Early Copper Purchase

I'd love to hear the opinion of those who are experts in or collect a lot of early copper. I've wanted a reasonably priced 1790's cent for quite some time because of the history surrounding them and I just think it's cool to own one.

I purchased this coin somewhat on a whim but I just couldn't pass it up. It is more of an experiment and not part of any set although I could see myself starting one (one day when I have more money...) Based on what I've seen, most low grade early copper have problems (purely based off of what's on the market). This coin to me appears to be in excellent condition for its grade with much more detail than an AG3 on the obverse and no real distracting marks or problems. What say you?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

That's a really nice AG3.

 

That a great AG3. I picked up a raw 1794 large cent and got it graded by NGC and it came back FINE DETAILS. Wasn't too upset with the grade! I just wanted to have a graded large cent in my collection.

 

Nice! I'd pick yours over a higher grade "details" coin any day! BTW I have a 1794 Liberty Cap in a G4 PCGS green holder that has less reverse detail than yours.

 

An awesome, honest coin. I agree with the consensus. A problem free coin like yours is much more attractive than a higher grade coin with funny business.

 

Awesome! That makes me really happy. Would it be worth sending in to try and upgrade with PCGS? I like to have all my coins Trueview'd for my record and to show off but it's a high cost to pay just for a TrueView unless it has a reasonable shot at a G4 grade (I personally feel it has a solid G4 (borderline G6) obverse and an AG3 reverse which would net a G4). If I do I'll more than likely wait until I have to upgrade my membership and just use a voucher.

 

As much as I can see your argument, in my experience, I don't think that coin will go G4 with that reverse - regardless of how nice that obverse is.

 

I do see your point although I think the obverse is "worth" more and eye appeal is probably worth a little extra (for a series where most coins are problem coins). To be honest, it may be worth it for me down the line just to get it to cross with PCGS in AG3 with the Trueviews and I don't see that being difficult. I'm curious what others think. These are a couple of examples that appear similar to mine in G4 holders:

http://coins.ha.com/itm/large-cents...79/a/385-7032.s?ic4=ListView-Thumbnail-071515

http://coins.ha.com/itm/large-cents...he-r/a/335-26.s?ic4=ListView-Thumbnail-071515

Ultimately I love the coin regardless of the grade on the holder and I especially like the strong obverse for the grade. I won't be getting rid of it anytime soon

 

Nice coin - I like it just the way it is. I think yours is graded correctly and the reverse will keep it from a G-4. PS: I think second one you pointed to is over graded.

 

Fair enough. I think I'll just keep it like it is for now. I'm trying to get into coin photography so maybe I'll use this one as a test dummy.

 

Accurately graded with very nice surfaces. Just honest wear

 

Do you have any interest in knowing it's Sheldon Variety? If so, you just need to post a little bit better and larger photo. As far as I can tell, it looks like 1795 S76b or S77. But I'm straining to see the details. Don't forget the third side of the coin - it's edge which was important on early copper. ie S-76a is R5 while S-76b is R1, the difference being the edge device and not either the obverse or reverse.

And welcome to early date copper collecting. It will consume you eventually.

I'm not as computer savy as some and found out I could get a better picture than the thumbnails. It is an S-78 without a doubt.

 

Nice coin, probably fairly graded, only problem being the large rim bump on the obv a 12:00 that no one has mentioned.

And it is a S-78. S-76b, and 77, NC-2,and NC-3 all have the tip of the 5 (and in the case of C-2 almost the whole top of the 5) embedded in the bust. S-78 and the OP coin have the tip of the 5 clear of the bust.

 

That's not a cud? The coin is completely round even above that mark. I don't believe the coin could have been damaged hard enough to cause that large of a mark and still be round. Also, it is a raised mark.

 

No it's not a cud.

 

Care to elaborate?

 

Early date collectors have very specific terminology to distinguish between mint originated damage such as die cracks and eventually a CUD where the material fills an area of the broken die and POST MINT damage which would be caused by dropping the coin or something similar after it leaves the mint.

Post mint damage can cause material to flow out of the coin making it appear CUD like and it takes an experienced hand like Condor to know the difference. Of course seeing it in the copper always helps and this is why some early date collectors eschew entombing their collections in slabs.

Most true CUDs are familiar friends to the old hands as the die progression is well known for most varieties. Particularly for common varieties like the S-78.

 

I understand that and I'm not denying Condor's expertise but it's not helpful to someone who is trying to understand when all that's said is "no it's not" especially when there's little evidence to a novice to suggest otherwise.

This is what I see: You can very clearly see a clean rounded edge above the spot in question and in hand there is nothing that would suggest damage along the edge or on the reverse at the same location. I don't know how it's possible to get a raised bump on only one side of a coin from damage. With that said, I'd like to understand why it's damage and not anything else.

 

Edge dings are VERY common and with soft copper, it can have an exaggerated effect on the adjacent surfaces, even without an obvious dent.

The state 5 coin develops a crack under liberties jaw and at that point. no CUD exists at 12 O Clock. Yours is undoubtedly an earlier state which precludes a mint cud. While state IV is a highly polished state to remove clash marks, there is no evidence of such to indicate a later die state where a CUD might have developed.

 

Thanks for the explanation. So essentially a rim ding occurred and wear or some other mechanism "smoothed" the surface over time so that the effect is not as pronounced?