Attribute This

1800s are a really tough date to attribute, even those in better condition than normal. But it looks like a S-209 if it's attributable at all. My confidence level is very low.

I'm mainly going by the HWH vs R and wide date on the obverse and berry stems, fraction and vine core at (N)T separated from the adjoining leaves with a smooth curve and berry at (N)T appearing to be well below the point at which the leaf above attaches to the main vine, on the reverse.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

I’m thinking 209 too. Not sure if there are many buyers for something this shabby but it’s a good start to an EAC collection.

 

I have been studying this coin and it could be the S-209. The reverse matches the description in Noyes book, at least what is still left. The shape of the right top of "1" in 1800 seems wrong but it very well could be PMD. I guess I will put a ? Mark and put it with the pile of the other unattributed 1800's. Thanks again.

 

It arrived this morning. It is better shape than I thought. The first set is with the LED light from my microscope which is great for detail. The second uses my desk top LED lighting for color.


It's definitely the S-145. Probably the latest Die State with bulge at OF A now extending to ES OF AM and the central core "ONE CENT" which was weak is now obliterated. But this might not be the coin to establish it with it's graffiti and wear.

 

Having just looked at the above, I noticed an offering of an unattributed S-144 yesterday. Apparently so did at least three others who each placed bids of over $300 on a scuzzy coin that I only bid $-144 on. I hope you notice my humor with that bid. A double strike may add interest.

ps A late die state with die break over OF.

 

It's better than mine.

Got a link to the auction?

 

https://www.ebay.com/itm/1798-Drape...Damage/292472359761?ssPageName=STRK:MEBIDX:IT

 

What do y'all think about this one?

 

I saw that on eBay as a possible 1798. It's a classic head so it's an unatributable between 1808 and 1814.

 

That S – 144 probably sold too cheap. I paid $274 for mine, and like I said mine's worse than that one. I'd seen it while the auction was still open, I'd have probably made a shot for it.

 

I thought I'd found it alone until the last 5 seconds. I had the high bid at $32 and sniped it up to $144. But that wasn't nearly enough. Apparently the more knowledgeable never even place a bid until the last 5 seconds.

If I find another one, I'll let you know since I've wasted too much money on mistakes lately.

 

As promised, I'll post another find and this time on a current auction. This one is common except for it's die state. I believe it to be the S-166 in the extremely rare Die State I without the crack usually associated with it.

https://i.ebayimg.com/images/g/b6EAAOSwFHZaqySI/s-l400.jpg


The biggest reasons for excluding the S-165 and S-167 are the separation of both pairs of leaves below the (N)T and what appears to be a center dot above the right side of the right upright of N(T). Breen says it has no center dot, but this certainly appears to be one and to the right of the S-165 and S-167.

I've been wrong on several lately, so I'd appreciate any comments and observations you may have.

 

This is a S-235 which has been misattributed as a S-237. Neither are rare, though the S-235 is a touch scarcer. The reverse is clear. I was hoping it was an 11H but the point of 1 is a little too close to the curl for obverse 11.

https://www.ebay.com/itm/1802-ONE-C...385189?hash=item25f01f7c25:g:8L4AAOSwBoBaprox

 

I'm thinking that 1798 is an early die date of S-167. I think I'm seeing in early formation of the die chips between the E and the leaf below the D in UNITED. The bottom left serif of the E in states also appears to be missing as on 167, it's strong on 166.

 

I started having second thoughts as well. The chips may be blended into the corrosion and the "center dot" may also be corrosion as well.

I was looking at a late state S-167 that I initially confused with a Late S-173. It's remarkable how similar both break down at the same locations.

 

Marshall, I picked up this 1794 off eBay. I'm a sucker buying these low grade beauties. Photos are from the sellers listing.

 

I obviously have this wrong because I keep coming up with the obverse of S-60/61 and the Reverse of S-59 and there is no known mule of these two.

I'm looking at the close date and long pole on the Obverse and the berry under the upright of R and above the stem of the leaf under ME, but the tilted ribbon loops does look right for the S-60.

It's a fine line between observation and the power of suggestion in these lower grade cents.

 

I've been away for some time and came back to see that you guys are still at it posting these early coppers and explaining how you are attributing them - which i absolutely love and appreciate.

 

Images of my S-166 for reference:



Described at auction as "Nothing special except for the die state, which is much earlier than usually seen for this variety. E-MDS, Breen state II. The die crack that arcs through the fraction to the E in UNITED is light and there is no lump inside that E. This is the earliest state seen by this cataloger".

 

1807 S-274?? I say that because I see no overdate, the right stem is long, the date is small, small fraction, and the STATES is weak. Thoughts?