Please Confirm Attribution of this 1800 Large Cent

Eddi

For the most part, I find attribution of most early dates of large cents relatively uncomplicated (with help of the Breen Encyclopedia), with two exceptions: 1800 and 1798. These are dates with many varieties, and sometimes very small differences among the die pairings.

I would like to ask EAC members for opinions on the attribution of the 1800 cent. Of course, I have already attributed it, but would like to hear additional opinions from EAC collectors for confirmation, or not.

Looking forward to your replies.

Eduard

LanceNewmanOCC

looks like 205 & 206 share an obverse, there may be an earlier die state w/o the break(s)/clash(es) and based on the clashing at OF on rev, is the 205.

Eddi

Thank you very much for your comment.

I also have it as S-205, based primarily on the vertical position of the stem on the berry below C(E). On S-206, this berry has a slanted stem. I wasn't sure about the clashing at OF on the reverse.

Such tiny differences!

Walkerguy21D

That is a very nice example of an 1800!

jesbroken

I have it as a 206. This coin's T in Cent's right foot covers the leaf and with the 205 it is under the leaf. Looked at several on Coinfacts and NGC and other than a couple I couldn't make out due to wear I feel this to be correct. JMO
Jim

LanceNewmanOCC

@jesbroken said:
I have it as a 206. This coin's T in Cent's right foot covers the leaf and with the 205 it is under the leaf. Looked at several on Coinfacts and NGC and other than a couple I couldn't make out due to wear I feel this to be correct. JMO
Jim

while that is a good point, the 205 seems to be consistently weakly struck for the reverse for 1/4 to 1/3 of the design from k6 to k11 or so, even affecting the central devices, so i'd lean towards that anomaly of the right foot of the T and the leaf to this.

certainly the 206 can be clashed similarly to the 205 but it looks like one of the reliable quick diagnostics is the clashing. imo

Eddi

Thank you, both, very much for your thoughts and comments. I truly appreciate them.

Here is a side by side comparison of the reverse of S-205 (reverse T) to the reverse of S-206 (reverse U).
(Breen describes the differences between these two reverses in P. 206 of the Encyclopedia)

I summarize them here.

Reverse U (used in S-206) compared to Reverse T (used in S-205):

1) ME and F are normal, not irregularly shaped or recut
2) the berry below C(E) has a heavy stem slanting down to the right
3) the stem of the berry above O(N) aims at the space between F A. On reverse T, this stem aims between AM.
4) outer berry below R has a small spine.

These are mostly very small differences. However, they are evident when you compare reverse T and U side-by-side.
(The photo on the right, from the Heritage Archives, show the reverse of an S-206 in AU55 sold 2/15/2008).

LanceNewmanOCC

@Eddi said:

nice work and thanks.

those 3 berries from ON to CE look like good diagnostic points, especially for lower grades.