects the old electrotypes, but I don't think they're going for original prices.
I HATE that seller! his listings are like spam all over the place. If you leave him a best offer he will counter 50cents less then asking price. I would just avoid him!
A more generic question. Shouldn't modern (post Hobby Protection Act http://www.coinlink.com/Resources/coinage-acts-by-congress/1973-hobby-protection-act/) electrotypes have the COPY mark on them? I would make the claim, that without a traceable pedigree prior to 1973, these coins are in violation of US law. eBay should be notified that they are counterfeits and in violation of eBay's policies. In full disclosure, I do own a 1976 Cohen-1 half cent electrotype with a traceable pedigree (unfortunately, not one of the Dr. Edward's http://coins.ha.com/c/item.zx?saleNo=1114&lotNo=1496 made in the mid-1860's).
I'm afraid I'm unfamiliar with modern Electrotypes. I just assumed they were all at least 80 years old. You know what they say about that...
Apparently, there are a number of people making electrotypes of key (and not so key) early coppers now, some quite good.
