What will PCGS say? Coin 4 of 10 - 1840 large cent

OK, you should know the drill by now... Please guess what PCGS graded this coin (or, if it didn't grade it, why):



I purchased this coin from Doug Bird in 2007. I paid $875.

What will PCGS say?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

I'll go AU-50. The marks at the date worry me a bit but feel it will still grade. Nice cent.

 

Ms62

 

Something about this coin worries me, but I cannot put my finger ion it, so 55.

 

I am going to say AU-53. Now - how bad does that scratch in the hair look under 5x? On monitor at work looks like both sides are a little different in color, but could be just be the pictures. The hit under the bow did not bother me. Unlike the other two I thought all natural when seeing them, this one I originally had some doubts, decided it was my imagination. Another beaty no matter what.

 

The scratches are old, and do not stand out in-hand.

The color on both sides is consistent. However, like all large cents, the obverse luster wears more rapidly, and this may explain the sight difference in color between them.

 

p.s. The "hit" under the bow is not a hit, it's a planchet defect, IMO.

 

Is that a bang below the reed? I say AU-55 just guessing.

 

From what I can make out on that reverse, I would guess that it is from the die. I believe that die was badly rusted. Just look at the field about the wreath from about 8:00 to 3:00. I am pretty sure that is also rust. Either way, I do not believe that is PMD.

 

RLM, I believe you are incorrect and it is as I described it, but I double-check the coin, my reference books, and will also check other N-9's to see if I can find one with a similar defect.

FWIW, I can't recall any large cents of this time period with rusted dies. Can you?

 

FWIW, Grellman does not mention die rust on this variety. He also does not mention any prior or subsequent use of the reverse die.

Heritage archives show 3 examples:

http://coins.ha.com/common/search_results.php?Nty=1&Ntk=SI_Titles&N=51+790+231+307&Ntt=1840 n-9


Both the bottom two are clearly later die states (see progression of die crack on obverse and die flow lines on reverse), and show NO rust on the reverse, therefore it is safe to assume that my coin, an earlier die state than either of the two above, did not have die rust either. QED.

That doesn't say, however, what caused what we're looking at, but it does seem to suggest we can rule out die rust.

That said, and in RLM's defense, it is worth noting the bottom two coins (NGC 65 & 58) on HA have some die "roughness" in this area -- looks like plain old die wear to me -- perhaps that's what RLM is seeing and can comment after looking at the above coins.

Another interesting thing is the reverse of the nicer Reiver example (NGC 65 BN) also has a planchet defect (see I in AMERICA), and it is my experience that the large cents of 1839 & 1840, for some odd reason, seem to suffer from this particular malady.

I will double check the coin tomorrow -- have to run by the bank in the morning.....Mike

 

This is far from my field, but there is something on/in that field and it does not appear to be on the lettering or wreathe. If it were corrosion on the coin, it would without a doubt be on the letters and wreathe. I am guessing someone set it on something wet and the die rusted. Fine, if you don't agree. I am not the expert, but what else can explain it? Even if I am right, that is no guarantee that the dimple is also rust, but it is my guess.

 

Take a look at the two examples from Reiver (65 and 58, linked in post #12 above) and tell me what you think.

I'm no expert either, and I welcome your questions/assessments. Right or wrong, I think it makes all of us more knowledgeable by investigating/discussing/dissecting, etc. -- and that's a good thing!

 

I'd say AU, but I'd bet PCGS says 62.

 

I already did. They obviously do not have the same dimple, but they do have at least similar roughness in nearly identical positions as you coin. That dimple still looks to me like something from the die and not the planchet. It might well have been something stuck to the die that later fell off. FWIW there is another much small dimple just after the last A in AMERICA

 

I believe both the defect we've been discussing as well as the 2nd small one left of A are both incuse in the coin. The photograph and my recollection support this.

That said, these two defects certainly could be on the die (or on the planchet, or PMD corrosion), but again the incuse nature seems to rule out rust.

I will inspect carefully in hand tomorrow and report back.

Thank you for the engaging discussion!

 

I got you. That is not the way I was thinking of rust and I probably did not say it clearly. Flaking rust sticks out. It then breaks off and goes where ever. Why not here?

 

Au-58

 

What happened with Coin # 3 ? I missed it.