Is the 1800 S-195 less rare than documented?

Discussion in 'US Coins Forum' started by Marshall, Aug 22, 2016.

  1. Marshall

    Marshall Junior Member

    I have two 1800 S-195s which were quickly dismissed as S-194s by attributers of some repute. After reviewing the findings and the coins, I must disagree on these attributions. I wish I had better photographic skills, but I do not. But I can manipulate images supplied by others. These images are from the Dan Holmes collection and I will illustrate a couple of diagnostics which are not mentioned and are not as easily lost due to damage and wear:

    1800 E                E S-194.jpg

    1800 F                F S-195.jpg

    The first image is the S-195 "rarity" listed as R-5+. It is the one I mentioned that I have two of in my possessive. The second is the S-194 which shares an obverse and is barely scarce at R3-.

    They are usually distinguished by a thin or thick fraction bar. This works great with high grade examples. But with wear and use, the thin fraction bar often spreads as copper with wear tends to do and they become virtually indistinguishable by this diagnostic with wear.

    Two other diagnostics should be used as a supplement in determining which die variety you are dealing with.

    The first is one I noticed with the higher grade images. It it a spike on the left stem of the S-195 which is not present on the S-194. The second was shares with me and it is the junction of the tight stem with the wreath. It intersects precisly at the juntion of the ribbon and the wreath on the S-195, but just below it on the S-194. Here is the S-195 again with the diagnostics encircled.

    1800 F                F S-195.jpg

    Now look at the same points on the S-194:

    1800 E                E S-194.jpg

    Notice the lack of a spike on the left stem and the intersection of the right stem below the intersection of the right ribbon and wreath.

    If the die breaks are more advanced, they are useful. But many are either early die states or too worn to be useful.

    If my experience is common. then the two varieties would certainly be closer together on the rarity charts.
     
    Kirkuleez likes this.
  2. Avatar

    Guest User Guest



    to hide this ad.
  3. Marshall

    Marshall Junior Member

    I'll try again.
     

    Attached Files:

    Last edited: Aug 22, 2016
  4. Marshall

    Marshall Junior Member

    1800 F                F S-195-vert.jpg
     

    Attached Files:

  5. SuperDave

    SuperDave Free the Cartwheels!

    There appear to be noticeable differences in the curvature of the right vine stem, as well, and the fraction bar is clearly and indisputably different between the two.

    Nice detective work. :)
     
    Marshall likes this.
  6. Eduard

    Eduard Supporter**

    Marshall, the pictures provided in Breens' book support what you assert: The intersection between the right stem and ribbon is clearly different between S-194 and S-195. The intersection is wider on S-194, while on S-195 stem and ribbon meet almost at the junction.

    The pictures are, however, not clear enough to clearly distinguish the spike on left ribbon which you describe (too faint), but it is very possible.

    Breen provides an additional diagnostic to distinguish the two reverses. On reverse G (S-194) the berry right of (N)T is normal in size, and same as the other berries. On reverse H (S-195) the berry right on (N)T is tiny, clearly smaller than the rest of the berries. It is also weakly struck and may appear stemless on worn examples. Maybe you can use this diagnostic on your examples as well.
     
  7. Eduard

    Eduard Supporter**

    These pictures illustrate the relative size of the berry located right of (N)T:

    S-194:

    lf.jpg

    S-195:

    lf (1).jpg

    The difference is not enormous, but it should be evident even in low grade specimens.
     
  8. physics-fan3.14

    physics-fan3.14 You got any more of them.... prooflikes?

    Interesting analysis, and great pictures.

    I don't collect early copper, so forgive me if my questions seem silly:

    Were the elements on these coins hand punched? That is, were the letters and numbers individually punched into the die, or was there a gang punch that had a segment? My understand was that in the early mint, dies were handcrafted and thus differed significantly. This is how Bust Halves are attributed, for example - no two dies are the same, because each letter was individually hand punched and there is great variation. Each die is attributable by looking at the positions of letters relative to devices.

    Are the cents not the same? Can you not look at a few key letters and quickly identify a die? Perhaps I misunderstand the distinction between the "S-194" and "S-195." Are they different dies, or different die states (or remarriages, the way the half dime folks do)?
     
  9. SuperDave

    SuperDave Free the Cartwheels!

    194 and 195 share an obverse but not a reverse, and as these things go those two reverses are very similar. Just like the T-I relationships and 50C location/orientation in Bust Halves, the relative positions between leaves and lettering on Large Cents are a very good tool for narrowing the possibilities down and occasionally being definitive. Not here. :)

    Eduard's detail pics of the berries point out a very clear difference in the curvature of the vine.
     
    physics-fan3.14 likes this.
  10. Conder101

    Conder101 Numismatist

    Starting in 1798 the mint was experimenting with trying to hub the entire reverse die. About half of the 1798's and all of the 1800 reverses were created using a hub that contained all of the design details. The mint did not have sufficient power to bring up all of the shallowest details completely though so some of the details like the berry stems, the wreath stems, the fraction bar, and sometimes even the berries were touched up by hand. These hand touchups and die failures are the only way to tell the different reverses apart. On worn coins it can be VERY difficult. The 1800 cents are probably the most difficult ones to attribute unless you have high grade coins.
     
    Moekeever and rzage like this.
  11. Marshall

    Marshall Junior Member

    I'm bringing up an old thread because I think some photos, even poor ones, are good enough for identification. These are the two I believe are S-195s which were called S-194s.
    1800 S-195a.JPG 1800 S-195b.JPG
    Though difficukt to see in hand, at least for my old eyes, I think the photos lend even more support for my position since both appear to have the identifiable die crack through the bottom of C through the right side of A to the right stem and on to the right side of the outer 0 which differs from the die crack on the S-194 which continues to the fraction bar..

    Give me honest opinions if you think I'm wish attributing.
     
    Last edited: Oct 10, 2016
  12. Conder101

    Conder101 Numismatist

    I agree they are both S-195's
     
    Marshall likes this.
  13. Eduard

    Eduard Supporter**

    That is my opinion as well, they re both S-195's.
     
    Marshall likes this.
  14. Marshall

    Marshall Junior Member

    S-195 Rev III.jpg
    I just arranged the purchase of this third S-195.
     

    Attached Files:

  15. Marshall

    Marshall Junior Member

    An additional common element in the S-195s is a raised portion of the fraction (lower half of the first two digits of the denominator) which results from a slight sinking of the die. It is evident on all of these and individually they could be confused with post mint damage. S-195a-vert.jpg
     
  16. Marshall

    Marshall Junior Member

    While searching for die states of the S-195, I came across this cautionary tale. It was misattributed by PCGS and sold on Heritage Auctions, who often catches these errors, but not his time. It it really a nice late state S-194, but definitely NOT a S-195.

    My mistake. The PCGS coin IS an early Die State S-195, but the close up shots are of a different coin which is a late state S-194. I assume a file attachment error.

    1800-3 PCGS.jpg 1800-E PCGS.jpg 1800-3.jpg 1800 E.jpg
     
    Last edited: Oct 17, 2016
    Paul M. likes this.
  17. Marshall

    Marshall Junior Member

    Just purchased a fourth S-195:

    S-195d.jpg S-195d Obv.JPG
    This one cost less than $30.

    Now as an aside, I'm trying to put together a group of coins to see if Sheldon Reverses P (Breen T) and F (Breen H) are actually the same Reverse Die. Clapp called them twins and Breen opined that their differences exceeded their similarities, but then failed to mention what he thought those were.

    I suspect a sequence of S-204, S-205 and then S-195 with a possible grinding or polishing between the latter which would account for the apparent differences.

    I'll post these in a different thread later.
     
  18. Marshall

    Marshall Junior Member

    I just looked at this Heritage Archive Listing of a S-205 which might lend evidence for my theory that the Reverse P is actually an earlier die state of the Reverse F and not a different die.

    Please note the smaller inner berry under E (R) which is supposed to be evidence that the reverse F is different. But here it appears on a S-205 and looking at the edges, there seems to be evidence of either die wear or polishing with striations purpenducular to the edges of the coin.

    S-205 Rev P 2-15-08.jpg
     
  19. Marshall

    Marshall Junior Member

    I just missed out on another S-195 which would have been my fifth. I really don't think they are as rare as previously thought. Just tough to identify.
     
    Paul M. likes this.
  20. Paul M.

    Paul M. Well-Known Member

    I don't have anything to add, really, but I am following with great interest.
     
Draft saved Draft deleted

Share This Page