Gentlemen, Gentlemen, Gentlemen. It's time for another fine game of "Attribute THIS, pal !". Our good friend Dan Holmes is auctioning off his stellar collection of Large Cents, and I was fortunate enough to grab one. Care to venture an opinion on grade and Newcombe number ? I know you coppa hedz are out there somewhere ! Game on ! Ricky B
It's a beautiful cent. Nice strong strike. I'm away from my ref books so I can't do anything about variety but I'd guess MS64.
I'm playing. After much debate, I'm going with N-10 due to distance of date and stars from the dentils. MS68. The curl is strong and and it''s supposed to be weak, but the N-11 lettering is too distant from the dentils. N-8 and N-9 have the curl too far right. After that, we're into uncharted territory. It's a real beauty.
No marks in the fields or on the cheek that I can see. Can't tell the cause of the rim irregularities, particularly at 6 on the reverse. If it's just the holder then I see no problems there. Some of the stars aren't fully struck, particularly numbers 5 through 10, but as I understand it that's not a major problem. I can easily go MS-66 and probably MS-67. Overall a very pleasing coin. I have no attribution resource for these coins except Breen's encyclopedia. No guess there.
Great pickup, I'll agree with the MS64 noted previously, and about a EAC 60, and call it a N-10. Well done Rick.
Upon 'Reflection,' I'm changing the N-10 to PF68 rather than MS68. Also. I'm sorry for the confusion when I interchange N and Obverse numbers. Beaded Obverses 7 (N-9), 8 (N-10), 9 (N-11) and 10 (N-11).
OK, enough suspense... It's N-10 PCGS MS-64. My spin... I agree with MS-64. I can't go higher due to the incomplete strike in the stars, though I can see why some forgive that and call it 65. The coin has wonderful luster and color, with just a few peeks of mint red still shining through in the most protected areas. Very strong surfaces with almost no nicks; a full strike would put this one 65 or better. Early to middle die state with some die crumbling in the dentils on both sides. Condition Census #12 according to Noyes. Hats off to Dan Holmes for being a wonderful numismatist and all-around good guy. We will never see a collection like this again. And a salute to you copperheads for your expertise and input ! Thanks for playing !
I (obviously) saw the weakness in the stars. What I didn't expect is that it would affect the grade that much. And I missed any problems with the dentils. I got tied up with the slab impinging on the rim and didn't even consider other possible problems in that area. I find it interesting that NGC in its type set listing will include a Type III SLQ (recessed date) but won't include the Matron Head Modified cent. A bit arbitrary if you ask me. (BTW I have an 1838 which I consider part of my type set.)
Hmmm... that's an interesting question. I've kinda rolled that around in my head*, and it's given me a new insight into EAC grading. EAC methodology is most useful when dealing with circulated coins, particularly those with "problems" of greater or lesser degree. It's easy to see why; the vast majority of coins running around EAC circles are circulated, and almost all have some sort of bump. I don't think the EAC method differs from conventional methods very much when dealing with mint state coins or low-problem coins. It's telling that Copper Quotes by Robinson only goes up to AU55 ! ** I'm eager to hear the opinions of other copperheads on this. It's an interesting topic. * Lots of stuff rolls around in my head. NOT a pretty sight ! ** for the most part; there are exceptions
EAC is VERY hard on any damage to rims, regardless of the source. (Mint or post mint) I have no problem with any consistent standard. I just hate standards that change from coin to coin and market to market.
