1794 large cent help please

Verno

Hi All, this looks to be the head of 1793...is that the case? Coin is in unattibuted VG details holder, thanks1 RJ

lilolme

For easy reference.

jesbroken

I don't think so, but a closeup of the bottom curl may change things. Would be a great pickup if so.
Jim

numisma

@Verno It looks like a Head of '94 to me, although an early one, or what they call "First Scot Head". I am pretty sure that the coin in your photo is S-28 or S-29 (both share Obverse 10). If you can post a photo of the reverse, I can attribute it for you.

Verno

Thanks for weighing in folks....cant seem to get a good pic of the last curl, will pull out better equipment....the reverse is problematic:( and mostly devoid of detail. RJ

BillJones

No, it’s a Head of ‘94 variety. I know that this is a sacrilegious statement, but I find Head of ‘94 cents in high grade more attractive than the Head of ‘93.

Verno

THANKS! RJ

numisma

That appears to be S-29, but would need the coin "in hand" to be certain. There's not much left on reverse, which is not unusual. Both S-28 and S-29 are relatively common Head of '94 varieties.

lilolme

So I didn't want to disrupt this thread but it appears it is concluded now. I don't know anything about these but I often like looking for stuff. Sometimes I try to find worn examples and see how they compare. Here it seems to work.The first picture is a G6 head of 93, then a F12 head of 94. I know this is crude (more familiar with Overton stuff) but from the two worn examples the head of 94 is most similar to the OP. Cool agrees with above.

Also when looking I saw the third photo and slabbed as head of 94. Is this not a head of 95?
.
G6 head of 93

.
F12 head of 94

.
G6 head of 94 - is this a head of 95 with the bottom curl?
Cert page: https://www.pcgs.com/cert/34239661
.

jedm

@lilolme said:

Also when looking I saw the third photo and slabbed as head of 94. Is this not a head of 95?

Yes, I think it is. Nice job on posting all three for us.

numisma

@lilolme this is where things can get confusing. If you are talking to a handful of serious early copper specialists you may get deep into the weeds on this issue. EAC people tend to collect these by Sheldon number rather than head type, although they certainly understand that aspect as well.

Some people who specialize in this date (yes, just 1794 cents) might say that S-72 is the only head of 1795, also called "Exact Head of 1795." The last coin in your montage of three cents is Gardner's Head of 1795. I still call it Head of 1794, but PCGS includes Gardner's Head of 1795 (S-67 through S-71) with S-72, which is the Exact Head of 1795. Confused yet? Me too.

lilolme

@numisma
Thanks I think I got it. I looked up the S-67 on coinfacts and below is the descriptive info provided and saying what you said with different words and not addressing what EAC does.

So the last one is mis-attributed per pcgs normal attribution as it is in a head of 94 designated holder.

https://www.pcgs.com/coinfacts/coin/1794-1c-s-67-head-1795-rb/35685
Ron Guth:
Sheldon 67 is one of the later varieties struck in 1794. The head punch used to create the obverse die was a new one designed by John Gardner, then the assistant to the chief engraver, Robert Scot This variety belongs to a small group known as the "Heads of 1795" though, technically, there is no 1795 Large Cent that has a head quite like this (the "exact" Head of 1795 is Sheldon 72, which also sported a head punch by Gardner).

Omegaraptor

@Verno said:
Thanks for weighing in folks....cant seem to get a good pic of the last curl, will pull out better equipment....the reverse is problematic:( and mostly devoid of detail. RJ

Liberty Cap Cents particularly 1794 almost always come with weak reverses. On lower grade examples it is normal for the reverse to be gone or mostly missing.

This is because the reverse is in low relief and the screw press used to strike the coins was hand-operated and had the reverse as the anvil die - so if the Mint worker was tired, the reverse ended up being in very low relief.