This is what a Basal State-1 1799 Large Cent with a Large Crude Plug looks like...

llafoe · February 15, 2011 6:01AM

The fuzz on the coin isn't original to the coin...

garrynot · February 15, 2011 6:03AM

Any 1799 is a nice 1799. Nice coin.

Edited to say that a few years ago I was at the shop at Mount Vernon. Looking thru a case, I saw a flip with a Large Cent. The flip said "1798 or 1799 $65". I dont even think I looked at the coin. I just bought it and I still haven't had someone look at it. The 179 is clear but only the upper loop of the last digit is visible. It leans toward being an 8. I can say it does not have the tell-tale lump above the T on the reverse. So I doubt it is a 1799.

okracer · February 15, 2011 6:08AM

I love seeing ANY 1799 cent !

lkeigwin · February 15, 2011 6:26AM

I take it the plug is the reason for the net-grade basal state 1.

I always thought a basal state-1 was given to metal disks that are determined to be coins (perhaps denominations and dates might be determined) but not much more can be said about them.

This one looks pretty good...except for the little boo-boo above the date.
Lance.

llafoe · February 15, 2011 6:31AM

<< I take it the plug is the reason for the net-grade basal state 1.

I always thought a basal state-1 was given to metal disks that are determined to be coins (perhaps denominations and dates might be determined) but not much more can be said about them.

This one looks pretty good...except for the little boo-boo above the date.
Lance. >>

It's an EAC Net Grade.

BillJones · February 15, 2011 6:41AM

If you are aiming to place a true Basal State -1, 1799 cent in your collection, don't expect to get that much detail and don't expect to find a readable date.

sparky64 · February 15, 2011 6:42AM

I'd like to see the rev.
Couldn't it be an AG3, with the plug included in the description?
Just wondering.

llafoe · February 15, 2011 6:51AM

<< I'd like to see the rev.
Couldn't it be an AG3, with the plug included in the description?
Just wondering. >>

I'd like to see the reverse too!

From the very limited knowledge I've gained from this collection, the reverse shows wears much more than the obverse?

mrearlygold · February 15, 2011 7:20AM

A couple 1799's I've owned recently for comparison

llafoe · February 15, 2011 7:24AM

<< A couple 1799's I've owned recently for comparison

>>

Your's win!

Steve27 · February 15, 2011 7:40AM

That coin is no where near basal state, net or otherwise.

ziggy29 · February 15, 2011 7:47AM

<< That coin is no where near basal state, net or otherwise. >>

Don't forget this is EAC grading, which might be even tougher than 291fifth grading.

lkeigwin · February 15, 2011 7:50AM

<< Any 1799 is a nice 1799. Nice coin.

Edited to say that a few years ago I was at the shop at Mount Vernon. Looking thru a case, I saw a flip with a Large Cent. The flip said "1798 or 1799 $65". I dont even think I looked at the coin. I just bought it and I still haven't had someone look at it. The 179 is clear but only the upper loop of the last digit is visible. It leans toward being an 8. I can say it does not have the tell-tale lump above the T on the reverse. So I doubt it is a 1799. >>

Assuming there's enough detail to your coin, look at the wave of the hair curls at 12k and see how they line up with the letters in LIBERTY. In particular, the middle "bump" below the E. All 1799's are consistent. Easy way to spot a fake too.
Lance.

lkeigwin · February 15, 2011 7:52AM

Love those two 1799's, mrearlygold. I wish I head either! Why'd you let them go?
Lance.

BillJones · February 15, 2011 8:01AM

<< 

<< That coin is no where near basal state, net or otherwise. >>

Don't forget this is EAC grading, which might be even tougher than 291fifth grading.

>>

This coin with the plug really does not meet the standard for a BS-01. The definition is very heavily worn coin, with no damage. The coin does not need to have a readable date so long as the Sheldon variety can be determined. And believe me, for a quite a few of the these coins, you don't need a date to identify the variety. Years ago a collector gave me four dateless large cents to attribtue and I could do them all with the book; and I'm no large cent expert.

llafoe · February 15, 2011 8:03AM

<< 

<< 

<< That coin is no where near basal state, net or otherwise. >>

Don't forget this is EAC grading, which might be even tougher than 291fifth grading.

>>

This coin with the plug really does not meet the standard for a BS-01. The definition is very heavily worn coin, with no damage. The coin does not need to have a readable date so long as the Sheldon variety can be determined. And believe me, for a quite a few of the these coins, you don't need a date to identify the variety. Years ago a collector gave me four dateless large cents to attribtue and I could do them all with the book; and I'm no large cent expert. >>

The grade and attribution were done by Bob Grellman... I defer to his expertise. The obverse is heavily worn and may have contributed to his BS-01 grade?

shorecoll · February 15, 2011 9:27AM

Tom...YOU SUCK even if you only owned those for 10 minutes. IMHO.

Baley · February 15, 2011 9:41AM

I agree that this coin nets better than a Poor-1 in my estimation, too. For coins with a "feature" you're paying for, I'd rather have the detail and some damage than a damage-free but also detail-free slug. For a 1799 cent, to me and maybe others, the date is a key feature and source of pride for owning it.

Other examples are the small eagle on small eagle bust coins, and the date on other coins dated in the 1700s. Important mintmarks, overdates, die features...

If I'm paying for the feature, I want to SEE the feature. I'd rather have this plugged, (VG?) example than a dateless Fair-2, and would compare it to an AG3 in value.
(because I'd rather have a Good-4 than this piece... there is a limit to the detail-but-problem preference

Can we see the reverse?

llafoe · February 15, 2011 9:55AM

The reverse looks like a slug...

I expect this coin was worn as a necklace around someone's neck in the 19th century. The reverse probably took a lot of abuse against their chest. I'm guessing it was one of the First Ladies that wore this necklace!

Baley · February 15, 2011 12:15PM

well, uh, I guess I take it back... I assumed the reverse looked something like the obverse.

I'm going to agree with the Poor-1 grade, now. Maybe less than 1.0, as that reverse is truly unredeemable

1798CentCollector · February 15, 2011 12:44PM

The obverse certainly has some meat on it. With the condition of the reverse and the plug, Grellman probably graded it OK on a net basis. Although IMO , the meaty obverse probably warrants more of a split grade consideration with a lower overall net condition qualifyer (scudzy). Nice to have a '99 at any rate.

AnkurJ · February 15, 2011 1:39PM

Here is mine:

llafoe · February 15, 2011 1:49PM

<< Here is mine:

>>

Isn't it weird how each of these wore differently? Mine has the date and Liberty whereas yours has the date sans Liberty. I wonder how the Liberty was selectively worn? It looks like the reverse has a weak strike corresponding to where Liberty would be on the obverse?

Edited to add: The sad part is mine has a lot of the obverse detail remaining since it wasn't worn down against a body like the reverse. Too bad it wasn't worn less (as a necklace)!

HoledandCreative · February 15, 2011 3:24PM

I have an 1804 with same color plug in it. I like your 99.

BillJones · February 15, 2011 10:17PM

<< The grade and attribution were done by Bob Grellman... I defer to his expertise. The obverse is heavily worn and may have contributed to his BS-01 grade? >>

No, the obverse actually has VG sharpness with a readable date and some hair detail. The reverse, which is a total blank, is something less than Basal State 1. In fact it would be "a no grade" 0.

shorecoll · February 15, 2011 10:46PM

1799's were supposedly struck on the worst planchets ever used for any date, that may account for uneven strikings/wear, etc.

garrynot · February 15, 2011 11:57PM

<< 

<< Any 1799 is a nice 1799. Nice coin.

Edited to say that a few years ago I was at the shop at Mount Vernon. Looking thru a case, I saw a flip with a Large Cent. The flip said "1798 or 1799 $65". I dont even think I looked at the coin. I just bought it and I still haven't had someone look at it. The 179 is clear but only the upper loop of the last digit is visible. It leans toward being an 8. I can say it does not have the tell-tale lump above the T on the reverse. So I doubt it is a 1799. >>

Assuming there's enough detail to your coin, look at the wave of the hair curls at 12k and see how they line up with the letters in LIBERTY. In particular, the middle "bump" below the E. All 1799's are consistent. Easy way to spot a fake too.
Lance. >>

Thanks, Lance. I will check that. That "bump" between the E and T is not there. Altgough the VF30 specimen included here does not show an obvious lump like the VF 20 does...

lkeigwin · February 16, 2011 12:36AM

Here are examples. The first two are 1798 (first and second hairstyles). The third is a 1799.
Lance.

joecopper · February 16, 2011 2:15AM

Ankur - do you think that your coin is under-graded?

seanq · February 16, 2011 2:33AM

Thanks for those pics of the hair, I guess that means my pocket piece is a 1798 and not worth thousands.

Sean Reynolds

This is what a Basal State-1 1799 Large Cent with a Large Crude Plug looks like...

Comments

Leave a Comment