Attribute This

A little further investigation indicates it was likely struck on an old planchet "of the Gourdon copper purchase of August 1793. Planchets are often out of round and usually have lamination defects." {Remarks Breen 17a}

"...planchet quality is best summarized by the description accompanying the Jack H. Robinson coin (lot 22): " The planchet appears to have been a 'mud-ball' rather than copper stock considering the striations, fissures and laminations..." {footnote Breen 17a}

The Taylor & Bailey blanks (planchets) used on the high quality strikes of the early die states of 18b would not fit this coin.

This could be a very early strike of the die before the new planchets were struck or an old planchet left in a barrel and struck later. The die state is probably early to middle since the lettering on the reverse is there despite the lamination and late die states have developed a bulge from a sunken die.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

This is a common variety in a rare Die State.

 

https://www.ebay.com/itm/1794-1796-...ow-Grade-True-Auction-No-Reserve/333795622161

This is an identifiable variety. Anyone want to give it a try?

 

No idea. I will guess S-28

 

close - two leaves on the second outside right from the bottom (under RI).

 

I concur. That’s a better match, even though I can’t see that diagnostic

 

It has to be rotated CCW to figure it out. It's harder to figure out the orientation than seeing the diagnostic.

 

I was cruising eBay and came across an interesting item. The attribution is crystal clear as S-102. But this caught mt interest for two reasons.

First, it appears to be a top census candidate, certainly in detail if not net.

Second it has a 'break' seen on only one other coin called Die State A in Noyes but is not described as such indicating it might have been considered PMD or a planchet flaw. But this item shows the exact same flaw making that determination unlikely.

This is coin being offered which matches Die State A in Noyes and is numbered 20281 VF25 (XF45) and tied for 5/6. This appears to be sharper and has slight variations in dings and wear, (sharper denticles on SE of Reverse - usually weak,) making it unlikely to be the same coin (though ruling that out is difficult with differences in lighting and photography)


I just checked Breen and there is a mention of a perfect die state Reverse in his REMARKS and the die crack above AMER is either weak or missing.

I'm not promoting this item and have no financial interest in it, but it is intriguing numismatically.



Could this actually be a new obverse die which was quickly discarded because it shattered? We now have two S-102s that are not quite like the others.

 

Is it possible that it is the exact same coin as in Noyes? From the lighting and shadows, it looks incuse to me

 

It looks different to me, but lighting has tricked me before by highlighting different surface blemishes.

 

The dentil detail above L looks different to me Ding right of L on Noyes and dentils over and left distinct on Noyes.

What concerns me most is a counterfeit using the Noyes coin to make a die. There have been several very high grade coins in the past couple of weeks that I can't find in the census. The counterfeiters have upped their game. But they usually repair obvious blemishes leaving only the subtle ones.

 

@Jack D. Young I never got a great feeling about the coin in question, particularly the rims. What say you?

 

I'm scared of almost every coin right now. But what looks like a top census coin suddenly arriving on scene with a several semi-unique defects and some differences reminds me of Jack's specialty and refined Chinese counterfeits using a real coin to produce dies.

It is particularly concerning that there is a sudden influx of them at the same time. It doesn't FEEL right. But I don't trust my ability to figure out why it's not right.

There are at least three on eBay right now including a S-166 with the die crack and a S-26 with a little more wear. As some people say with regularity, I don't believe in coincidences.

 

links?

 

https://www.ebay.com/itm/1798-S-166...e-Cent/274578166048?ssPageName=STRK:MEBIDX:IT

https://www.ebay.com/itm/Large-cent...e=STRK:MEBIDX:IT&_trksid=p2055359.m1431.l2649

 

I think those two are genuine. The Chinese like getting rid of die cracks

 

My second set of TRIPLETS.

New


to go with:


The other set is 1803 NC-1

 

I went for a low price early Large Cent and thought I was picking up a S-22. But it turned out to be S-29. I wanted to get a variety with the R punch of 93 and this is one.

 

This is one of the last 1796s I needed. It has some issues, but the surfaces are nice. It is not unlike the S-101 in this regard.


Thank You Brett for parting with this. He obtained it many years ago from Tom Reynolds so it has a nice provenance.