1803 Large Cent Opinion Sought

You are correct that obv 2 and 3 are the same obverse. You are correct that obv 3 is NOT a reworking of obv 2. Obv 2 is an overpolished obv 3 where they were removing the severe clashmarks. So S-245 was struck before S-244. But there was no remarriage of the polished Obv with Rev C to strike the terminal Die state III of S-245. All of the S-245's were struck before the S-244's. The terminal state III of S-245 shown in Breen and in the Holmes catalog clearly shows that the die has not yet been polished.

The polishing of the die that leaves the top of the hair looking unfinished also removed hair detail in other places. Those detail areas are NOT missing on your coin so I would say that the point of the curl has been damaged on your coin and it IS an "obv 3"

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

Well, as usually happens, a long post timed out and I didn't copy it. I'll post in shorter bits and then edit.

Now the task is more daunting than I initially imagined as I begin tracing the die markers. I don't see some and I mistake scratches, corrosion and dings as well as strike differences and toning for non existent ones. The last two can alter the apparent sequencing as well.

My appreciation must be extended to Heritage Auction for their archives where I have obtained these images without permission for this research. Therefore, they should not be used for any other purpose and if they ask, I will remove them.

I have adjusted the images in a few instances to maximize the die marker's visibility and then added my own comments with paintjet.
I will then move them to photobucket when they complete their maintenance and share them to CoinTalk.

Since I don't always see the described markers, I am finding that working backward from the terminal state dies to the initial ones works best. I'm also fortunate that my proposed sequence begins with S-243 which has a very easy Obverse 1 die marker CUD. I will post both obverse and reverse since the obverse will help to determine the reverse sequence when there are no or difficult to follow markers for the early sequence of Reverse L of 1802 (A of 1803).[I have changed my mind and will stick to one die for presentation purposes. I'll keep them together in my files.]

Please note that my Die States do not correspond to published reference material which I don't have or descriptions which are often based on little or no comparison pieces.

Obverse 1 of 1803 - All are paired with Reverse A of 1803/Reverse L of 1802:

I This is the initial State with no apparent injury to the rim to the right of Liberty:



II This is the first evidence of an injury to the rim, but not yet in the field:



III Rim beginning to crumble



IV CUD breaks into field right of Y



V Break right of Y thickens



VI Break moves up to above TY near rim



VII Break thickens into TY and radial breaks around the CUD form



Please make comments now about the presentation and any helpful hints which might make it better.

Next up will be Obverse 14 of 1802 with 2 Reverse Pairings - Reverse M of 1802 (Reverse C of 1803) on the S-242 and Reverse A of 1803 (Reverse L of 1802) on the S-241.

 

When I get to that stage and post the picture, maybe you can show me how to distinguish the polishing from damage or weak strikes. There are two coins in particular that don't seem right and I'll be sure to point them out.

Thank you very much for your assistance and knowledge. You have the answers to many of my questions.

 

By the way, my question about a new die pairing has now become a detailed analysis on die sequencing, die states, striking and methods of presenting an articulate and user friendly explanation. I shall now refer to Obverse 3/2 to indicate a single die with the 3 first to indicate order.

This is why I love the old stuff.