Options
1799 Cent. Looks right to me. Forum's thoughts?
Sheldon_Overton_Baby
Posts: 60 ✭
It is amazing to me that the 1799 has 2 obverse dies used and 3 reverses and they all look so insanely similar. The 3 reverse are just about impossible to tell apart in a worn example.
1
Comments
I don't have the time to match the rev. die so I should not post until I do. However, since no one has responded yet, I'll leave you with this. Coins generally wear the same in the same area. On your coin, this is not the case at the date. The second "9" is much stronger. It is possible it is an altered date OR a genuine coin that someone has enhanced the "9" to make it easy to see.
https://goo.gl/images/iia8m6
LInk to Newman's Numismatic Portal
You ID it as a counterfeit s-189?
I definitely think it has an altered date. Can't say I have ever seen a 99 in that low of a grade with that strong of a date.
I have owned this date and I have never seen the second nine (9) like that, but who knows from here.
Bring it to Baltimore next show or ask an EAC guy's opinion. I wish you all the best
There are a number of features about that
coin that makes one think "fake". Sorry.
R.I.P. Bear
Hard with photo quality but the second 9 looks worked on.
https://www.pcgs.com/setregistry/quarters/washington-quarters-major-sets/washington-quarters-date-set-circulation-strikes-1932-present/publishedset/209923
https://www.pcgs.com/setregistry/quarters/washington-quarters-major-sets/washington-quarters-date-set-circulation-strikes-1932-present/album/209923
It’s not the overdate S188, or the NC1, and the ‘99’ is too far apart to be S189.
Both dies appear correct. My experience has been that 1799 S-189s often exhibit weakness in the date to the south and east. The PCGS VF35 that I'm holding in my hand right now has a slightly bolder final 9, and the interior of both 9s is of an identical shape. I wouldn't authenticate it from that photo, but the comments above appear to be from people who haven't handled many S-189s.
What is now proved was once only imagined. - William Blake
I would say the last 9 has been tooled to make it look stronger than it originally was. This tooling may have been done in the 60's, the 1860's that is.
I just checked the book. It appears that S-189 is the only one that matches BUT I don't authenticate from images so I'll stick to my first post an say I have no opinion.
I had an S-189 that I bought from Mike Ringo as an AG, with a date that strong. The EAC guys I showed i to agreed it was an AG, but the last time I saw it, it was in a VG holder. It did have perfectly smooth surfaces.
My thoughts exactly.
If it is genuine I have a hard time seeing this coin getting VG. Just my opinion though. Like you alluded to: sometimes you can be surprised.
send it to pcgs or ngc, they will take you money and give you their opinion.
a.k.a "The BUFFINATOR"
The date should be worn evenly on the that low grade a 1799 cent. This one is not..
If you examine a number of S-189s, you'll find that the final 9 is often stronger that the rest of the digits.
What is now proved was once only imagined. - William Blake
Thanks that is correct!
I know nothing about these, but is it possible the 2nd 9 is somewhat protected by the lower part of the bust portrait above it? Could that account for the wear pattern?
This seems to be a plausible explanation. Please keep us posted if you send it in for grading/'authentication.
Scanning through the photos of 190 past S-189 sales on Heritage, I'm less convinced that the OP's coin is genuine. There are many examples where the "9"s are more strongly detailed than the "17" but the tendency seems to be that the "9"s wear in tandem. Certainly not definitive.
Smitten with DBLCs.