Does this 1794 liberty cap have an exceptional planchet/surfaces?

As far as US coins go, my knowledge is most limited in the early copper era. Most cents I see are heavily corroded, or the planchets are terrible. I thought this was a nice 1794. What do you guys think? Also, is it usual for a coin like this to have such a strong obverse, and such a weak reverse?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

Yes, it has nice color and great detail on the obverse. Why was it worn on one side only. One reason could have been it was struck during the period of 'great contraptions.' Belts and pulleys were in use all over the farm and many times coins were added to make fine weight adjustments so machinery would run better. I believe there are still coins being used in the famous London Landmark clock Big Ben. You can only set a coin two ways on a moving belt or lever. Maybe the wear comes from just such abrasion...

Take Care
Ben

 

I have seen coins like this that dealers have wanted fairly high money, simply because the planchet was good and the coin had original chocolate brown surfaces.

Although the back is worn off, I really like the color.

 

Not unusual at all for the reverse weakness, but...

The coin has been worked. My sense it suffered from overall porosity, which was worn off intentionally, leaving the coin pink-ish, then the coin recolored. The uneven amount of wear near the date (which is lightly worn) versus the amount of wear on LIBERTY (which is completely gone) is a clue...as is the "evenly colored and slightly lustrous" look of the coin.

Still a neat and valuable coin, but one I would hesitate from purchasing. 1794 liberty caps aren't rare enough to settle for a coin like this.

All IMHO, respectfully submitted...Mike

 

zane:
Do you really need this coin?
Or is it tht great a deal?
Otherwise I'd pass.

 

It was the old liberty cap in my type set. I have a much, much nicer example coming my way, and I paid less than 100 for it.

While I respect the opinion that this coin has been worked, I'm not entirely convinced myself of that. I received this coin as a gift from an amazing early copper expert, who I would entrust the lives of my whole family to, and he says it is totally original. I think I will have him take a second look, as on one hand something is definitely odd about liberty missing.

The only early copper coins I am familiar with are 93 liberty caps. I can attribute all of the varieties for this year (there are only 4).

 

Zaneman - I agree , It seems like 85% of the large cents that I see are corroded too -
Your planchet is in nice condition but Im am perplexed by the weakness (?) of the reverse.
Either way still a nice coin

Here is my 1794 Head of 1794 Large cent S-122.

She has a few light rim bumps but the planchet was in such nich shape that I couldnt pass it up.

Id call it Very Fine 20 ish condition with the reverse being softly/weakly struck like yours but not as extreme.

 

Oh & I think yours is the Sheldon-64 Variety

HERE

If not that one my next choice is S-54

The S-64 is Rare - So bonus for you if thats the case

 

I think the coin has been worked on and cleaned at one time, but I still think it is a nice enough piece for the money.

The reason for the odd wear is twofold. the reverse dies were cut more shallowly and do tend to wear away fasterthan the obverses,and the die faces were not parallel resulting in the extremely heavy denticals at 7:00 on the obverse and the weakness of LIBERTY across fromit. the high denticals tended to protect the obverse of the coin in that area which is why the curls and the date are so strong..

Unfortunately Budgood is incorrect on his attribution. your coin is the common S-65. Both 64 and 65 share the same obverse, butS-64 has two outer berries between the D of United and the S of States while S-65 has only one berry. your coin has only one berry.

 

Rims

A reason could be that the rim on the reverse was lower than the obverse. That would make wear more rapid on the back.