2 recent additions, 2 1798 large cents, opinions?

Rob41281 · December 10, 2006 1:12PM

what do you suppose is causing the discoloration on this one?

MisterBungle · December 10, 2006 1:35PM

> "what do you suppose is causing the discoloration on this one?"
---------------------------------------------------------
It's verdigris, and it's not a good thing.

Unfortunately, there is not much you
can do except try to stop it from going
further by using some Xylol on it to dry
it up a bit, then use Blue Ribbon Coin
Conditioner to put protective coat on
it.

It's best not to try this on a favorite
coin first. Maybe you can find an old
lincoln out of change with verdigris to
test it on first, but really you are limited
as to what you can do once it gets to
this stage.

Sorry

~

Smoker · December 10, 2006 7:18PM

Possibly NCS could get rid of the verdigris and
make the coin look even better while they're at it.
They'll give you an opinion if you email the photos to them.

STONE · December 10, 2006 8:50PM

I definitely like the first one more

291fifth · December 10, 2006 9:09PM

The second coin is corroded. Don't waste time or money on it trying to make it look better. It is what it is, and what it is isn't very nice.

goose3 · December 10, 2006 10:01PM

shame on you for buying that second coin and enjoying it.

you probably wasted 100.00 or even more on it.

that coin is garbage.

Does that summarize some of the preceeding posts?

I like both coins. How can you NOT like a coin from the 1700's? In fact, if I needed that for my son's Dansco 7070, I'd probably buy #2 and put a little bit of conditioner on it.

PerryHall · December 10, 2006 10:08PM

The second coin looks like a metal detector find. PCGS won't slab it but its still a really neat coin.

TwoSides2aCoin · December 10, 2006 11:01PM

I don't think it's junk, just because of the corrosion, and I agree with Perry about why it's corroded. If copper sits in the dirt long enough, it gets destroyed by the minerals in the soil. I would not send it in to NCS. I do not like doing anything to coins but there are several threads that speak of virgin olive oil... The second coin might benefit from sitting in olive oil for about as long as it sat in dirt..... TWO HUNDRED YEARS

edit for spelling

Cladiator · December 11, 2006 12:27AM

I like 'em both.

bhartman35 · December 11, 2006 12:49AM

I like them both. They look like old copper coins to me. (Which, conveniently enough, they are.

) Use conditioner so it doesn't get overgrown with that moss, but enjoy it for what it is: A really neat piece of history in your hand.

Cladiator · December 11, 2006 12:50AM

Hey that second one would make just about the coolest pocket piece I've ever seen if you were so inclined.

lkenefic · December 11, 2006 1:33AM

The first one looks like a G4 with micro-porosity quite possibly on the planchet when struck. There are some copper gurus on the forum that could tell for certain (dorkkarl...Conder...BillJones...1798centcollector to name a few). The second piece definitely has much better detail (VF20 IMHO); however, there won't be much you can do about the obvious corrosion. I'm guessing ANACS would slab them if you were so inclined...I wouldn't do this though. Enjoy...L

1798CentCollector · December 11, 2006 3:21PM

Rob,

If you are not aware of it already, you have two different 1798 varieties - an S-174 and S-184. The most common diagnostic of your S-174 (the first example) is the projection at the top of the 1 in the date on the obverse and on the reverse you can see the left top of the M on AMERICA is not complete and almost missing. The variety is usually heavily clashed on the reverse through the 1 in the fraction - the ribbon and wreath. This is evident in your example. IMO the S-174 is an EAC sharpness grade around VG 8-10, but would be netted down to a good grade coin for the surfaces. There's possibly an old time cleaning and recoloring job. Some environmental damage does appear to be present - minor porosity possibly some corrosion on the reverse around the ribbon

Your second coin is a S-184. The obverse 9 in the date is low and on the reverse you'll notice the engraver's die scratch between the A in AMERICA and the right lower ribbon. Other attributes exist but these are enough to identify the variety. The obverse and reverse were shared by other varieties - separately, but when you see these obverse and reverse diagnostics in one coin you have the S-184 variety. The S-184 is actually a quite sharp coin - IMO an EAC VF 20 plus, but would be reduced to a much lower net grade due to the corrosion and what appears to be some verdigris

As an FYI, the obverse of the S-184 s shared by the S-184 and S-185 and the reverse of the S-184 is shared by the S-182, S-183, and S-184. Like wise the S-174 sahred by the S-174 and s-175. The reverese of the S-174 is unique to that variety.

Both the varieties are common varieties of 1798. Enjoy them for the varieties they are.

TwoSides2aCoin · December 11, 2006 3:51PM

<< <i>Rob,

If you are not aware of it already, you have two different 1798 varieties - an S-174 and S-184. The most common diagnostic of your S-174 (the first example) is the projection at the top of the 1 in the date on the obverse and on the reverse you can see the left top of the M on AMERICA is not complete and almost missing. The variety is usually heavily clashed on the reverse through the 1 in the fraction - the ribbon and wreath. This is evident in your example. IMO the S-174 is an EAC sharpness grade around VG 8-10, but would be netted down to a good grade coin for the surfaces. There's possibly an old time cleaning and recoloring job. Some environmental damage does appear to be present - minor porosity possibly some corrosion on the reverse around the ribbon

Your second coin is a S-184. The obverse 9 in the date is low and on the reverse you'll notice the engraver's die scratch between the A in AMERICA and the right lower ribbon. Other attributes exist but these are enough to identify the variety. The obverse and reverse were shared by other varieties - separately, but when you see these obverse and reverse diagnostics in one coin you have the S-184 variety. The S-184 is actually a quite sharp coin - IMO an EAC VF 20 plus, but would be reduced to a much lower net grade due to the corrosion and what appears to be some verdigris

As an FYI, the obverse of the S-184 s shared by the S-184 and S-185 and the reverse of the S-184 is shared by the S-182, S-183, and S-184. Like wise the S-174 sahred by the S-174 and s-175. The reverese of the S-174 is unique to that variety.

Both the varieties are common varieties of 1798. Enjoy them for the varieties they are. >>

Thank you !
This is amazing information to read. It reminds me of how little I know about coins.
Joe

MisterBungle · December 12, 2006 12:18AM

> "what do you suppose is causing the discoloration on this one? "
------------------------------------------------------------
Sorry if my first reply was a bit blunt, Rob41281,
it was not my intention to poo-poo your early
date large cent.

Sheldon variety large cents are my first love, and
I have been a collector since the mid-1970s.

Verdigris, and the granularity it causes are a
common occurrence on these coins which are
made of almost pure copper.

I had a 1796 Liberty Cap S-82 with verdigris
on the left obverse which pretty much made
the cap disappear, but I was very glad to
have it, and when I sold it, the guy who now
owns it was very happy to get it, because it
was the last '96 cap he needed to complete
his set.

Your large cents are still very collectable,
and I am sorry if my previous post made it
seem like they were not. Again, it was not
my intention.

Enjoy these early date cents, and I hope it
starts you down the same path I took when
I bought my first two back in the '70s.

~

2 recent additions, 2 1798 large cents, opinions?

Comments

Leave a Comment