1799 Large Cent, an NGC misattribution

indeetlib

I'm sure this goes without saying, but definitely exercise caution when purchasing a low grade 1799 Cent in a slab. Here is an example I recently found listed in a dealer's online inventory for almost $4K...





Pretty obviously a 1798 S-166. Not sure if this was an actual misattribution or just a typo, but it's still a bit disconcerting to see this kind of oversight on a high value coin.

I did contact the dealer and inform them of the mistake and asked that the coin be taken down.

Rampage

Could be noted as a mechanical error, if it is "obvious" as you say. I am not a coppr guru, and cannot really tell from the images if it is a 1799 or 1798. I do realize the 1799 is a much higher priced date, though.

indeetlib

Yes, could very easily be a typo. But it means the difference between a $4000 coin and a $100 coin and I could see many an unwary buyer trusting the holder in this case.

Rampage

Well, I do not know NGCs rules of the guarantee, but if it is deemed a mechanical error, then they do not have to pay the cost of a $4,000 coin I don't think. They will reholder for free, though. I think PCGS might be the same way.

Again, that is a bad photo, but it looks like there is some digit there. Can an 8 be made out?

Best thing to do is call NGC and ask them...

Placid

Can look at a larger picture at NGC here

http://www.ngccoin.com/certlookup/index.aspx?CertNumber=3670744-042

The cert number lookup says 1799.

thisnamztaken

The photo's too dark to tell, for my eyes anyway.

That's one reason I no longer purchase Large Cents or Half Cents (at least via internet photos). A lot of sellers seem to take their copper coin photos under bright lights which makes the old copper look medium brown or even lighter but when you get it, in natural or normal incandescent light the coin often turns out to be a dark "steel" brown.

indeetlib

I wish I could provide better images. These are just the dealer's scans. This is not my coin - I just wanted to bring it up as an example.

The coin is attributable, even with these scans, as a 1798 S-166 due to the arcing reverse die crack from 6 to 9 o'clock. It is the only variety and date that has that. The last digit of the date even looks like an 8 to me. It has none of the attribution points or diagnostics of any 1799 dies. IMO, this is a rather egregious oversight by NGC, typo or not.

Just wanted to make prospective buyers aware of instances like this. I'm sure this goes for other rare dates in low grades as well.