Guess the Attribution 8/22

This is an interesting coin because it appears to be something else on first glance. Good luck!

http://www.ebay.com/itm/U-S-1797-DR...34?pt=Coins_US_Individual&hash=item3f0d18798a

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

You're right it is a tricky one. I know what it is but I won't mention it yet and give others a chance.

 

Interesting, I wish I knew more about them.


There is something going on beneath the bust to the left.

 

Come on folks it isn't that difficult. It is real easy to narrow it down to four varieties and at first glance it looks like one but on closer examination it is one of the other three.

 

I guess I'll give it one more day.

 

never have done this before and knowing you (meaning this coin is probably more of a rarity attribute, though I would think it looks like an S-139/40 to me.

 

S-131

 

I won't confirm whether Lugia is correct or not, but as a clue to others I will say the obverse is correct. The heavy thick crack in the left obv field lets you know it is S-129, 130, 131, or NC-8.

 

OK! I'll do the play by play for you.

I first determined was obverse 9 from the break above the ribbon.

Then I looked at the reverse and it appeared to have stems which would make it S-129 or S-130. Since the S-129 pairing occurred before die sank between the parallel breaks and this one was obviously after that event, it HAD to be S-130.

But then I began examining the berries and their stems and something wasn't right. My first thought was something new (always is). Was it yet another pairing of Obverse 9 or a second later pairing of S-128?

Close examination revealed that neither were right. The berry on this coin was about even with the top of the E where Reverse H was definitely higher than that. Reverse I has a berry under E(D) which touches the lower pair while the berry on the coin seemed to touch the upper pair of leaves. Notice at his point I was overlooking the obvious wrong location of the leaf under the curve of D.

The other two reverses were stemless so I KNEW this was something new. Next step was to see if I could identify the reverse from another pairing or see if it might be the first reverse to have been reworked while adding stems. Fortunately, I chose to look at the two stemless varieties known to be paired with Obverse 9 first.

Reverse T was ruled out immediately because of the low berry right of the (N)E. I still hadn't noticed the obvious leaf point error at (E)D.

Then I examined Reverse J. The stems seemed to match up both in size, location and connection angle with the berries. Then I looked at the 'stems'. What seemed obvious at first glance suddenly wasn't so obvious. Could that left 'stem actually be damage and/or corrosion and/or wear? is that stem on the right really there or is it just the edge of wear? It wasn't really a stemmed reverse after all. S-131 was it. Then I finally noticed the leaf at D fit Reverse J and none of the others did. The leaf under the center of S pretty much convinced me it was the S-131 stemless reverse, even though the obvious S-130 seemed to be staring me in the face.

 

yea its in pretty rough shape but looks like it could still be a good deal.

 

Wow, that is a great deal of detective work for a coin that is as worn as that.. Do most very early coins of that type take that much work to decide which type they actually turn out to be?

 

Many Large Cents shout out their variety in the early dates. But sometimes it does take some detective work. This is an example of the second. The fascinating thing is that there are multiple points of variation on these early coins because they were made individually. The 94s had a face punch, but the hair was added to each individual die, Later the hair was part of the punch so individual lettering and dentii patterns are used. Then later, just the berrys and stems were different.

It's what makes these early Cents so special in my opinion. You don't need a MS coin and an electron microscope to determine the die variety.

 

Sounds like it took a long time to learn all that and I am guessing you are still learning.. I am the same way in different areas as well.. I also notice the early halves seem to also have many variations to them as well. I might have to get some research information and see what I might learn from such a study.

Are there any good references available either online or hard copy format?

 

the best references online would be like heritage or largecents.net. theres some hard copy books like newcombs, penny whimsy, noyes and breens encyclopedia. auction catalogues are pretty helpful to but so far the only books i have are newcombs and EAC anthology because theyre not cheap or easy to find.

 

Nice!!

 

Here is my S-131.

When I bought it I had no idea it was an S-131. In fact, I had no idea there were such things as varities of large cents. It just seemed a nice 1797 cent, and the stemless reverse was kind of interesting. Much later, as I learnt to attribute I was was able to identify it, with help from this forum, as S-131, (the commonest of the stemless reverses for 1797).

 

very nice coin eduard. id grade it F12.

 

I have a hard time above VG with grading. I see the 'same' wear called anything from F to XF even on the photograde. I'll go with drool 15.

 

Nice - sorry I missed this, but the obverse would have narrowed it down for me. First glance I thought S-130 - one of the few varieties I know by heart.

Nice coin eduard - I used to have one, but it was sold off.

 

.