Having trouble with 1835 Large Cent "Head of 1836" atribution varieties

I had no problem at all until I hit the head of 1836 for 1835. What is the difference between these varieties? I am looking at N-7, N-8, N-14 through N-19. I think I have an N-7, N-8, and N-15, but I am not sure. What are the key features that will help me identify these varieties more easily? Some photos with arrows pointing out the differences for each variety probably would help. Thanks.

P.S. I do not have a camera that will take clear up close photos, so I cannot post photos of my coins. Sorry.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

The cap is longer on the1836 head

 

A redbook also have pictures of this and the small-8 and large-8 examples. For attributing what I normally do is determine the type of head first so it narrows down what I am looking at. In this case my book(newcomb) does not have the 18 or 19 - so then I google them to look at online example. If you post pictures of your coin I am sure someone can assist.

 

My digital camera does not take clear photos of anything up close, so this is the best I can do. I used my computer's scanner, but it does not always show everything clearly. This is the higher grade coin, but the others may not show the date. All four of these Large Cents are dated 1835 and have the "Head of 1836." I "think" I have N-7, N-8, N-15, and one I do not know. This is the coin I was not able to even take a guess at attributing.

 

These Large Cents are all dated 1835, I put 1836 on the other two photos by mistake. Here is another one, and I think it is N-15.

 

I think this one has a die break running through the O of ONE. I am not sure if you can see it from the scans.

 

This one the date is a little weak. Last one!

I normally use photos online to attribute. I find the attribution guides to be difficult to use properly. I particularly like the Largecent.net photos. I just wish he had the entire collection. The Dan Holmes collection helps too, but the photos are weak. I find them hard to use especially in this case.

 

I think this one is an N-15, but best to wait for a real expert like conder or one of the others.

 

I don't have references with me at the moment, but it is no surprise you are haveing troubles with the 35 heads of 36, they are not easy to tell apart

 

Thank you, I appreciate the help. I have been "trying" to attribute for a few years now, but I am still very new to it.

 

I'm a bit stumped on these and I have my Newcomb book out in front of me. This is how I'm seeing them, but offer this solely as an educated guess because of the wear and corrosion going on.

1. N-7?
2. N-15?
3. N-7?
4. N-14?

You stated you thought that you may have a N-8, this is described as head of '36 with left edge of curl almost over the left edge of 5, small stars and a crack extending from rim through 1 into head. I'm not seeing that, but it just may be a really faint crack. As far as the N-7, there are plenty of variations attributed to die alignment and such resulting in doubling in different areas depending on when the coin was struck. I'm not making out any doubling to narrow that down, but N-7 seems to be the best fit from what I can see of the two.

 

I think the 1st and third look like n-7, but I cannot get a feel for the last one at all.

 

Thank you for your help.

 

Well, I had the local Large Cent expert take a look, and this is what he had to say about the coins.


He said the first coin is N-7, the second is N-15, the third is N-8, and the last one is N-16.


He had the advantage of having the coins in his hands, so I think that helped. My photos were okay, but not perfect (sorry). The third coin is N-8 because the break was visible just right of the top of the 1, and just below the base of the 1 to the rim. He noted the metal crumbling on the right side of the 1 at top as an indication of the presence of the die crack. He also said he could make it out, but it was very faint. He said the distance of the 5 to the curl was also less than what is found on N-7, and the curl is more even with the left side of the 5, and it is more right on N-7.


I thought the first and third coins looked different to me just based on the position of the 5 in relationship to the curl, but I am not an expert.


The last coin was a bit harder to identify. The die break found above OF AMERICA is not clearly visible on my coin. There is a weak break, but it was so badly worn that he said he could not confirm that it was a die break at all. He said that everything else matches N-16, but the most important factor was the thickness of the N's in ONE CENT. I said it had been suggested that it could be N-14, but he said the curl would be farther to the right of the number 5, and the N's do not match.


This is a dealer that sells only Large Cents by variety, but he also warned me that this was just his personal opinion, and he could be wrong. He normally does not sell Large Cents below XF for coins dating 1835 to 1857, and he specializes in Sheldon Varieties (early dates), not Newcomb.


I got my photos mixed up. The first coin was the one I also thought was N-7, the second N-15, and the third N-8. The last coin was the one I did not have any idea or even a guess. My attribution guide stops at 1835, and does not include the Head of 1836, so I was trying to use the photos of known coins online. The problem was finding photos large enough to actually use to compare for some of the varieties.


I do not collect by Newcomb varieties, but I wanted to label the coins correctly in my album. So, I am going with N-7, N-15, N-8, and N-16? for the album.


The Head of 1836 for the date 1835 are tough to identify. I guess that is why they left them out of my attribution guide. Thank you so much for all your help.

 

Well I got two out of four right at least.

Would you mind sharing the dealers information, I've been working on an uncirculated date set and could use dealer that specializes in large cents.

 

Are you using Ron Burress's guide?

 

I just found the rare 1835 N-19 (Im 95% sure) Using John Writes, is that one reliable?

 

If you mean John Wright, YES his work is very good.

 

Yes sorry, typo. Im glad I used that because I dismissed this as N-14 until I took further look.