After missing out on the S-143, I had the funds to go for this and made it. It is a misattributed S-206 which was called S-205. It's an easy mistake since the share the obverse and both reverses are similar and both wind up with almost the same die crack through CA abd on to the final 0 of the denominator. Breen hints describes a difference in the ME calling the S-205 repunched and the S-206 normal, but I can't see a difference. I've zeroed in on the angle and length of the stem under (O)F to make the distinction. This one and one other do not appear to have the die crack on the reverse and yet an advanced die crack on the obverse and only this one has the clash of the dentils above LIBERTY and larger chip to the tight field of the obverse. The die states of the obverse and reverse do not seem to align. I'm suspicious that the S-206 was actually struck before the S-205 and then ground to remove clash marks and breaks to get the perfect die S-205s and then their rapid deterioration. It makes more sense to lose hair detail after grinding than softening the die to add hair detail and then re-annealing the die. Thank God for the problems or I couldn't have afforded this much detail. It is called XF Details by the seller and I agree. The question is how far down to net the coin with such eye-catching problems. But I'm happy paying $230.50 for it regardless. Opinions welcome.
I'm very pleased that you've been able to use the term "win" in a thread title. I note a quick pickup from Tom Deck's website to differentiate S-205 and 206 - the berry just left of the ribbon. If it leans right, S-205; if it leans left, S-206. If that's true - and it's not difficult to trust Tom Deck's opinion on Large Cents - it's easy to confirm yours as S-206. Is there another variety using the S-205 reverse? Nicely bought.
