Is Sheldon's Reverse F of 1800 a later die state of his Reverse P of 1800?

1800 Reverse P(F)

A quick summary of the diagnostic markers for the two reverses in “Penny Whimsy.”

Reverse F (S-195)

1. THIN, HIGH FRACTION BAR
2. Fraction bar thin, long and high above 100
3. Lumps on M E R
4. First inside berry on right small and weak

Reverse P (S-204)

1. PERFECT DIE REVERSE
2. Fraction bar rather long, square at the ends and high above 100
3. ME touch
4. Lumps at tops of E and R. Trace of lump at top left of M
5. Fine specimens show re-cut base of E in STATES
6. Light scratch in the die between S and O

Very close indeed to Reverse F, but the first inside berry on the right is of normal size – not small as on Reverse F.

Reverse P (S-205)

11. A light crack nearly always found, along the final A to the lower point of C, and from the back of C to the center of I.

This S-205 has the weak berry Sheldon emphasized as a marker distinguishing the two as different dies, but he also thought Obverse dies 30 and 31 were different while Breen considered then (and rightly so in my opinion) as different die states (stages) of the same die with differences accounted for from die polishing or grinding. I believe this is another example.


Please note the smaller berry and lumps above A M and E. The fraction bar is long and high above 100 as well. But the clash marks at the right stem may have been reason enough to further polish or grind the die causing the fraction bar to thin and perhaps hide the die crack briefly when another obverse die was paired with it. That Obverse was probably discarded briefly after striking the S-204 making both dies previously used dies which were polished at the time the S-195 was struck.

Whatever benefit the polishing brought to removing the die break at C to A and back to the I to C was short lived as the break re-appears almost immediately before extending to the ribbon and about half way up the right side of the final 0 of the denominator.



Please note absence of clash marks at the right stem and a slightly thinner fraction bar along with the die breaks identical to the S-205 above and progressing let to middle of the right 0 of the denominator on this S-195. Also note a spike on both coins on the left stem and a sharper bend of the center wreath under the M with the berry there located at the point the lower center would have been except for the bend. It must be from engraving since punches were used and other reverses have a more modest bend there.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

I have a few 1800's that I tried to attribute. Every time I think I have the attribution right, I take a break and then look again, nope it's wrong. Great job on explaining your thoughts on this post.

 

Hmm, interesting. The die crack between CA along with a lump in between is very curious. The weaknesses at ten o'clock on both coins is also very similar. The only thing that is standing out to me as dissimilar is the position of the E in cent. The E on the S-205 seems a little slanted to the right in comparison, but it may just be the sharper detail throwing me off.

 

They appear to be the same die to me. The E in cent appear the same. The identical die crack is a clincher for me.

 

That die crack seals the deal for me. I believe you are on to something here.

 

As some one whom use to own one of these 1783 gems as well as a few others I can appreciate a nice uncirculated one.. or atleast au or better

From the hobby center and think tank of MTS.LLC