Attribute This

I find it amazing that you all can ID these varieties with so little detail, that is probably why I can easily avoid these, I would have to spend a year researching each one.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

I cannot come up with a better match than S-170; however, I cannot dismiss a few points on the reverse that give me pause.

1. I see no evidence of a stem on the berry at (N)E.

2. No scratch at the end of the left wreath stem.

3. Right wreath stem appears to intersect the ribbon closer to the knot.

4. No evidence of clash marks seen on Reverse U.

5. What appears to be a filled in area between the right ribbon and the right wreath stem near the intersection.

Perhaps these can be accounted for by PMD, Die State differences or strike issues like grease in the die.

 

I just picked this up. Take a shot at attribution.

 

Very quick glance says S-196.

 

Looks like reverse F so I say S-195.

 

Attribution Diagnostics:

OBVERSE

The 9 undertype in the first 0 is boldly visible. It is distinctly a 9 and not a chip eliminating the Q variety (Obverse 7). This is a true overdate. This limits known obverses to 1-6.

The obverse retains the curl of type 2 (not yet worn smooth) so we can eliminate Obverse 1.

All of the upright of T is above and a little more distant from the hair of Obverse 2. The 8 is also close, but equally spaced between the 1 and the first 0 which eliminates Obverse 2 where the T straddles the JHF and is a bit closer. The 8 is also closer to 1 than the first 0 and the date is a little more widely spaced.

The second 0 is low and the shoulder loop is narrow and slightly concave in respect to the rim and the date is closer eliminating Obverse 4 which is wider, straight to slightly convex in relation to the rim with the second 0 higher.

The undertype of the 9 is bold and the second 0 low eliminating a very similar Obverse 5 which has a weak undertype, has a slightly wider date
and slightly higher second 0.

The undertype is bold and date narrow with a low second 0 eliminating Obverse 6 which has a weak undertype, wider date and 8 closer to 1 than first 0. The shoulder loop is also a bit wider and rounder.

This leaves Obverse 3 as the presumptive Obverse die. This is somewhat confirmed by the edges of the 9/first 0 which were not exactly aligned making them appear thicker than other overdates.

REVERSE

Rather than eliminate all the reverses, I will point toward diagnostic or semi-diagnostic features of this reverse which will help to eliminate alternative reverses.

1. The right stem intersects the right ribbon at the lower part of the intersection with the wreath eliminating reverse E which intersects below that intersection. If there is concern that wear has been the culprit here, the additional points should suffice.

2. The fraction bar is closer to the numerator and below the bend in the ribbon.

3. The berry at (CEN)T is weaker then the berry at R(ICA).

4. The berry at M is close to the wreath vine.

5. The berry at (ON)E is of moderate length and points above the E.

6. The berry at (O)F has a moderate and bold stem which attaches above the point the leaf above (ON)E attaches.

7. While weak, evidence of the crack running from the right side of the outer 0 of the denominator through the right ribbon to the right foot of A, the base of A to just above the bottom of C appears to indicate a middle die state. The break is not evident from C to I, but that might be PMD.

8. A slight depression of the die at the bottom of 1 of the denominator creates a slightly elevated bulge on the coin there.

Here is a comparable:



So my attribution is Obverse 3, Reverse F or the S-195.

While called R5, this will be my fifth find of this variety. I suspect many relied too heavily on the diagnostic calling the fraction bar thin. While this might be true on higher grade specimens, the copper is too soft to retain it's thinness with wear and is often categorized as an early die state of S-194. But the alternative diagnostics are quite clear.

 

I'm glad you picked up this one. I was watching this coin last night and decided not to bid. I have 2 S-195's (maybe more) so I'm spending my dollars elsewhere. Congratulations.

 

Thanks for not bidding and thanks for the confirmation of the attribution and also that the S-195s may not be quite as rare as reported.

 

That's what I get for glazing over my book too quickly, spending just a few seconds trying to attribute it. I completely skipped over S-195 for some reason. I was wondering where the "horns" on the 8 were.

The diagnostic I was using was the mostly-filled-in upper hole of the 8. Both S-195 and S-196 have this, but S-195 does not have very clear "horns" on the 8.

 

@Marshall
You got me thinking about the 1800 overdates. I have multiples of each variety (not NC's) except S-191. Not a single one. Plus I still have another 8 that I haven't positively identified yet. None of them are the S-191 though. Just a fluke or not?

 

I haven't seen many for a variety which is supposed to be common (R1, R2, R3.) But I did bid on one recently which was unattributed, but lost out. I usually avoid common varieties unless they are a rare die state, but I thought a S-191 was worth the effort. I begun to become interested in all the 1798 and 1800 type one hair varieties.

 

The overdates in my collection were either inherited or I purchased because I liked the overdate. Only recently have I changed my buying habits. My guess is it's a rarer variety than advertised. Looking at past auctions, the S-191 has very low numbers for the ones that were attributed.

 

Here are overdate obverses 1-6 of 1800 for convenience:

 

Thanks for the photo. I now have an S-191. Low grade but I'm happy.

 

Congratulations.

 

1798's. I must be getting tired, sorry for the crappy photos.

 

S-166 R1,
S-150 R5,
S-187 R1,
S-163 R4-,
S-164 R4

 

Thanks for the confirmation. Exactly what I had. I have about 20 more 1798's. A few are the overdates but they are very worn.

 

Glad to help. It's always good to have confirmation because if somebody else can't see what you see, the attribution is suspect. If they see it after explanation it is good, but on their own is great.

 

Last second impulse buy. I know very bad idea.