I start a suspect coin review with ATTRIBUTION & the NOT 1796 half cent
burfle23
Posts: 2,454 ✭✭✭✭✭
In my process for review of authenticity of a particular example I always start with trying to attribute it to a known variety. I maintain that many of the errors made in authentication could be prevented by just comparing the coin in question to images of known genuine ones...
The 1795 "C-6" half cent is fairly common for the date/ variety; this coin is distinctive for a couple of reasons- 1st it was struck without a (cap) pole, so it is called a "no pole" variety, and 2nd for its distinctive reverse. It is the only reverse in the series with a leaf tip just below the "I" of AMERICA.
The subject coin has been certified as a 1796 no pole! Talk about a huge escalation in $ value...
Just like the 1795 C-6, the 1796 half cent (both varieties, pole and no pole) share a unique reverse. So, one could see "what's what" by comparing the images to each other.
I sent a note to a contact at the TPG but haven't had a response back to date.
Comments
Do the 1795 and 1796 share the same reverse die?
No, the reverse die for the 1796 (both varieties) is unique to it. Comparison of the 1795 C-6 on the left, 1796 on the right: