NTC flubs it again

Conder101

Ran across this ebay auction.
1794 head of 93 cent
The coin is well worn but not in bad shape otherwise. The sellers photography leaves a lot to be desired. But it is still easy to tell that it is NOT a head of 93. In fact it is a S-65 a late head of 94 and worth about half of what it is bid to so far. If it really were a head of 93 it could easily go a couple hundred higher, and with the head of 93 designation on the slab it quite possibly will. The seller has been notified with specific reasons why it can't be a head of 93. (All heads of 93 have the date well away from the bust, especially the 1, except for S-20. And S-20 has a straight date, the date on this coin is curved so it can't be an S-20.)

Louis

Your posts are very informative.

UncleWiggly

The knowledge some of you have on this board is just incredible.

Jerry

Myqqy

Let us know if you get any response from this seller.....

Oldnewbie

I wouldn't mind having that coin, for about good, head of '94 money.

Eric

dorkkarl

wow, & that 1's pretty obvious too!

K S

UncleJoe

PROFESSIONALLY GRADED BY NTC

I also thought it had something to do with the last curl in the hair. I believe at one time the Red Book had a photograph of a Head of 94 but the caption read Head of 93. Maybe NTC does not have good reference materials.

Joe.

rhedden

I saw that item too, and to a copper collector, it's immediately obvious that it's not a Head of '93. I didn't bother to look up the Sheldon variety, bt should I be surprised that it's the commonest one out of the dozens of 1794 varieties? Looking at the seller's feedback, I'd bet you he knows it's not the Head of '93!!!