Coin Talk – Many Coin Experts In One Place!

It has been quite some time now that I have been a member of the Coin Talk Forums and I continue to be impressed with the coin knowledge that some people possess.  The Forums on Coin Talk have a variety of different sub-forums that cover every topic from Bullion Investing to General Chat.  Recently, I posted a blog about a 200+ year old Draped Bust Cent that was unidentifiable by just the date alone (HERE).  The date had been completely worn off and the only clues that remained were the silhouette of the woman and the markings on the reverse of the coin.  Typically, I would have given up, but, I decided to post the coin on the Coin Chat portion of the Coin Talk Forums.  My post was quickly picked up by Marshall and I have pasted our back and fourth messages to each other below.  You can find the full thread post HERE.

Here is the back and forth exchange between Marshall and I.  Marshall is eventually able to narrow the coin down to two die varieties that it could be – both from 1800.

It is intriguing. The combination of the slightly falling berry at O(NE) with the junction of the ribbon and stem at the wreath (excluding the S-187), the fraction bar near the numerator, The leaf under the center to right center of D seems to exclude all but one very unlikely reverse.

But before going further, let me look again with fresh eyes to see if I’ve overlooked something more likely.

In the mean time I’ll try to find a better example of the reverse I was unable to exclude to use as a comp.

TOM SAYS:

It sounds like you may be on to something!! I am looking forward to hearing what your opinion is!

MARSHALL SAYS:

My initial examination indicates either a very common 1798 S-187 or an extremely rare 1801 NC-5. The odds are the former. Unfortunately there is no better example of the NC-5 to use for better diagnostics. If the latter, it is the earliest die state of what would be the third known without the catestrophic die failure seen on the two know examples.

My initial exclusion of the S-187 may have been premature. It’s just so unlikely to be an earlier than previously known 1801 NC-5 that I must be missing something.

Examine the coin closely to see if the berry stem at O(NE) has PMD leading to an erroneous attribution.

TOM SAYS:

I will get some better photos for you.

Do these help?

 

MARSHALL SAYS:

The photos you just sent look less like a falling berry than this one from your prior post which I have included in this comparison. The coin left is the S-187, middle is from your earlier post and the right is the best 1801 NC-5.

 

TOM SAYS:

Here are a few high resolution scans that may help clear it up. Do these help you? Thanks for all of your help thus far by the way!

The first scan is at 1,200 DPI with adjustments to brightness and contrast to make it “pop”.

The second scan is at 1,200 DPI – no adjustments.

The third scan is at 600 DPI – no adjustments.

To try to bring out the date I had some fun with the contrast and brightness of the scans:

 

MARSHALL SAYS:

Not that it helps much, but this is the other 1801 NC-5. As you can see, it is only identifiable by the catastrophic die failure:

Many thanks to Heritage for making their Archive Available for research.

But I will take another look at other varieties since the new photos do not appear to have the falling Berry (at O(NE), The stem pointing toward the CENT rather than above it.)

The new photos look more like it might be parallel with the top of CENT like the S-195. I’ll go back to see if there are other good candidate based on that. I’m actually surprised that the berry stem can look that different in the photos.

 

MARSHALL SAYS:

 

The obverse enhancement of the obverse appears to show a 17 as the first two digits of the date. The high res scans show what might be corrosion just below the “falling Berry” which might account for differences in appearance in different photos.

Another candidate has just taken the lead. I’ve added diagnostics to your High Res and show the comp side by side.

The key new diagnostic points I’m seeing are the Berry stem left of the left ribbon loop, the shape of the wreath vine at the inner leaf at (ON)E and the M and E just touching.

This reverse is used on S-204 and S-205. It is possible that what looks like the 7 on the enhancement of the obverse is damage to the upper left of an 8.

Just look carefully at this comp to see if it looks right for the reverse die. If so, perhaps a similar High Res photo of the obverse can identify the obverse die.

For what it’s worth, I am of the opinion that Reverse F of the S-195 and the Reverse P of the S-204 and S-205 are actually the same reverse with subtle differences caused by wear and strike issues.

It is a similar situation to the S-30/S-31 Obverses that Sheldon and other early collectors called two dies and Breen called one die drastically reground.

In any event, three obverses will be targets for identification. The larger berry at (CEN)T would indicate an earlier use of the reverse die. The emission sequence, I believe, is S-204, S-205 and then S-195 since I have seen examples of the smaller berry (used as a diagnostic on the S-195) on a S-205.

 

TOM SAYS:

Here are five images with as high as res as I can get on my scanner. The first is as-is and the other four I played around with the contrast and brightness to see if I could get more details.

 

MARSHALL SAYS:

If I HAD TO choose, I’d probably go with S-204 because of an impression that the LIBERTY is up against the edge. But I really can’t see any individual letter to validate the impression. I feel fairly safe in it not being the S-195 because of the reverse die state.

____________

At the end of the day, a coin that would have taken me a very long time to identify (if ever) was quickly narrowed down to two potential die varieties from 1800.  If you have a moment and have not taken the time to check out CoinTalk.com, I highly suggest that you stop by.

 

Back to Home Page

Contact Us to Sell Coins