I was sniped last time, but I got it this time. A bit of pitting on the obverse this time, but attribution is certain with the type 2 R and imbedded 7. The reverse with no stems and leaves under the middle of D leaves no room for error. http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dl...2&si=1gP3WRFEaBlIWcRYMjzNO71vQ3s%3D&viewitem= This is the last collectible 1797 stemless wreath I needed. Only the unique NC-8 eludes me. Now I'm open to discussion about how much the pitting damage should reduce the net grade of this example.
Nice pick up. I would net it to po-1, even though the details are better than that. It might be different in hand.
Grading damaged coins is always difficult. I can make a case for detail grades of 3 or as high as 5 due to dentilation and mostly complete date and legends with missing OF caused by swelling. But that is offset by pitting and spotting which has to significantly reduce the net. Now what do we do with a coin needing this reduction when an even worse coin cannot receive an even lower grade? Take that coin to a P0.5 or inflate this one? There really aren't any good answers. Of course being EAC lingual, I would choose to refer to it as Basil or B-1. Now I compare this to the S-195. It is in much better shape, but the attribution points are more suspect. I eventually reached the point of questioning my attribution because the appropriate cracks might not be strong enough. I eventually found a distinction between the S-195 and S-196 by simple side by side study from the Holmes examples and found a difference in the distance between the top of the (N)E and the leaf above it. Distant on the S-195 and closer on the S-196. This is not noted in any books as an attribution point, but does confirm my initial attribution. But I have wandered way off the subject. Thanks for taking a look.
