New Reverse?
Sirmarshall
Posts: 25 ✭✭✭
This is a corroded coin and at first I thought it did not have enough detail to attribute. But as I worked at the photography, the details of the perimeter seem like it should be identifiable. But I can't find a march.
TED uprights appear well spaced and angular to each other or not parallel. Possible cracks from rim between TE above E through top of D and possibly toward S. Another possible crack extends from the rim just Right of D through the top of ST to a third crack. The third possible crack runs from the rim above S above T to the top of A and back to the rim above T(E).
Even if those possible cracks are corrosion only, the T looks high and rotated CW and distant from A. I have yet to find a match.
Now if you're wondering about the Obverse, I think I have a match.
1800 Obverse 6 looks likely, but I excluded the only known Reverse I because of the above spacing issues. NC-2 would be nice, but the reverse just doesn't fit. I've been looking for a known reverse with the idea that a new pairing (mule) is more likely than a new die. But so far, nothing looks like what I am seeing on this Reverse.
Comments
i was waiting to see if anyone else wanted to dig into it. since no one has, i'll look sometime soon to see if i can contribute anything.
not certain which attribution info you are using to get obv 6 (unless that refers to the specific die number identified). i just have the coins in unc by sheldon numbers to use.
do you think yours is an overdate?
I considered the possibility of other obverses in 1800, but the distance from the Hair and Curl are significantly less than on the overdates.
The date seems certain. But two things are abnormal for 1800s. The wide LIBERTY and particularly BER on the obverse. I initially concluded the NC-2 because I thought I could detect the Break/CUD along the rim from about 3 to 5 which matched the comp of Obverse 6 (NC-2) which also had thinner digits than most. These are tenuous diagnostics for old damaged copper.
The second thing is what appears to be a deviation from the 1799 Reverse HUB used from the middle of 1798 through all known 1800s where the primary design is consistent and variations in the dies is limited to finishing details like berry stems and fraction bars along with clashes and die breaks. There are some repairs to lettering and engraver scratches and some deviation of the stems. But this one appears to vary in spacing at TED STAT from that HUB like the 1801s.
But I appreciate all efforts and observations on a very difficult attribution. It is easy to go off on a tangent with old copper in this condition. The biggest hurdle to objective observation are preconceived notions and expectations. That is almost a UNIVERSAL TRUTH in every field of endeavor.
For reference, I use Sheldon Obverse/Reverse numbering system when using die specific identification as Bill Noyes does.
I do rely on Noyes for identification of some dies which previously were given their own numbers because of a rework of a die or better examples becoming available to ID a die as one previously or subsequently used.
Examples are Obverses 11/12/17 of 1794, Reverses B/H of 1800, Reverses R/V of 1800, Obverses 4/8 of 1801, Obverses 6/7 of 1801 and Obverses 2/3 of 1803.
I do not include reverses used in more than one year and given different IDs in each year they are used. Examples are numerous.
Breen wanted an elegant emission sequence and renumbered everything toward that end. But things aren't quite so elegant in real life or at the Mint. Sheldon is the Gold Standard for variety ID nomenclature.
Noyes is my preference for Die Stages though Breen's Variety State numbering system is still the standard.
For your consideration:
Looking just at what you can see of the angles of TED and ignoring the CUD on the comp which COULD BE a later Die Stage, could this be my missing reverse?
it seems you are doing your due diligence and i applaud the effort. i have as of yet to add anything of much use. it will take some down time and serious focus to yield any fruit on this one.