1794 cent grade and condition?

The claim was my piece had artificial toning. During this period, the grading services personnel were not familiar with early copper. They pounded the heck out of the coins that were sent them. In those days, if they refused to grade your coin, it came back in a flip (a.k.a. "body bag") and you got nothing for your grading fee, even if the coin was rare and genuine.

On mistake that collectors make is to assume that the people do the grading at the services are all experts in every series and that their opinions are infallible. They aren’t. Some them might know about Morgan Dollars, gold or modern coins. Those same people might not be as competent when it comes the early copper or silver.

The services sometimes acknowledge this in a way. They sometimes hire outside experts to grade tokens, foreign coins and ancients. Quit often the opinions rendered by those experts are better than some of the work those companies perform for the more mainstream U.S. coins.

Here is a “fixed” (brightened) photo of that 1794 cent. I sold this piece years ago.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

This is true, but the TPGs STILL do not understand early copper. Nor, I think, do they care to. There's an awful lot of modern stuff still in rolls that just might possibly be graded half a point higher than anything else...

 

Thanks for the explanation. I don't see anything wrong with your [former] coin and was curious why it was returned.

 

My problem is that I have trouble looking beyond the overall beauty of a coin, especially one that old. Great obverse strike on larstens and JM's is so clean. Great coins, both of them.

 

Got my best answer John

 

Coin was messed with. That sucks

 

You early copper heads know your stuff. Thanks for your response

 

His coin has more better detail. I don't like his coin. Color kicks it to thee curb

 

Abracadabra

 

Thanks for the clarification. When I asked why it was rejected for grading and got the answer (from another) that it was corroded, I was wrecking my brain (and eyes) trying to figure out where the corrosion was! LOL. Thanks to @LakeEffect too.

 

Thanks to you all for good and qualified comments. My conclusion of the thread is somewhat summarized in the answer from @halfcent1793 . To me it is a very nice and important historical coin for a early american coin collection.

And...all things considering, what would you think a fair retail value (spread +/-) should be on this coin then?

 

Great Collections auction archive has a number of details graded 1794 cents listed. Assuming yours would be XF details then I would expect you'd get somewhere from $600 to $1000 for your coin. I actually like the features of your coin better than the ones in the archive so I would guess that yours would fit somewhere on the higher end.

 

Here is the 1794 Cent that I currently have in my collection. It is a Sheldon 21, and it came from the Dan Holmes Collection. PCGS graded it MS-62, Brown, which it isn't. My grade is AU-55 and Bill Noyes, who is the toughtest grader I know, graded it AU-50 and the 7th finest known.



Here is an off-angle shot which shows the luster and design detail more fully.



The thing that really strikes me about these coins is that they are so beautiful and elegant for a piece that was only worth a cent. They are much more attractive than the 1795 cents which are the same type, but those coins have great charm also. Here is high grade 1795 S-76b, which is the most common Pole to Cap Cent variety. PCGS graded this one MS-61, Brown.

 

Does the holder allow you to see the edge lettering? That's one of my favorite features on those. They put so much work into those early cents. That is a stunning coin! Well, both of them actually, but I'm partial to the 94 cap.

My 94 is one of my favorite coins of my entire collection, it was a budget buster too for me, but I couldn't resist it. Nowhere near as nice as this example though, you have an amazing eye for coins.

 

You can see some of the lettering with the new holders, but not all. With old NGC holders, you could not see any of it, which is regretable. The old PGCS showed a little, but not a lot.

When I was a dealer I handled an pre-1793, "colonial coin" where the edge lettering had a great effect upon the value. I hsve forgotten which coin it was. You could see most all of the edge lettering with that PCGS slab, and I have to think that PCGS made a special effort to let it show. I wish they had done that for all of their slabbed coins.

 

A good example of how changing the relief makes a big difference in the aesthetics of the coin. The basic design is the same, but the much lower relief on the 1795 causes it to lose much of its appeal.

 

My imaginary friend left me because his friends didn't believe in me.

 

But the dies lasted a lot longer which was the advantage to lowering the relief.

 

That is the one big advantage of low relief, which is why are coins are such low relief now and they keep trying to lower it even more. One of the reasons why we will probably never get new aesthetically pleasing circulation designs in the future. So people keep saying to bring back some of the old classic designs, but I think they would be very disappointed in them once they were converted to the current flat relief.

 

That's why I like Cointalk. I didn't even know that there was edge lettering.