Here’s a worn but nice 1798 Draped Bust Large Cent that I recently added to my collection. Only 1,841,745 were minted. As far as I can tell it’s a normal coin, meaning not one of the known varieties. I believe this to be a strong borderline AG-3/G-4 grade. My Red Book has this as a $200 coin in AG-3 and double that amount in G-4. I think it’s closer to a G-4 but I’ll admit that grading this series is not a good point of mine. It’s worn but has a clear date and there is some detail left on the coin. It’s easily identifiable. You be the judge of the grade. After all, the coin is 227 years old. It’s clean of marks.
Nice find. Possible ED? AG3+ish? EAC grading is not my bailiwick. But I'd add it to my 7070 every day of the week. And twice on Sunday.
I like it. I just picked one up Tuesday. It's pretty rough, but like you pointed out, it's 227 years old, and getting harder to find in any condition. I got this one because you can read the date ok, and the reverse is actually in decent condition. My pictures aren't that great because i hurried.
I'd call the coin a G-4; not sure from the pictures if it's details but it's on the better side if so. CDNs are $121/155 for S-148, and it's an R-2 according to the Greysheet. S-148 is one of the more common varieties, which is why I referenced it's numbers over others. I'm not much help besides that sadly. I'll admit I can attribute VAMs better than Sheldon numbers. At least I've gotten a single VAM down. One day I might get better. \_o-o_/
I do not believe either coin that was posted is not S-248. The first coin posted looks like (but I am not positive) like a blunt 1. Which could make it a S-162. I also think the second coin has a leaning 7 which could make it a S-160. I say "could" a lot but not an expert on attributing these, and with the damage/wear it makes it even harder in the pictures. Just my two cents worth of opinion.
I took a couple of pictures that are magnified 50x, I think. The coin is definitely beyond worn. But, maybe these will help further identify it? Thank you very much.
It does some - compare it to Tom Decks S-161. If you have the book it might help. The one thing I am not sure about is the E in liberty to the curls, the distance of 1 in 1798 to hair, and the spacing of 1798. The wear on your coin versus the examples in Toms collection might account for the difference, but not sure myself. Toms collection of 1798 varieties is here https://www.largecents.net/collection/1798drbust.html and this is a link to 161 https://www.largecents.net/collection/coinpics/s161.jpg. PS - I bought a lot of large cents from him over the years and he recently sold them all last year.
I had also taken a picture of that area. Not sure if you can see what you needed to see, the coin is so badly worn. Thank you so much for the links. I don't have time to look at them right now, getting ready to go to a Doctor's appointment, but I will definitely be checking them out. Thanks again.
I searched the invaluable link you provided and came up with 160 as a possiblity too because of the closeness of the E to the hair. But I'm just guessing from my experience of one coin. You have far more experience and I certainly wouldn't disagree with you. I wouldn't have looked at 160 if you hadn't said between 160 or 161. Thank you very much. I never thought it could be identified as poor condition as it's in. I've got 3 more 1798's, in similar condition, unfortunately. I'm going to see if i can identify any of them. Thanks again for pointing me in the right direction.
Yes - 160 and 161 are almost the same both use same obverse. The difference is in the reverse. There are 3 differences (1) second lowest outside double leaf on the right does not touch the wreath stem. (2) First berry on left has short stem and (3) ER connected to dentils by 2 short lines. Now I eliminated it because (1) even with the wear it looks like that double leaf touches the wreath stem, (2) looks like compared to toms examples your first berry has short stem and (3) even with the wear you can clearly see no lines from ER to the dentils. So while (1) was iffy I think 2 and 3 were mainly why I eliminated it and stuck with 161.
Thank you. So simple when you explained it. Like I said, you've more knowledge and experience than I do, and again, thank you so much for teaching an old dog new tricks, lol. I really do appreciate the links you provided, very enjoyable to read and so informative. And your time spent on identifying an old, worn out coin.
Maybe a little, but I have a book that really helps- plus I use various other sites to help with attributions. Like heritage, tom deck and other sites for other varieties. So no matter large cents, indian cents, bust halves or shield nickels - I have books and web sites I collected over the years to help with attributions. When I collected large cents I did not mind try to attribute some of the early dates - but I knew I would never be as good as Marshall or Conder, or even Tom Deck. I really do recommend getting the books - some of them R4 and R5 varieties can bring some good money even in rough shape.
