Thoughts on this 1799 Large Cent

lkenefic

First off...Here's a link to the auction for a 1799 (?) Large Cent.. The auction ended for what I thought to be not alot of money...if the coin is real!! The pictures look OK but the die chip looks like it might be an artifact of corrosion. This is one tough coin to find nice. I've seen these go at Heritage in F2 condition for nearly twice the money. If you manage to find one "nice" ...well let's just say I wish I was in the tax bracket to be able to afford one "nice".

This brings me to my question... If you have a rare coin, why wouldn't you have it authenticated or slabbed regardless of condition. I can sort of see not having a mid-grade semi-key dates slabbed (1909-S Lincoln for instance) but if it's the '09-SVDB all sorts of authenticity issues start coming into play. Lastly...do you think the winner got a little bit of a rip on a low-grade piece (ie..it's real) or do you think the seller unloaded a POS fake?

numisma

It is difficult to say for sure without having the coin "in hand" for a proper attribution, but that looks like 1798 S-167 (although it could be a 1798 S-165). That would make sense, since S-167 is an R.1 and more likely to show up on eBay than a 1799. I am fairly certain that the coin linked is NOT a 1799. I say so because of the relationship of the "U" and the left stem and the postion of "ER" on the obverse to the hair, as well as the date position. That thing was surely in the ground at one time. If it is an S-167, somebody just paid $330 for a $10 coin. I can't tell you how many times someone has tried to sell me a corroded 1798 as a 1799 while doing shows.

bhartman35

Would a 1799 be rare enough to buy something that looked that craptastic?

RichieURich

Yes, a 1799 is a rare coin, if it's genuine it's a decent buy at $300. But I'd only buy one that ugly with appropriate certification (NCS or ANACS).

MikeInFL

<< <i>Would a 1799 be rare enough to buy something that looked that craptastic? >>



Yes it is. 1799 is the far and away key date for draped bust large cents. In addition, the copper market is much more receptive to "problem" coins that the rest of the coin market. If real, $300 is a good price even for one in this condition --- you could expect to pay at least ten times that for a problem-free coin in Good condition...Mike

numisma

Mike, I took a look at the seller's other auctions. He knows how to attribute early copper, so my guess is that he knew this was a '98 before listing it. I could be wrong. I hope I am. But think about it; he attributes some copper, but the corroded '99 is not attributed and just listed as a 1799. Should have been authenticated by NCS or ANACS, or at least allowed for a 30 day return privilege while the high bidder got it authenticated. Of course in this case it would have been slabbed as a 1798. JMHO.

bhartman35

What are the clues to the actual date of the coin (other than the fact that a 1799 would be so rare)? To my eye, the last digit of that date is almost illegible other than the upper loop (which to my eye could belong to either an 8 or a 9).

MikeInFL

<< <i>What are the clues to the actual date of the coin (other than the fact that a 1799 would be so rare)? To my eye, the last digit of that date is almost illegible other than the upper loop (which to my eye could belong to either an 8 or a 9). >>



There are many ways to "guess" the date -- but they would entail attributing the die by non-date diagnostics. For instance, you could rule out 1797 and earlier coins because of the hair type (which changed in 1798 -- and from the looks of it, this is either the 2nd hair style 1798 (likely) or 1799 (unlikely)). Other key features are the placement of LIBERTY versus the bust, and many reverse differences including the relative position of the lettering and the wreath. Remember the dies for these coins were all hand-punched including each letter separately, so the dies all have (minute) differences that make attribution possible -- but it would be made more difficult given the condition/corrosion....Mike

p.s. Dennis -- good investigation and great point! I tend to agree with you concerning the (incorrect) date of the coin, but please note "If real" in my previous post.

MikeInFL

Here are some pics to help explain things...

Here is the coin in question:






Here is the 1798 1st hair style (aka "head of 1797"):




Here is the 1798 2nd hair style (aka "head of 1799") -- note the additional "curl" at the bottom left of the bust just to the left of Liberty's shoulder; there are 3 curls instead of 2 as in the "head of 1797"):





From the pictures above, it seems clear to me that the coin in question is "head of 1799" because of the presence of the extra curl, so that means it must be 1798 or 1799 (because we can see "17").

I'll try and narrow it down some more tomorrow evening if somebody hasn't already done so. In the meantime, I hope this helps...Mike

LincolnCentMan

If I were a betting man, I'd say it was a 1798. There were a lot more of those made. It's a 50/50 call on the mear looks of the date.

David

DONNYJF

What a great thread..... Thx to you all for the input....

I have a number of these old Large cents. Some look like this one and some don't.... None as super nice as your pic's.....

Who would be the best TPG to send mine into????? Is anacs still okay after what I though was a shake-up recently?????
Or would NCS be better????? Would love to get all of mine done, since some are really not bad looking

MikeInFL

<< <i>Who would be the best TPG to send mine into????? Is anacs still okay after what I though was a shake-up recently?????
Or would NCS be better????? Would love to get all of mine done, since some are really not bad looking >>



Personally, I'd send it to ANACS over NCS.

That being said, the copper market is self-sufficient enough that non-TPG-attributed large cents will sell well provided there's enough detail to confirm the attribution (present case notwithstanding). So I'm not sure that there would be much benefit to sending it to either NCS or ANACS...Mike

DONNYJF

Hey Mike,
Thx for the info. My question is how do I get them properly attributed if I don't send them to as TPG????? I can't do it properly and correctly myself I just don't know enough about them. I have a bunch of them in a Dansco album from my Dad. I'm sure from some reading some of them are valuable.

1798CentCollector

Bob Grellman also provides an attribution service for coppers. Bob provides his opininon on variety, EAC grade, and condition on a 'Grellman" attribution card for $1. You don't get a plastic slab with the coin encased and it's probably not as marketable on ebay without the slab, but you get as good a professional opinion as you will get from any copper expert out there. Bob wrote the attribution guide for the late dates, is a partner with Chris McCawley in McCawley Grellman auctions nad one of the foremost experts in coppers around today.

DONNYJF

Thank you very much.

How to I contact Him?????

Seems like a really better way to at least identify what I have and then go from there.

1798CentCollector

pm sent

GoldenEyeNumismatics

looks very suspicious

WoodenJefferson

Link to other auction

Could be nothing to it, seller had previous 1798/99 ?? large cent before. Pix in auction deleted but small pix showed up on google.

MikeInFL

<< <i>Hey Mike,
Thx for the info. My question is how do I get them properly attributed if I don't send them to as TPG????? I can't do it properly and correctly myself I just don't know enough about them. I have a bunch of them in a Dansco album from my Dad. I'm sure from some reading some of them are valuable. >>



As 1798collector suggested, Bob Grellman is a great source. Not only is he the "PCGS of large cent attribution", he can be much more authoritative with the coin in-hand.

That being said, if you have access to a good camera just take high resolution photos, post them here and I'll attribute them for you if somebody else doesn't beat me to the punch.

Take care...Mike

MikeInFL

<< <i>Link to other auction

Could be nothing to it, seller had previous 1798/99 ?? large cent before. Pix in auction deleted but small pix showed up on google. >>



Thought for a moment it might be the same coin, but I don't think it is. However, but the auction does seem to use the same (disingenuous) sales technique....Mike

WoodenJefferson

<<That being said, if you have access to a good camera just take high resolution photos, post them here and I'll attribute them for you if somebody else doesn't beat me to the punch. >>

MikeInFL

Even on a highly corroded coin like the one shown?

If you glance at the close up...look away and then glance back, it looks like a 99. But if you study the pic it looks like a 98.

I think the corrosion pits in the matrix of the date just throws the eye off what is really there. I'm sure the the coin in hand will be identified.

MikeInFL

<< <i><<That being said, if you have access to a good camera just take high resolution photos, post them here and I'll attribute them for you if somebody else doesn't beat me to the punch. >>

MikeInFL

Even on a highly corroded coin like the one shown? >>




You're right, it would be difficult with coins as hightly corroded as this coin, but if I read Donnyjf's post he has some coins that look like this (which would be difficult, but not impossible in all cases -- it really depends on the variety as many would be identifyable even at this state of corrosion) and others were better.




<< <i>If you glance at the close up...look away and then glance back, it looks like a 99. But if you study the pic it looks like a 98.

I think the corrosion pits in the matrix of the date just throws the eye off what is really there. I'm sure the the coin in hand will be identified. >>



I really can't be sure one way or the other and haven't had a chance to spend time trying to attiribute it yet -- but judging by the cheesy selling tecnique, I'd be much more apt to believe this is a seller trying to fool somebody and this coin is a '98...Mike

lkenefic

Thanks for all of the responses. This is turning into a pretty informative thread. I've seen 1799's as low as FR2 in plastic but none were this corroded. They all looked pretty worn in the date area...perhaps it's just me or the coins I was looking at but it's seemingly a hallmark of lower grades of this date. Anyway, if this coin was submitted to a reputable TPG...what do you think would be the outcome? Obviously I'm talking ANACS here. I don't think PCGS would touch this coin...I might be wrong though...Leo

MikeInFL

<< <i>Thanks for all of the responses. This is turning into a pretty informative thread. I've seen 1799's as low as FR2 in plastic but none were this corroded. They all looked pretty worn in the date area...perhaps it's just me or the coins I was looking at but it's seemingly a hallmark of lower grades of this date. Anyway, if this coin was submitted to a reputable TPG...what do you think would be the outcome? Obviously I'm talking ANACS here. I don't think PCGS would touch this coin...I might be wrong though...Leo >>



I would guess that ANACS would put it in the old holder as F details, corroded, net G.

MikeInFL

p.s. as a 1798.