Just for fun #2: Guess the date on this bust dollar #2.

ER

One of mine. This should be an easy one.

Bochiman

1798
Guessing completely out of the blue though

DickyBetz

1794

I win!!

Bochiman

1796

Bustman

1795

morgannut2

This is one of those hard berries questions isn't it? Ok, I'll go get the Cardinal Coll. Catelog-----

morgannut2

My guess-head of 1795, 13 berries, 3 leaves, BB-27

DNADave

1795 7 berries left, 6 right. Reverse J B5, B6, or B12

mgoodm3

17 something, oh yeah, easy.

Baley

it could only be 1794 or 1795, right? I'll go with the latter, although you have a 1794 too, don't you ER?

Coin Finder

1795

DNADave

The reverse of the 1794 is slightly different.

There are differences in the leaves at the top, above the eagle, and there are no three leaf varieties in 1794, which were all struck by the same die pair.

tradedollarnut

Nice strike for a 1794.

ER

Thank you again for participating. Perhaps I shouldn't have said "easy". It might be easy for me, who's making up the question, or the experts, but might not be so for those with only a passing interest in bust dollars. I like to do this, as an education for nonexperts such as myself, and maybe spark somebody's interest in early coinage.
Anyway, to all who guessed 1795. I didn't intend it to be a die variety guessing (that's just too diificult), but DNADave gave the the best answer.
First, looking at this reverse, the only possible dates are 1794 - 1798. But then, paying attention to the eagle and what it's standing on, it cannot be anything other than the flowing hair type (the draped bust small eagle is entirely different, and it stands on a puff of cloud, not a piece of rock as in the flowing hair type). Next, you look at the 3 leaves under the eagle and BINGO, it's a 1795. Can't be 1794, 'cause it has 2 leaves underneath. Another difference between the 1794 eagle and the 1795 is that the former is slightly skinnier, and its left wing's angle at the body is more sharply defined.

arlea1957

Yea that's what i thought too

ER

<< <i>Yea that's what i thought too

>>


At least you read it.