how much detail is required at minimum for attribution? (CBH)

Hyperion · January 21, 2012 2:30AM

(re-post from another thread)

I never thought to even attempt to attribute something with this little detail. I guess it depends on the diagnostics whether definitive attribution was possible.

anyway, someone suggested a specific thread to see if someone would attempt to ID this guy, so here goes. thanks for all the mental energy in advance!

SoCalBigMark · January 21, 2012 3:12AM

Bump.

jesbroken · January 21, 2012 3:23AM

I would tend to believe it is an O-106.
Jim

BillJones · January 21, 2012 3:41AM

It all depends upon the date. Generally more hand work went into the earlier dates, and the designs become more standardized as the years passed. Obviously the more standardized the die work became, the smaller the differences and the harder it is to attribute the piece. Also if there are only a couple of varieties for a given year it is easier to attribute the piece than in those years where there are 50 or more. Here are a couple of personal examples.

Years ago I had an 1827 half dollar in VF. Try as I might I could not attribute it among the 47 varieties that are listed in Overton.

I bought a die variety book on Two Cent pieces many years ago. I had an 1872 in MS-64, brown. Believe it or not I trouble determining the variety for that piece although only three were listed in the book. When I finally figured out the variety the diagnostic was so minor that it was something that would have easily disappeared on a piece in Choice VF or less.

Conversely I was able to attribute a couple of 1802 and 1803 large cents by their Sheldon numbers despite the fact that they did not have readable dates.

GAB · January 21, 2012 4:13AM

I'd guess O-108, since I can see separation on the top curl from the cap.
The 50 C spacing looks more like the O-108 than the O-106 to me.
Finally, the placement of the E with respect to D on the reverse , and the I with respect to T
look like the O-108.
It's a pretty tough choice between the O-106 and the O-108 based on what's left of the coin
and the images.

jesbroken · January 21, 2012 5:14AM

I looked at the O-108 also, but felt the base of the 1 was lower than that of the 8 in the date on the subject coin and as pictured for the 106 attribution,
but as you say the wear prohibits more in depth analysis.
Jim

Hyperion · January 21, 2012 7:26AM

thanks for the feedback! I definitely need to start paying more attention to that....

mozin · January 21, 2012 12:43PM

<< <i>I'd guess O-108, since I can see separation on the top curl from the cap.
The 50 C spacing looks more like the O-108 than the O-106 to me.
Finally, the placement of the E with respect to D on the reverse , and the I with respect to T
look like the O-108.
It's a pretty tough choice between the O-106 and the O-108 based on what's left of the coin
and the images. >>

how much detail is required at minimum for attribution? (CBH)

Comments

Leave a Comment