Early American Copper Collectors - how would you grade this 1798 S-163 Draped Bust Cent?

I would greatly appreciate your grading and other opinions or comments on this 1798, Sheldon 163.

S-163 is rated R-4+ and it is an interesting variety because the best known example is (only) graded EAC 30 (per C.Q.R) or EAC 35 according to HA.
I was lucky to be able to add this one to my collection and would like to be sure I have it graded correctly.

Here two sets of pictures under different lighting conditions.

Thank you!

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

As I am not familiar with this series the only thing I can say it's sweet looking coin. Lot's of meat on that bone. I'm sure your very pleased to have it in your collection. Nice pick up Eduard

 

Not being completely familiar with the EAC grading, I do know that it is a lot more rigid than the TPG's, I can say it is a very nice piece and imminently collectible for a discriminating collector such as yourself.

The minor depression at 4 o'clock on the obverse appears to be a planchet flaw and not a hard hit on the piece.

I appreciate the large sized images and being able to zoom them to see all the little tell tale die cracks.

It is a very very lovely coin and I thank you for sharing it.

 

I would not dare consider myself a qualified EAC-system grader, but with what I've learned over the years about their style a somewhat-educated guess is possible.

Here are two PCGS S-163's - an XF 40 and XF45 - referred to as 30's in their respective writeups, two of the three finest known:

https://coins.ha.com/itm/large-cent...0-2166.s?ic4=ListView-ShortDescription-071515

http://images.goldbergauctions.com/php/lot_auc.php?site=169&sale=90&lot=155

With these as a comparison, I feel yours suffers from a slightly lesser strike and a planchet imperfection on the right side of both obverse and reverse, but it suffers very little indeed in terms of strict remaining detail. The hair is, excepting the very bottom curl, superior to both. Where strike has not affected the leaves on the reverse, yours is again superior. Aside the aforementioned planchet irregularity, the fields of your coin are clearly superior to the Heritage coin and certainly no poorer than the Goldberg coin.

Based on what I see and know, if there are three coins atop the Condition Census (assuming the third is the equal of the other two), then yours belongs in fourth place. Sharpness of 25, Net 20, and I'm being pessimistic at that.

 

Looks XF (probably -45) to me.

 

Sharpness of a 40, some weakness in the strike. Not sure if the area at 4:00 on the obv and corresponding area on the reverse is damage or planchet porosity, can't really judge the color from the images but I would net it as a 20 to 25 coin.

 

I'd agree that this one is the sharpness of extra fine. I don't like the color - maybe cleaned and partially retoned? I'm of the opinion that the reverse damage is pre-strike, and would bring the net grade down.

 

AU55, and I like the color.

 

Thank you all for your replies and comments.

Dave, many thanks for your extensive comments (and for the links you provided), and I will say that I agree with your conclusions.

The area of planchet disturbance in front of the bust, (together with the corresponding area on the reverse) do not appear corroded, pitted or otherwise environmentally affected. It is an area of planchet roughness which i.m.o was there prior to striking.
The fine network of die breaks on the reverse are quite evident. The strike is good, but there are areas of weakness specifically the lower curls and within the wreath, as seen. The surfaces are otherwise smooth and even. The toning is original brown and olive, and much better than shown in my crappy photos. Taking all into account my grade is also VF25, in line with your and other opinions.

The Holmes coin shown in the link is CC #1, together with an example in the ANS collection. I have searched for pictures of that coin but have not been able to find it.
The existence of a further similar example is safe to assume, so that would put my coin at CC #4, as you mention. I would be really happy with that.

 

I concur with an EAC 25 / Market 45 grading.

However, my attention is drawn to the Obverse die crack below RTY which is supposed to be there on Die State I. I cannot detect it. The clash marks are present, but weaker as is the imperfection above 17.

I'd like to get an opinion on the possibility it might be either a pre Die State I or at least early Die State I.

 

Thank you very much, Marshall, for your comments.

I admit I had not paid much attention to the die state of my coin.
I am not able to detect any signs of a crack through the tops of RTY either. Here are some (hopefully) more detailed photos of the legend and the date.

Thank you for your help and interest.

 

XF45, EAC 30.

 

This is the Holmes Die State V for comparison. With the obverse die state markers highlighted for those of you wishing to pick up Die State information.

 

I believe I do see the crack between the T and Y. It is very faint.

 

Breen's Encyclopedia indicates ANS no longer has their coin and Breen illustrates the variety with that same coin AKA Newcomb/Clapp in a State IV. Whether this was involved in a trade or theft is unknown to me.

 

Market XF45. I haven't enough experience with EAC grading to render an opinion but the EAC grade hasn't had much impact when I was selling.

 

Nice detail, not liking the color, looks like it was darkened but not completely. Net VF 25 to me.

 

XF 40