Reply to Thread

Message:: [QUOTE="Marshall, post: 1685126, member: 21705"]It's a shame because that variety has so many secondary diagnostics that the single leaf primary diagnostic is not that important for attribution. I have a couple of S-195s which have a diagnostic not normally recognized by fellow specialists which have almost no chance of drawing a premium because the primary diagnostics are questionable. Die Cracks of middle and late states and the thickness of a fraction bar are difficult to recognize on early die states of low grade specimens. There is usually no problem narrowing the choices down between the R5 S-195 and the R3- S-194 that share the same obverse. But most will just take the uncertainty and label all questionable coins as S-194s. Conder uses a secondary diagnostic at the right stem where it attaches to the ribbon almost at the junction of the ribbon and the central vine of the wreath on the S-195 and attaches below that junction on the S-194. I have observed a spike on end of the left stem of the S-195 which is not present on the S-194. But like I say, being unrecognized as a diagnostic leaves it without the usual premium for R5 coins, even in poor condition.[/QUOTE]