I have never quite gotten that good with the 1797 Rev 97 ones. If anybody can attribute it love the help.
I'm sorry I don't know the answer to your question, but if that coin could talk, what a story it could tell...
Check out NC-4. Without better pictures, I cannot tell for sure. @Conder101 eould be able to let you know if I'm wrong.
I highly doubt I would get that lucky. I had not even looked at the NC ones. I forget but I looked last night and had one I thought may of been it based on placement of berry by "E" in CENT and the stems. Maybe it was s137? Should of written it down. So worn very hard to get better pictures. May I ask what about it makes you think it could be nc-4?
Based on the position of the stems and where they pointed to the last A in AMERICA and the location of E in LIBERTY in relation to the hair waves, I narrowed it down to S-122, S-124, S-130, S-138, S-139, S-140, S-141, NC-4, NC-5, and NC-7. First thing was the position of the T over the hair, which eliminated S-140 and S-130. Next was the position of the leaf next to D in UNITED, which eliminated S-122 and S-138. Next was the berry next to E on ONE, which is located at middle height of the letters in ONE. This eliminated S-124, S-141, S-139, and NC-7. So we are left with NC-4 and NC-5. The 7 was too far from the bust to be NC-5, so it must be NC-4.
Good analysis TC. Just want to point out that there are differences between the picture of the 1797 NC-4 shown in Breen's Encyclopedia (p. 411) and the reverse of the OP's coin. For example: the OP coin shows a double leaf tip very close to the second downright of M, whereas the picture in the Encyclopedia shows the leaf tip much further, and closer to the 1st downright. Assuming the picture in p.411 is correct, then it does not look like NC-4. (hopefully I am wrong).
All I had was a 1.5" photo of a crappy coin. I could not see any details, so I used process of elimination. If it is not NC-4 (I trust your judgment), then what is it?
I find tons of 139 and 140 out there but as @TypeCoin971793 mentioned on both those the berry by "E" in "ONE" is the top of the "E" but this reverse has that berry in middle or little lower of "E" which scratches those 2 off.
In theory, it could also be a new variety. If Edward is correct in that this is not NC-4, then I think that possibility is becoming more likely. Sherlock Holmes' quote comes to mind: "When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth." That is the approach I take to large cent attributions.
My guess would be a 139 also, but wait for conder or mashall - one of them could probably peek at it know without having to look at anything.
I wouldn't be so quick to eliminate the S-139 due to the location of the "berry" relative to the (N)T. I think I see sufficient evidence of a possible double strike to throw that relationship off. Particularly look at the N where I believe both strikes are most in evidence and what appears to be the leaf above E from one strike actually over the highest part of the E of the other strike. I initially considered PMD as the culprit, but the berry in question is in the right place relative to the outer berry and leaf above if it is Reverse P. The position of (S)T(A) closer to the S than the A along with letter dentil position make a good case for Reverse P along with a pretty good case for the obverse being Obverse 17.
I was talking about the berry next to E in ONE. A double strike might explain what I am seeing... EDIT: Looking back at the photos, I tend to agree that there are signs of a double strike. But I cannot confirm without it in hand.
I just dont see how you guys are able to do this with such a low grade damaged coin. I cant even see an E. Like g/vg/f Morgan $, I dont usually bother trying to attribute unless something jumps out at me that makes it special.
I think many of us who really like variety attribution have a touch of OCD (Obsessive Copper Disorder).
