Attribute This

The A is close to the right stem, but not touching it. This helps eliminate many 96s and some others. It also shows the right stem pointing toward the left foot of A.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

While these 4 diagnostics do not exhaust the possibilities, let's see how many reverses we can eliminate.

1796
I - Lowest outside berry on the left - eliminated
K - Lowest outside berry on the left - eliminated
O - Lowest outside berry on the left - eliminated
R - Lowest outside berry on the left - eliminated
T - Lowest outside berry on the left - eliminated
W - Lowest outside berry on the left - eliminated
Y - Lowest inside berry on the left - eliminated
Z - Lowest inside berry on the left - eliminated
AA - Lowest inside berry on the left - eliminated
BB - Lowest outside berry on the left - eliminated

So 1796 is eliminated

 

1797
A - Loops (Reverse of 95) - eliminated
B - Lowest outside berry on the left - eliminated
C - A not close - eliminated
D - A not close- eliminated
E - Right stem pointed at right foot of A - eliminated
F - Lowest inside berry on the left - eliminated
G - Not exact matches, but close

new diagnostic - close denominator small fat numbers (not as thin as the Reverse of 95 and not the type II large numbers)

G - wide denominator - eliminated
H - Right stem pointed at right foot of A - eliminated
I - Lowest inside berry on the left - eliminated
J - Stemless, Right stem pointed at right foot of A - eliminated
K - Lowest outside berry on the left - eliminated
L - Lowest inside berry on the left - eliminated
M - Right stem pointed at right foot of A - eliminated
N - Right stem pointed at right foot of A - eliminated
O - Lowest inside berry on the left - eliminated
P - Lowest outside berry on the left - eliminated
Q - Lowest inside berry on the left - eliminated
R - Lowest inside berry on the left - eliminated
S - Close

new diagnostic, leaf under right upright of (U)N.
S - Leaf under center of N - eliminated
T - stemless - Right stem pointed at right foot of A - eliminated

So 1797 is eliminated

 

I'm going to take a break now. 1798 is a big one.

 

I think it's the S-161. In a middle die state, the lowest stem on the left appears to come closer to bisecting the gap than in the earlier die state. This is from a movement of the lower leaf toward the upper leaf from some type of die damage. It later obscures the entire gap.

 

I pulled the trigger too quick again. It was labeled correctly as S-76b and Obverse 3 was obvious. But the reverse is worn and rotated and I thought the leaf was above the E and not the N. I looked closely at Reverses D, I and E and thought it matched E. Pulled the trigger thinking it was a new mule which was double struck. Seeing the tab with lettering on both obverse and reverse shots convinced me it wasn't a wrong photo.

But afterward, I examined the Reverse and rotated it to the correct orientation and discovered my error.


The reverse is rotated about 80 degrees. I was looking at the wrong pair of leaves.

 

Here are some follow up photos of the S-161 which confirm the attribution.


The obverse confirms a 1798 and adds a countermark W. This is incused into the coin like the Standard Stamp.


Reverse diagnostics are clearer.


Close-ups of the countermarks.


Close-up of lowest outer berry on the left and lowest inner berry on the left.

 

This is the comp I used for S-161 which shows the encroachment of damage at the lower left berry.

 

The obverse doesn't match. I don't know. I'm back to square 1 on the 98s.

 

Just acquired this large cent today. Pretty far gone coin but I've tried to attribute it. 1798 S-169 is my best guess, but I still have my doubts about that. Anyone want to take a shot?

 

I took a brief shot at it, but it's like the one I just worked on. I "see" a couple of things on the reverse that are problematic. The Leaf at (N)T appears to point outside of the serif and the bottom of (C)A is close to the bend of the ribbon. SO I'm left with more questions than answers. Is it really a design element on the variety or is it PMD? It's a borderline call on a coin in this condition.

 

Just a heads on an eBay listing: https://www.ebay.com/itm/1796-Liber...557650?hash=item4dbfcff0d2:g:V9YAAOSw6VNbIWvk

It's pricey, but it is a very rare Die State I of S-83 before any hint of the die break between the pole and the bust which develops very quickly in the life of the obverse die. Other than the example in Noyes, I was unable to find another, with several identified as Is that were IIs or even IIIs with a developing crack through LIBERTY. One was an early II without the LIBERTY crack, but with an already strong break at the pole to the bust tip. Breen actually starts his I with a feint crack from the pole to the bust which apparently develops before the crack at LIBERTY.

I'd probably make an offer, but I'm still trying to figure out how to pay for the purchases in November that are coming due.

 

Marshall I’ve missed you. You where one of my earlier favorites

 

Hope you win the coin. Thanks for the education

 

1794 S-36, R.5

 

1794 S-62, R.4+

 

I haven't been able to negotiate what I believe is a fair price. It is still possible that the lack of the diagnostic break could be PMD or missing from grease on the die. SO I'm not willing to pay double market.

 

I realize that I've gotten away from what was originally intended when I started this thread. As my health returns, I'd like to take the time to return to an educational and process oriented thread rather than a focus on my latest acquisitions.

Of course, confirming attributions and/or pointing out questions on attributions will always be the bulk of the thread discussion.

I would like to thank those that stepped in to help the new blood with attributions while I was just trying to survive 2020 and early 2021.

 

ps Besides the lockdowns, heart stent, two hurricanes, Actually getting COVID and pneumonia and then a DEEP FREEZE that Iced me in for four days. I couldn't even reach my generator when the electricity went off because the paths were solid ice.

 

Wow! A lot to get through.