This is a Large Cent which is probably overpriced for it's condition, but it intrigues me because of it's Reverse. I nominally attributed it as the S-205. But the reverse actually looks more like the Reverse of S-195. http://www.ebay.com/itm/1800-Draped...47?pt=Coins_US_Individual&hash=item20d0865797 These reverses are VERY similar. Breen writes about Reverse T {Sheldon's P}, "Similar to Reverse H {Sheldon's F}, but the berry right of (N)T is of normal size (tiny and weak on Reverse H). On this example, that berry is tiny and weak. Now this could be for several reasons. 1. It is actually a new variety pairing Breen's Obv 17 with his Rev H. {Sheldon's Obv 12 with his Rev F} 2. Damage or corrosion causing Breen Rev T {Sheldon's P} to mimic Rev H {Sheldon's F}. 3. It could be the coin which would indicate that both are actually the same die and that a cleaning or polishing accounts for the difference in the berry size. It would not be the first such occurrence.
I wish i had my copy of Numistudy up and running so I could do an exact overlay of the two reverses because I think your proposal #3 looks to be correct The reverse of 204& 205 is an earlier state of the reverse of 195. The rev of 204/205 is said to have ME repunched but even on the early 204 all I can see of this is a lump on the top left of the M and the top of the E where it joins the serif appears to have been broken and repaired. That same lump on the M and repair of the E is seen on both the 205 and the 195. The rev of 204 comes perfect but on 205 there is a crack from the ribbon across the base of the A to the C to the middle of I. In the latest state that crack continues acoss the ribbon to the 0 and on down to the rim. That same crack, or at least one that seems identical in placement, is seen on all of the 195's as well. Blowing up and examining the Holmes coins shows a die clash from the head on both the 205 and the 195 running from the ribbon across the stem to the leaves below CA, but the clash is in different places where it crosses the stem and where it meets the ribbon. That doesn't eliminate the possibility though that the clash was polished out on the 205 rev weakening the berry right of T and then the die clashed again with either the 195 obv or 205 obv. The only other difference I can find is the shape of the berry right of the E in ONE. It is smaller and differently shapped compared to the berry on 205. All of the other berries are the same shape, their stems are running at the same angles and they meet the berries at the same positions. Polishing could explain the differences between the berries right of the E and T.
I am leaning toward possibility 3 as well. It is somewhat supported by the weakening of the stem on the lowest inside leaf on the right on the 195 and might account for the thin fraction bar as well.
Thanks for posting this. I spent a couple minutes looking at the Holmes 195 and 205 as well and they really do appear to be the same reverse die. One thing that has me leaning towards the same die is the crack on the reverse from the denominator through ribbon and into ICA. As Conder points out, clash marks can be polished off and berry size can change, but die cracks can not be fixed. All of the actual design elements seem to match up. Just a heads up but I also posted a question over on the EAC boards.
