Attribute This

I understand how a particular date peaks your interest. I'm that way with 1796 Draped Bust followed closely by 1797 and style 1 hair 1798s.

The 1800s that I've picked up recently are an aberration.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

Interesting what you say about the 1796 Draped Busts. This date was also my favorite for a very long time, (somewhat superseded now by 1794's).
I managed to add S-93, S-102 (2x), S-103, S-105, S-112 and S-115 to my collection.

S-105 is still my favorite:

 

My 96 DB currently consists of 92, 94(2), 95(2), 98, 103, 105(2), and 116.

My 97 DB currently consists of 120a, 121b, 129, 133, 141, NC-5 and 142.

My 98 DB Style I hair consists of 146, 147(2), 149 and 153.

With S-195(4), 202, 203, 204, 206, 208, and S-210(2), I have a good start on the 1800s

 

Quite the collection, Marshall !
If you get the chance would really like to see your 103 and 105's.

I like 1797 as a date as well, but my set of 97's i.e. quite limited: 124, 131, 134, 137, and 138.

 

Thanks for the offer. The problem is the unattributed 1800's are all AG-3 or worse. If I remember correctly 16 of them. Here's one, I believe it's S-207. I post more this fall when I got more time.

 

He does mention S-65 on the 1794, as possibly an unlisted terminal die stage. It shows what appears to be a strong die crack up through the I in UNITED and there is no die stage of S-65 listed with such a crack.

 

I didn't see that on the posting, but it looks like PMD to me with it's square pattern reminding me of a plier mark. But stranger things have happened.

BTW, have you gotten photos of your 95 NC-3?

 

That looks right to me. The reverse has the crack at the bottom of CA though it's too worn in the photo to see it extend to the fraction. The berries stems below and left of C(ENT) match up. The S-206 and S-207 are usually differentiated by the bald spot on the S-206, but this one requires looking at the spacing of ER and the position of T relative to the JHF. On this, the ER is closer and the T is further left of the JHF which matches up with the S-207.

 

I only have one of 105s in my photo collection. The other two were purchased in 2016 and those photos are now unavailable. Here is the one I do have, such as it is:

 

My other S-105 has a bit more wear, but a much nicer planchet. The S-103 is corroded and while the reverse is easy to identify and the S-102 can be eliminated, I settled on S-103 over S-101 though it may have been because the corrosion mimmicks the H of the S-103. But the spacing of LIB looks more like S-101.

 

This 1796 was inherited. It is severely corroded and was in my great grandfathers junk box. It appears to be an old ground find. Thoughts?

 

Never would of bought a coin that worn. Call me old fashion

 

Just the kind of coin I like. Sheldon Reverse U; Reverse of 94. Six obverse pairings. Only the S-108 date is as widely spaced. Nice inheritance.

 

S-108 is what I had also. This coin in hand has XF details. It's an amazing coin to study. Too bad it's corroded and black but I will always cherish it.

 

Here's another draped bust that has bugged me. The obverse is blank and the reverse is interesting. I think corrosion has removed the obverse.

 

I guess I will post the 1797 that I have and the 1796 I used to have.

S-140



S-104



And a bonus 1802 S-237.

 

Very nice coins, thanks for sharing.

 

I love a challenge.

1797 Reverse P. The obverse is too far gone to determine whether it's the S-139 or S-140. Easiest marker is the connection between the tops of N and T. Other markers consistent with Reverse P.

 

That S-104 was an S-103.

The 97 looks so much nicer in hand. If you ever decide to part with it, let me know.

 

So it was. I had it attributed correctly when I sold it. I was thinking S-103, R-4.