Attribute This

On second look, the 1800 is probably a S-191 middle die state.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

I'm hoping to see whether the "crack" is above or below the surface. An alternative explanation may be a scratch early in the life of the coin which was shallow enough so that the additional wear covered up the scratch as it crossed the leaves and letters creating an illusion of a crack.

There always seems to be more than one explanation for something that looks obvious.

 

A friend found this one on eBay; I should have it in-hand Monday.

 

The R punch and location eliminate anything other than 1793 if genuine and Obverse 14 is the only one with beads dotting the L I B E R and T. I can't tell is the die break on the right side of Y is there or if it's just damage or corrosion. So that doesn't help.

So are you leaning toward the S-16 or the S-15? I'm leaning toward the former. There appears to be too much space between the leaves left of the loops and the wreath stem for the S-15.

Really nice find. Congratulations to the finder.

 

I believe it to be S-16. I have had 2 others experienced with '93's confirm the attribution from the images- good call on your part!

 

While looking at examples of S-16 in the Heritage Archives, I think I've spotted a misattribution. This looks like a NC-6 to me from the position of the beads and upright of R.

https://coins.ha.com/itm/large-cent...1-3156.s?ic4=ListView-ShortDescription-071515

 

SUBJECT




NC-6 from Holmes Collection Sale

While this coin was from the Loma Linda collection and labeled S-16, the upright of R and beads above just don't work.

If this is what I think it is, then it would be the third example I can find.

 

This is a close up of the same area on Obverse 14. The upright is almost dotted by the bead above.

 

This is a second point of attribution and perhaps stronger evidence. Look at the location of the beads relative to the bottom of the 3 of the date.

 

The beads look spaced differently on the subject coin compared to the Holmes coin to my eye.

 

Missed this thread because I rarely go in the US forum, but I have one I could use some help on if you good folks don't mind
Posted on another forum (CU) and got that it's not 1799 or 1804. The top of the last digit looks like a rounded loop, but not clear. These photos make out the best detail I can get, it's pretty slick. Thanks for any clues.

 

It looked a little off to me as well, but I suspect corrosion and wear have caused highlights of the right side of the beads making them appear to be right of the center of the beads. That is one reason I was looking for additional points of reference.

I have no idea whether it is genuine, a very good counterfeit or even a new die. But I think I can eliminate the alternative known obverses other than 15.

The provenance as a S-16 in the Loma Linda collection and predating some of the more recent high end counterfeits gives me hope it is genuine, but I honestly can't spot the good counterfeits. All I can do is determine what variety they're copying.

 

I believe this is the 1798 S-174, though I can't rule out similar clashed reverses. I can see nothing inconsistent with S-174.

Definitely the reverse loop punch of 1797/1799. It has a leaf point under the inner right upright of M. Second lowest outer leaf on the right is free from the wreath vine. It has what appears to be a damaged C(E) and it has what appears to be a diagnostic clash running through the denominator. Flipping it to the obverse, the spacing of the hair and LIBERTY are right.

 

Thanks! Much appreciated

 

I saw Jack's coin posted on another thread/forum a week or two ago where they were asking if it might be a 94 head of 93. The pictures on that thread were MUCH worse and nothing at all could be seen on the reverse, just a dark blank circle. On that thread I called it as either an S-15 or 16, but with nothing visible on the reverse I couldn't say which. With the better image of the reverse I'd say S-16.

 

Oops! That clash should have been described as through the numerator, not the denominator.

 

I concur with your assessment. The tail of the R points above the base of the T on the NC-6 and not on other obverses paired with reverse J. The stem of the T also points between two dots, unlike the other obverses which line up squarely with a dot.

 

I spoke by phone with Mark Borchardt and he is notifying the new owner and they will look into it. But he indicated it might be but wants to wait on the results of their investigation before reaching that conclusion. I don't blame him.

But I'm really excited at the possibility of making a find of a R8 rarity.

 

Two additional points:

1. The pole is closer to the bust than on the other three obverses.
2. There is buckling behind the hair below the cap.