Old Stuff

Discussion in 'What's it Worth' started by Marshall, Feb 28, 2019.

  1. Marshall

    Marshall Junior Member

    What do you think about the value of this?

  2. Avatar

    Guest User Guest

    to hide this ad.
  3. paddyman98

    paddyman98 Let me burst your bubble! Supporter

    Where is the old stuff? I though we were going to see some neat antiques!
    spirityoda, Hookman and wxcoin like this.
  4. Magnus87

    Magnus87 Supporter! Supporter

    Lettered edge suggests 1794 or ‘95 US cent, but not enough left for me to get any more specific. Perhaps someone who specializes in early copper could have more to say. A US cent of that vintage is a serious coin, but one in this condition (PR-1?) is just a space filler IMHO.
    Spark1951 likes this.
  5. Magnus87

    Magnus87 Supporter! Supporter

    Further to the above: PCGS coin values suggest c. $200 for one of these in the lowest possible grade, but that would be for one clearly identifiable by year. (And in a PCGS slab.)
  6. Marshall

    Marshall Junior Member

    Is this better?
    A little further information:

    This is a 1794 S-39. It is one of two SPRAWING RIBBONS reverses and readily identifiable by the reverse alone.

    This is one of just three 1794 Sheldon numbers that remains rated R.6, alongside S-18a and S-37. Del Bland records 26 examples of S-39 in his Condition Census, ranging in grade from AU55 to Fair 2."
  7. Cheech9712

    Cheech9712 Every thing is a guess

    Just having edge lettering floats my boat. Good for you Marshall. I would slab it cuz it would be my bestest coin if i owned
  8. Marshall

    Marshall Junior Member

    It is without a doubt my rarest Numbered Sheldon; however' I also have 6 1/2 NC varieties of similar rarity. The half is a 1800 NC-2 which I have, but which is not quite good enough for confirmation due to corrosion.
  9. buckeye73

    buckeye73 Well-Known Member

    After following Marshall’s previous long thread, IMHO he could identify almost any early Large Cent (by Sheldon number) based upon a bare minimum of identifiable marker(s). Well done!

    Based upon by my latest CQR, I am certain there is an EAC person out there willing to part with $100 and more for that rarity.
    Last edited: Mar 2, 2019
    Magnus87 likes this.
  10. Magnus87

    Magnus87 Supporter! Supporter

    What he said.
  11. Black Friar

    Black Friar Well-Known Member

    Thanks for the great humor. How about this little gem I found in a junk box. And to keep with the Byzantine spirit.

    Attached Files:

    longshot and Marshall like this.
  12. Marshall

    Marshall Junior Member

    I can tell that that the 1800 isn't an 1800. The reverse doen't match the hub used for the 1800s. But I couldn't find an 1802 combination that matches both the obverse and reverse. I'll have to give it more time to see if it is an 1803, but I suspect it's one or the other because of the upper curve of the fourth digit. Maybe the 1806.

    I do like the Byzantine, but I have no expertise in ancients whatsoever.
  13. Black Friar

    Black Friar Well-Known Member

    I got out my copy of Rasmusse
    I do believe it is a Sheldon 203. The berries on the reverse across from the bottom of the T, on the stem across from the bottom of the serif of the T, and directly across from the lower finial of the M are all very thin as is the stem itself. The "0" is also abit to the left of the 1, though the second 0 doesn't line up with the 1. All I know is that it's my best guess. On the obverse I really don't see the top loop of 6 impacting the bust as an 06 would.

    I do know I'm going to dig out my other guides and see what I can come up with.
    I do love puzzles. I also have a very well known collector of early,middle,and late date cents and half cents. I'll rattle his cage. My EAC number is 4152, been a member for a long time but am not active at all anymore, I still follow the large cent world. Got way too expensive for me. Our town hosted the EAC convention a few years back. Anyhow, thanks for the fun. I'll keep you posted if I don't accidentally loose the links.
  14. Marshall

    Marshall Junior Member

    I will go through the process. There seems to be enough detail that I should be able to confirm a variety.

    But the initial problem is that the leaves under M on the reverse do not match the 1800 Reverse HUB. the lower outer leaf point is under the middle of the M and the upper outer leaf point is under the inside of the left upright of M.

    The 1800 Hub has the lower outer leaf point between the middle and right upright of M and the upper outer leaf point between the middle and upper upright of M. The HUB was used on all the 1800s so there is only variation in the stems and fraction bars and not leaf and letter positions.

    Another difference is the spacing of the numerator well to the right of it's usual position centered above the middle 0 of the fraction. I have seen this before, but I'll need to spend a little time to find examples.

    There are numerous other points to check as well, but these are my reasons for discounting the 1800s and going toward other years where there is variation at these points.

    I love the detective work and I will get back to it, probably in the wee hours of the morning when I can't sleep. I'm used to doing this in the "Attribute This" thread in the US Coins section, but I'll do it here and it's loads of fun.
  15. Eduard

    Eduard Supporter**

    It's is an interesting question you are asking, Marshall: what is the value of that
    It is a very rare cent, no question about that. It has also had a hard life. For me, personally, I do value rarity, and I am willing to pay for it in spite of problems, but within reason. I would personally value this very scarce cent at around $300- $400.
  16. Marshall

    Marshall Junior Member

    I have looked at the Prior sales as a guide.

    Heritage Archives have these listings for an S-39;

    Sept.8, 2017 $660
    S-39 Obv 9-8-17 660.jpg s-39 Rev 9-8-17.jpg

    Aug. 19, 2018 $1140
    S-39 Obv 8-19-18 1140.jpg S-39 Rev 8-19-18.jpg

    Continued on next post...
  17. Marshall

    Marshall Junior Member

    March 30, 2018 $2040
    S-39 Obv 3-30-18 2040.jpg S-39 Rev 3-30-18.jpg

    Sept. 6, 2012 $5,531.25
    S-39 Obv 9-6-12 5581.25.jpg S-39 Rev 9-6-12.jpg

    All other sales (8) are from $8,000 to $69,000 for admittedly superior specimens. Some sales are for the same coin, so sales outnumber coins included in this list.

    My question really has to do with where my coin, with both it's strengths and weaknesses fits in with these comparables?

    The complications are that mine has an inferior obverse and stronger reverse and different problems than those of the comps and it has superior detail and worse corrosion problems.
  18. Marshall

    Marshall Junior Member

    Check out this 1802 Reverse B as the closest match I have found, but that presents a new set of problems.

    This has known pairings with S-226, 1802 NC-1, S-227 and S-229.
  19. Marshall

    Marshall Junior Member


    I have highlighted the points I believe match. You can also see the similarities in the stems where both are discernible. Also the leaf points match the legend points.

    Next I will go over the "problems" this presents.
  20. Marshall

    Marshall Junior Member

    After further review, the problem I thought I had with the Obverse (1) of S-226 can be explained by PMD (Post Mint Damage). It lacks a sharp point but that is likely PMD and the SHWH (Second Highest Wave of Hair) under E is probably fractionally left of where it appears also due to PMD. This would make this a match.

    I initially thought all four Obverses paired with Reverse B could be eliminated due to the position of the SHWH (under E) which appeared too far to the right side of the E to match the known pairings. With the exception of Obverse 1 (S-226), the others are too far left to match even allowing for a fractional adjustment left to compensate for PMD.

    So my conclusion is a 1802 S-226 R3 variety.
  21. Marshall

    Marshall Junior Member


    ps Obverse 1 is used on both S-225 and S-226.
Draft saved Draft deleted

Share This Page