1831 Large Cent Attribution Help?

Hi, coinfacts doesnt seem to have any images of the 1831 so I cant attribute it... and unfortunately I dont have any books to help either...

I would much much appreciate some help on the newcomb attribution for this...and if its anything other than 'common' a little advice on the amount of rarity/amount of extra value

Thanks in advance!! This is by far one of the nicest large cents i've owned to date, and I much appreciate any advice!

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

why do I feel that there is something just not right with this coin? The details don't seem to match the wear and the color is spotting

 

The surfaces look right for a copper of that era, so unless China has gotten much better lately it looks okay to me. More than that I can't help, not a big penny guy.

 

Looks like an N-6 R2 to me. To me the details do match the wear. The issue I see with the coin is what was it dipped in to try to hide what looks like corrosion around stars 11 thru 13 and maybe to stop the spot in front of the neck from growing. That coin would grade AU/XF details with ANACs.

 

Nice coin by the way. I do not think it is fake in my opinion. I have a couple just like it - except for the sheen on the surface.

 

Mark has nailed this one to a T. It is the N6. I too question the surfaces of this coin. This reminds me of the coins that were dipped in the solution that came out in the 70's to stop PVC damage from the old coinmaster albums. I can't remember what the magic solution was but it certainly left this same look to copper. I remember it like I just looked at them. Its definitely been given a bath in something to coat it.

 

But the other thing that bothered me was the fields are lighter than the devices

 

Thanks for the info! I bought it from a reputable person who deals with many coins, of course that doesnt guarantee anything but I have delt with this guy for a long time... It makes sense the coin may have been oiled up sometime in the last 178 years, i'm still very happy with it!

Thanks again everyone!

 

See my previous posting about members of the copper society and coin altering.

Ruben

 

Because original large cents aren't common, and you have likely not seen enough to recognize one in a picture.

The red is a spot of corrosion, but to someone's credit, they saw the big picture -- and valued the original surfaces more than removing the spot.

Respectfully...Mike

 

p.s. WONDERFUL n-6, BTW.

 

That's the way original circulated copper looks....

When the areas of the fields and devices are the same color, be worried. When the high points of the design (i.e. areas that have received circulation wear) are lighter than the rest of the coin, be worried. When the coin has darker areas where they are wear, and the rest of the coin is lighter -- that's the look of an original coin. You don't see many of these coins like this (for the reason you allude to in a subsequent post), but there's virtually no doubt in my mind that this coin is original.

Respectfully...Mike

 

You might be right, but I still think the varnished look isn't right and I think the coin was reworked near the eyes.

 

Now that coin you just posted (the CC for 1821 N-1 (pittman?), IIRC) is unoriginal as can be, IMO. Doesn't make it a bad coin by any stretch of the imagination, but let's be real....Mike

 

its a gem proof FWIW

http://www.coinfacts.com/large_cent...821_large_cents/1821_large_cent_varieties.htm

 

Thought I recognized it..... Way cool coin. But a proof? Please.....Mike

 

Hey - I'm not making the attribution but repeating PCGS's

Images courtesy of David Akers Numismatics, Inc.

"Gem Proof"
- Numismatic Gallery 5/1/1953
- David Akers Numismatics, Inc. sale of the John Jay Pittman collection, 10/1997:202

 

Another Pittman "proof"?

 

Yeah, I know. The "please" comment wasn't directed at you, but rather the so-called "experts". However, I am admittedly biased when it comes to "proof" coins of this time period....Mike