Starting an album I will never complete: Large Cents 1793 to 1857...WARNING! Ugly coins...

lkenefic

I've been intrigued with large copper coins ever since I was a kid. I've reached a point in my Middle/Late Date series that I wanted a better solution than the 2x2 envelopes to view them. So, I started looking at albums... the usual Dansco, Whitman, etc... but someone suggested these: the Wayte Raymond series of albums... and they really caught my eye. I managed to score an entire Large Cent run... more than the other albums, but it's more than a Date Set too.

In some ways, I suppose this set also addresses a question recently posed about the fate of "Details Coins"... I offer this... Sifting through the offerings of corroded, damaged, bent, holed, brushed, whizzed, tooled, graffitied, and cleaned with a Brillo-pad coins... My bar for the early pieces (1793-1796) in this collection was a readable date and as little corrosion as possible. I'm shooting for G4 details... we'll see... lol!

Here are a few...

1795 Liberty Cap, Plain Edge. I liked this one for the clipped planchet and the bold date. The coin has decent color overall but a fine microporosity is evident under a loupe. Coin might have been smoothed...

1796 Draped Bust. Tougher type coin to find nice... this one is corroded and cleaned but still has a bit of meat on it... a bold date... and I was able to buy something else...

1808 Classic Head. This old girl just looks well worn...

Nysoto

Your coins in this post are not ugly at all for anyone who collects well-circulated early copper. You will get completely different responses about "details coins" with the PCGS forum vs a group of EAC members. Collecting circulated early copper is a different world, and one that I like. Penny-Wise is a great publication with some very well researched articles.

The only question you need to answer is: Do I like the coin? Just make sure it is authentic and go for it. Don't worry about internet show and tell, registries, etc. It is your collection, and I think you will finish.

coinbuf

That is a lofty numismatic goal, it looks like you are off to a nice start and I hope you are able to complete the set!

alaura22

WOW
Funny
I just started this set as well
Good luck to both of us

U1chicago

That’s a cool set and the coins you have so far are a great start. Keep collecting as you like and enjoy the journey.

lkenefic

@Nysoto said:
Your coins in this post are not ugly at all for anyone who collects well-circulated early copper. You will get completely different responses about "details coins" with the PCGS forum vs a group of EAC members. Collecting circulated early copper is a different world, and one that I like. Penny-Wise is a great publication with some very well researched articles.

The only question you need to answer is: Do I like the coin? Just make sure it is authentic and go for it. Don't worry about internet show and tell, registries, etc. It is your collection, and I think you will finish.

Thanks for the encouragement. I was a little facetious about "ugly"... they're definitely not the usual MS Morgan dollar and I'm drawn to them for the early pre-industrial revolution minting practices they exhibit... overdates, errors, spectacular die cracks, etc... I did Middle Dates and later in mostly VF to AU. I knew there was no way my budget could accommodate that for the earlier issues. I'm looking for a decent 1793, but will likely buy a certified one, and it will likely be the more common Vine and Bars... so, the three holes in the Wayte Raymond album will stay empty even if I owned a coin to fill the hole... I'm NOT going to crack one. Ditto for the 1804 and 1799 holes... if i ever get there.

Best, Leo...

Nysoto

There is definitely nothing wrong with buying a details slab chain cent, 1799, or 1804, if a collector likes the coin. I would also tend to keep them in slabs for the next owner, details or graded, mainly for authenticity reasons.

I have an assortment of early copper, some for type, and a small collection of lower grade 1794 cents, mostly in graded slabs. Even with graded liberty cap cents that are well circulated, there is often corrosion, scratches, edge dings, cleaning and various issues - just to a lesser degree than details slabs. I think PCGS does a good job of making that distinction.

This is a 1794 cent of mine with a VG8 grade. Not original and has been cleaned in the past IMO. I like the coin

lkenefic

I've got a few slabbed early type pieces. I like the surfaces on your 1794... nice. Bold date too. Mine is weakly struck at the date but I liked the details, color and surfaces. Unfortunately, no Trueview. I also have a 1797 Half Cent in a details holder... with a TV...

lcutler

I've been working on a large cent set for several years, only five empty holes, but unfortunately three of those holes are going to stay empty! I just don't think the 1793 Liberty cap, 1799 and 1804 are going to happen.

Walkerguy21D

@Nysoto said:
There is definitely nothing wrong with buying a details slab chain cent, 1799, or 1804, if a collector likes the coin. I would also tend to keep them in slabs for the next owner, details or graded, mainly for authenticity reasons.

I sold my LC album to a forum friend last year, as I had decided many of the coins I had acquired were too valuable to crack out, or if raw, should be slabbed. I really like seeing them in an album, and considered doing a lower grade raw set in addition to the slabbed set, but the cost was too formidable.

Ebeneezer

I applaud your ambition! This is how a collector should be, yet so many of them refuse to begin the earlier coinage for the reasons mentioned. Which is a true travesty. I for one am exactly like yourself with those Seated Liberty dimes, 31 from complete- 15 to 20 I'll most likely not be in the care of.

BillJones

I have been dabbling with a large cent date set for a few years. My tastes have been too lofty at times. I need to get away from the Mint State and AU pieces and look more for nice VFs, which seem to be harder to find than you might think. The type collection did give me a small head start with coins like the 1793 Chain and Wreath Cents.

The biggest mountain for me is the 1799. I’ve watched dealers pay $1,600+ years ago for raw examples of that date which were attributable only by the reverse. I would need to find one with a date.

ambro51

When I young, we visited the Vineland NJ historical society building. Inside a glass case they had a full set of large cents, held fast to the display board by four pins. In all theory, this “should” still be there but knowing how local historical societies operate, with some volunteers and others getting sticky fingers….”losing stuff”. (Ask me how i loaned {with paperwork that I Loaned it} I know, my Grandfathers booze still from his speakeasy in the basement…….all copper……. Mysteriously “Misplaced”. I know who took it but he’s worm food now.)

rec78

The 1793 Liberty cap was the hardest one for me. I still do not have it after all these years. I did get the 1799 but the dealer would not break the set and made me buy the whole set 1794-1857. Glad I did, I got many very nice early large cents.

Mink

A great journey. I just completed the Dansco Large cent album with all the hard to get slabbed. Since I hate empty holes I fill the rare coin holes with copies ( three 1793, 1799). I haven’t found a 1804 copy. The journey is long but rewarding.

TimNH

I love it, collecting for the joy of finding the best piece at a price you are comfortable with. Here's my 1793, I liked the clean surfaces, bold leaves and readable date, all at a price that snuck under 4-digits, and now it's "mine". On we go!

erwindoc

I too started this set about a year ago. I have not added much to it lately as I have far too many numismatic interests at the moment. I need to get it back out and look at some of my own coins!

dhikewhitney

I like them; historic.

Walkerguy21D

@TimNH said:
I love it, collecting for the joy of finding the best piece at a price you are comfortable with. Here's my 1793, I liked the clean surfaces, bold leaves and readable date, all at a price that snuck under 4-digits, and now it's "mine". On we go!

I like your approach, and that coin looks nicer than AG details.
I hunted a long time for my ‘93 wreath as well.
This coin was originally in a Good Details environmental damage holder, and looked like it had potential. Now straight graded, and with the much tougher lettered edge variety attributed.

DRUNNER

Decided maybe my final major project would be undertaken . . . started about 2 years ago.

I enjoy collecting the older 2 and 3-ring Wayte Raymond, Meghrig, and National/Oberwise albums, and one of my more interesting is a 3-ringer with all US cents (no varieties) from 1793 - 1946-D with additional blank pages (ports hand-labelled) up to 1976. The goal is to recreate an antique album exactly as it would have been assembled from circulation and available 'coin shop' pieces in the mid to late 1930's, when the albums came out.

The collecting desire is to avoid problem coins, any cleaning or 'details', and keep a uniform chocolate brown up to the end of the 1934 era, then go higher AU/MS from that point on. I DO have a few earlier pieces in AG3, and several with some light problems (corrosion evidence), but overall, the desire is to get them as a uniform 'quality low grade' set.

The largies are a lot of fun. Even the commons were enjoyable to find in matched F-XF color, and the few early dates I have left are obviously, as stated by many posters above, tough. I also may never get the '93, '99, or '04. Maybe . . . but my objective of nice color, few if any problems, and honest wear is going to be challenging.

I will do a post with pics at a later date. I am currently (Dec '24) complete back to 1823. I have 3 Classics to go, and then 1804 and earlier. Fun coins to find were keys that were original, real, and in the proper grades uncertified so I could drop them into holes.

So . . . echoing what the OP has said, and I just decided to take it up through the end of a Meghrig album. Fun pieces of history, and now I just have to keep searching for that pesky 1815 . . . . . .

Drunner

BillJones

I took the plunge on a 1799. It's graded VG-10, but it could have also gotten a "details" grade.

The last "key date" is an 1804. I could have gotten fairly decent one a year or so ago, but the supply seems to have dried up for the moment. Yes, I know Heritage has a great one in the Steve Ellsworth Collection, but that will go for way more than I intend to pay for a date set.

I'd like to the get the Classic Head dates in VF, but that seems to be really hard. It's either low grader stuff or ultra high grade pieces with high 4 and 5 figure price tags.

Copperindian

@lkenefic: Congrats on starting a new journey in your collecting endeavors! Like others, I’ve started this series too; how far I go with it is unknown. My continuing to enjoy it will be the determining factor. Here’s my first one, acquired recently:

This one’s a F12CAC 1839/6.

I decided to continue with circulated examples of the 1839 date, like the Silly Head, Booby Head, head of 1838, etc. Toned examples are always welcome!

Mr_Spud

@DRUNNER said:
Decided maybe my final major project would be undertaken . . . started about 2 years ago.

I enjoy collecting the older 2 and 3-ring Wayte Raymond, Meghrig, and National/Oberwise albums, and one of my more interesting is a 3-ringer with all US cents (no varieties) from 1793 - 1946-D with additional blank pages (ports hand-labelled) up to 1976. The goal is to recreate an antique album exactly as it would have been assembled from circulation and available 'coin shop' pieces in the mid to late 1930's, when the albums came out.

The collecting desire is to avoid problem coins, any cleaning or 'details', and keep a uniform chocolate brown up to the end of the 1934 era, then go higher AU/MS from that point on. I DO have a few earlier pieces in AG3, and several with some light problems (corrosion evidence), but overall, the desire is to get them as a uniform 'quality low grade' set.

The largies are a lot of fun. Even the commons were enjoyable to find in matched F-XF color, and the few early dates I have left are obviously, as stated by many posters above, tough. I also may never get the '93, '99, or '04. Maybe . . . but my objective of nice color, few if any problems, and honest wear is going to be challenging.

I will do a post with pics at a later date. I am currently (Dec '24) complete back to 1823. I have 3 Classics to go, and then 1804 and earlier. Fun coins to find were keys that were original, real, and in the proper grades uncertified so I could drop them into holes.

So . . . echoing what the OP has said, and I just decided to take it up through the end of a Meghrig album. Fun pieces of history, and now I just have to keep searching for that pesky 1815 . . . . . .

Drunner

Drunner, I collect the Old Wayte Raymond National Coin Albums and related too, but I don’t remember any having 3 rings on the binder, just 2. I’d love to see what your 3 ringer looks like.

I did a search online and found these images, does yours look like this?

DRUNNER

Mr Spud . . .

I will send a PM, but quickly, mine is closely resembling the third picture down (bison), except the cover says "The American Coin Album". The inside cover has the trademark logo of "The Meghrig Line" and below that "Made in U.S.A. M. Meghrig and Sons New York". The first page is "U.S. Large Copper Cents 1793-1825." The second is "U.S. Large Copper Cents 1826-1857". The third page is "U.S. Small Cents 1857-1909". 4th page is "U.S. Lincoln Cents 1909-1931." The fifth page is "U.S. Lincoln Cents 1931-S - ." Ports are labelled through 1946-D with 19 remaining unlabeled ports on that page. I have included a 6th blank page (that overloads the size of the rings -- I just leave it loose in the back) from 1953-S through 1977.

I used to be able to do pics here, but fell out of practice. I'll re-learn and post another thread later . . . . .

Drunner

DRUNNER

Sheeez . . . . @Mr_Spud . . . . .you are absolutely correct!

The large format binder has TWO rings! Here I have been thinking for some reason the small format had 2 rings and the large format 3 . . . . WRONG! It just has two rings!

My mistake. Just have been thinking and typing that for so long . . . I wondered, "Why is he asking that?" Sure enough . . . the binder has 2 rings, not three as I always just thought without paying attention.

Kudos to you . . . and I will PM . .

Drunner