Large Cent Variety

Well, here I am again, a novice large cent enthusiast here to visit and ask a question or more. I have just discovered the wonderful world of large cent varieties, according to Newcomb.so my visits may become more frequent. I do hope I wont become a pest !

Here Goes........
What I think I have here is an 1816 N-4 maybe N-5. Any opinions would be appreciated.





I was also curious as to the tiny bumps between the 18 and 16...crud or cud I wonder.



I know it needs conservation as well, I will get to that anon.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

I actually kinda like it for N-3; note what looks like the doubled denticle over the E in UNITED.

For the record - hopefully I'm right - I did this attribution solely between PCGS Coin Facts and Heritage's archives. With Coin Facts now being free, "the book" is becoming superfluous for this issue.

What I do is use Coin Facts to get all the varieties into one easily-clickable format - I'll open new tabs for each variety to compare if I have to - and then list all of Heritage's examples of the specific one I'm looking at formatted by "Highest Grade First," which increases the chance of one of the first results having an auction-related discussion of the killer attributes for the specific variety.

 

I'm having some difficulty seeing some of the markers, but N-5 seems the closest to me. @SuperDave Newcomb book not needed? Maybe you're right, but I still love my physical references.

 

Explain the doubled serif above the E - and the completely wrong relationship between the F in OF and nearest leaf - and I'll agree with you on N-5. Only N-3 and N-9 have that F -> leaf spacing. I chose N-3 because of the doubled serif, but I may be interpreting the image wrong and it's N-9. I will look closer at both.

Book references are nice, but do not beat Heritage's ultra-high-resolution images leaving no detail to chance. There is one significant downside - that of misattribution in the slab - which is why I don't leave all my eggs in one basket when possible.

 

I'm not really seeing what you are referencing, but that may just be because I'm trying to do it off of my phone. I'll take a better look at it on my computer.

I should say that my comment wasn't about your attribution skills, just a commentary on my like of physical references.

 

OK, this is more complicated; they appear to share a reverse because I found mention at Heritage of that double denticle for both varieties. See? If I had the book (I completely share your feeling about the books; Heaven knows I'd own all of them if I could afford to) I'd know this.

Back to the drawing board. Gotta hit the obverses.

 

OK, N-9. The relationship between the second 1 in the date and the lower hair curl did it.

Keep in mind, my memory is so clinically bad - I've had a new phone number for three weeks and still don't remember it (yet I'm a holy terror in a trivia game, go figure) - that I'm completely accustomed to having to re-learn stuff I'm already supposed to know. It makes things like this much easier for me than most, I guess.

 

Well I can tell you that the book doesn't make it too much easier. I'm not sure if everyone has seen how this is listed, but see here. It still takes some narrowing down and guesswork.
There is some additional information and plates, but the quality of the images does little to help.

 

I don't see any reason to argue with N-9, I think you nailed it. N-9 is considered an R-3 (estimated survival of </= 600 pieces).

 

I see, it doesn't even list the attribute I used to determine it.

Love the handwriting. It's obviously handwritten, and there's a ton of character in how the author chooses to express themselves.

 

There is a fuller description on the following pages following the table for each year, but I wasn't sure how much of this I should show since it is a copyrighted work. I love the handwriting too, it feels like you're looking at his notebook. Though I'm pretty sure that it is just a typeset, they really went out of their way to keep it as true as possible to the handwriting of the author. So much so that they even made corrections with little carrots like you may have done in grade school. One of the more interesting, yet hard to follow books in my numismatic library. I do need to find a good half cent book. The only one that seems to come up often is Breen's Encyclopedia of Half Cents; does anyone know if this is the definitive guide?

 

There are too many variations in the crossbars of the t's, the bottom of the f's and the caps - among other things obvious to anyone who's spent time researching/thinking about handwriting - to believe it's typeset. I've been in the computerized sign business, and have helped develop typefaces, and this is simply too_much_work to put into one typeface.

I don't see a problem considering what you posted as Fair Use. With that said, there's ample procedure and precedent for requested removal of copyrighted material to ensure CT has no liability whatsoever as long as they react appropriately to a legal request to remove - nobody will get into trouble for this - and I fully expect Peter has more than a clue on the topic.

Is that the original Newcomb?

 

No, it's the 85 reprint updated by John Wright. The originals are pricey if you can find one.

 

My thanks to Kirkuleez and SuperDave. I have followed your discussion and went to the reference to Heritage and Coin Facts. This is what I found :

 

I should load a foto huh?!

 

It's really easy once you spot a dead giveaway diagnostic like that. I'm not even sure if that is noted in Newcombs book. Sure would have made things easier. At any rate, I'm glad it's been attributed. Please come back with more, it is an education to everyone involved.

 

I learn more personally by doing stuff like this than anything else I do with numismatics.

 

The Newcomb book IS his handwritten manuscript. The publisher had agreed to publish the book before he died. Then the second world war intervened and the publisher had to delay the book (paper shortages and other restrictions). In 1944 Newcomb's health took a turn for the worse and the publisher had to rush the book into production. They used a lower grade of paper and a photolithograph of the handwritten manuscript. I'm not sure why but later reprints didn't typeset the book either. Possibly because of the distinctive look of the book.

A word of advice on attributing the middle dates, it usually works best to start with the reverse. Pay special attention to the leaf point below the second S in STATES, then the one below the F. These two will identify most of the reverses. If they don't then check the leaf below the C in AMERICA and then the one below the D. That order works better than the order listed in Newcomb. And approach it with the mindset to eliminate what it isn't rather than what it is Once you are fairly sure what the reverse is then start looking at the Obv.

While the page from Newcomb does look confusing, the diagram earlier in the book tends to make the leaf position abbreviations clear. I would suggest making a photocopy of it so you don't have to keep flipping back to it in the book untill you have a firm understanding of it. The plates in the book are pretty bad. If you can, I would recommend finding a copy of the Dan Holmes II collection catalog. (They seem to go for about $16) Until you can find a copy you can download the images from the sale on the Goldberg website.

 

Good advice on making a photocopy @Conder101, thanks for that. I found a partial catalog of Dan Holmes IV, at only 3.99 I'll grab it just to have it, but will keep an eye out for the others as well. I do reference the links that you shared with me a while back as well. Maybe in another twenty years or so I'll get the hang of it.

Do you have a suggestion for a good half cent reference, or is Breen's Encyclopedia the standard? I picked up a nice 1851 from the Eric Newman collection recently even though I probably paid more than I should have for it, but I'll see is it looks as good as I think it will when it get to me. My half cent collection is pretty sparse for now so I'd like to get a good reference before I dive in fully. These are the sellers images of the 1851 if anyone wants to take a stab at the grade that NGC assigned.

 

Nice half cent. I'd say 64 bn cac