Attribute This

1794. The reverse is easy. the obverse was a bit challenging and I checked the hair gaps. But finding a portion of a known die break gave me confidence.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

I'm trying to figure out if it's the latest state I've seen or I'm picking up a second strike.

The CUD break over ST extends to the left of the S. Maybe a die crack from (C)A through right ribbon to final 0. Rim breaks over TED and UNI appear to have spilled over into the field.

On the obverse, there appears to be a new break from the hair across 1 to the rim just left of the 7 as well. The earlier break through the 8 also seems more extensive.

But these could also be the result of a double strikes and wear leaving traces to be confused with later breaks or die states.

For now, I'm labeling it as a new State VII for my own benefit, but I could easily be wrong.

 

Great news. Promising. Thanks

 

This may help.

https://support.apple.com/en-us/HT202044

 

Moved from the under $50 thread where I inadvertently posted this:

I just spotted two very similar, but different coins. Could the similarities indicate that what was considered post mint damage might have been simply the terminal die state imparted at the mint? The "damage" behind Liberties ear, right of the bust and the top of R(I) on the reverse are of particular interest.

Before spotting the second coin, I would have agreed. Now I'm not so sure.

Both are at least the latest known die state of an already Rare variety. And while the "damage" behind the ear is much clearer on one coin, the other shows similar discontinuity at the same location with similar angles and shape. This can't happen either with PMD. At least it's statistically unlikely in such a small sample.

The obverse die was never used again and the reverse, and particularly the R(I), was either repaired or the initial similarities resulted from weak strikes {Bifurcation?} since the reverse die was used on the next two varieties as well without the open R.

 

We are either looking at different things, or you are imagining things. I am assuming you are referring to the massive pitting behind the ear on the higher-grade specimen. I see no evidence of this on the lower-grade coin. Also, how does the die deform so that it becomes raised?

 

It is possible I'm seeing something behind the ear on the second coin that can be explained by pitting, but the die could collapse except for the areas mentioned. It is an unusual possibility, but not unimaginable.

It is also possible something attached itself to the die causing a strike-through on more than one coin. Grease in the die may explain the open R which when removed allowed continued use of the reverse die.

But the hardest one to explain away is the catastophic damage right of the bust on both coins beyond the swelling of the bust typical on Die State III.

 

This is a third example of the above without the "damage" behind the ear:



It also shows bolder clashes below the hair ribbons and less weakness at OF A.

But I must be seeing things that aren't there because it looks like a die break I speculated about on the S-167 is here on the S-125.
"On the obverse, there appears to be a new break from the hair across 1 to the rim just left of the 7 as well."

This is why I love sharing. It keeps me from total Attribution Irrationality/Insanity or at least exposes it.

 

I don't see the total catastrophic damage to the right of the bust that you're talking about. I think the damage behind the ear on the first piece is just that damage. In the open top on the are on the reverse is most likely a function of strike because the 126 and 127 also show a very thin top to that R that could show as an open top if the strike is slightly weak.

To answer the question of how the die can deform to create a raised area on the coin, if the die is increase sufficiently hardened the pressure from striking can cause the surface of the die to collapse as the metal is compressed, creating a depression in the die and a raised swelling on the coin.

 

My question was about part of the die rising to produce a lower area on the coin

 

It's a matter of how much of the die sinks. If it's a small portion of the die, it appears as a raised area on the coin. But if it's massive, say 80%, then the appearance is that of sinking on the remaining 20%. In this case, it could be both with sinking at the bust showing a bulge with additional sinking on 90% while the remaining portion appears to be depressed.

I'm not saying that is what happened, but it could and might have. It's speculative at this point.

The sinking at the bust is diagnostic of the stage II and even more pronounced on stage III. I'm just speculating that most of the remaining die sank even further with the exception of the area between about 5 and 6 o'clock to the right of the bust that appears as an anti-bulge. I've now seen that area with the same depression on three coins making PMD unlikely.

It's possible it has something to do with proximity to the known bulge creating an illusion of depression and that would make some sense with it becoming more pronounced as the bulge gets heavier.

This might also account for the weakness at OF A which is directly behind the bust swelling. Material in the bulge prevents the flow of copper into the OF A?

 

Okay he was talking about what could happen to the die to cause a depression behind the ear, not the swelling of the point of the bust. Good point about the only thing that could cause that would be something stuck to the die not the die itself.

 

I'm going to have to wait a bit to see if this one is S-240 State III - common, or IV - rare. The photos by the seller are just too fuzzy, but the obverse crack looks very heavy. I hope that's not just the lighting angle.

 

Now to the other end of the spectrum. This is a common S-220. But I can't see either obverse or reverse die crack usually seen.

Breen describes Die State I as simply having rim crumbling right of Y. This coin is too worn to observe that. His Die State II is described with obverse clash marks and the reverse break from the rim above A(T) through the bottom of T, right top double leaf and then to the rim between (O)F and A(M). Noyes states he has not seen a perfect Reverse A and begins with his State B which includes the reverse Crack of Breen II.

Is this a Breen I (Noyes A)?

 

If damage is unique, then PMD seems most likely. If two or more coins show the same thing, then foreign matter stuck to the die seems more likely. But I'm not sure how to tell the difference with confidence on a coin with a single example which could be either. Both seem more likely than die sinking across more than 50% of a die.

BTW, I obtained the inferior example of the pair.

 

OK. No Hints. I just want to see what others come up with.

 

Picked up this 1798 s-183 a while back. Not a bad find at a local show!

 

Excellent find.

The subtleties between the three obverses sharing this reverse is quite an art. the S-184 being the easiest to distinguish with a wider gap between I and B. But the subtle difference between the HWH being right of center on the S-182 or left of center on the S-183 of the upright of R(T) is tricky. Looks like you have the right one to me.

I've seen a lot of errors on these with some simply being unattributable.

 

S-167 (VI) or new VII?

This is a close-up of the damaged area. It confuses me a bit because it is definitely a depression in the coin, But both a strike-through and PMD should have obscured the detail you can clearly see inside the damaged area. It is the detail you would expect for it's location and not an impression of another coin or even a piece of another coin which would be reversed.