1797 Large Cent -- Really Large!

Believe me, I've tried to consider all of the possibilities...From what I've read, a counterfeiter (assuming he didn't have access to the original die -- inside job?) would've had to create his own die by "marrying" an original coin to fabricate a new die. That would make his choice of reverse rather questionable, considering the mushy details. (Not that it is outside the realm of possibilities) The other thing that gets me is that I can't match the obverse to any of the published Sheldon varieties for ANY year, although I am far from an expert. From handling it I am reasonably sure that the coin itself was stamped and not molded or made through electrolysis. It passes the "ring" test. Also it weighs in at 10.61 grams but is also slightly larger in diameter at about 30 mm. The slightly larger diameter was a "red flag" until I obtained the 1797, which is even bigger. Hence, the reason for this thread. In addition, it can't be an altered date 1797 because they all had the first hair style that year. Weird, huh?

I've never seen a picture of a counterfeit 1799, has anyone else?

The 1799 is an obvious fake as the date is completely wrong. The rev is that of 136 which was used on S-136 and 97 NC-6. At first I thought the 99 was just an altered date because it is just all wrong, but there is no variety it could be altered from. The reverse has no berry right of the T in Cent. That only matches S-136, 97 NC-6, and two reverses in 1802, but the reverse does not match the 1802 reverses. It can't be altered from a 1797 though because it has type 2 hair and type 2 obv letters which weren't introduced until 1798.

Conder, can you please be more specific as to how the date is all wrong? I am looking at the date on a 1799/98 sold at a Heritage auction in 2008 that has similarities in the date area. Thanks!

http://coins.ha.com/c/item.zx?saleN...0&lotNo=2191

I don't think the dies themselves were counterfeit. Both show the crack through the R, although one is pretty faint. I don't think a counterfeiter would have gone to that much trouble.

As far as the 1799 goes, firstly, LIBERTY is way to close to the top of the head for either 1799 die. Also, the date is too close together and the numbers don't have the right lean. How a 1797 reverse got paired with a 1798 obverse is a mystery.

OldSkool I love your enthusiasm! I actually considered retooled hair as a plausible explanation as well. But one of the characteristics of an S-136 is that the date is separated slightly between 17 and 97. Also the waves of hair on top of the head do not align the same way with LIBERTY.

It's really an unusual coin, even if it is probably not authentic. I was ready to dismiss it as such until I found the 1797 with identically matching reverse.

Ok, I'm noting your opinion that it is a retooled 1797. Thank you!

Here is a beautiful example of an S-136 in mint state. Notice that the same die crack is present on the reverse that runs through the R in AMERICA.


http://coins.ha.com/c/item.zx?saleN...#29822982784

Conder thank you for your thoughtful response. Your observations are spot-on when comparing the coin to the S-188. I suppose the comparison that I was drawing between the two dates lies in the fact that the 2nd 9 is closer to the bust and the lower part of that 9 nearly touches the loop. So this coin is clearly not an S-188 (or 189 for that matter). Then again, the S-136 reverse has conveniently ruled out that possibility. But what if, for the sake of debate only, this coin is a previously unknown variety? I know the odds of that are quite slim, yet the details of the coin are compelling. There should be no question that the reverse is that of the S-136. The two die cracks on the reverse die (seen better in the mint state S-136 example also at Heritage, link in my previous post) account for the weakness in TE on the left and ER on the right. Since the breaks in the reverse die do not allow for even distribution of the high pressure during minting, (according to physics) the opposite areas (obverse top and bottom) of the coin - away from the breaks should receive more pressure thereby producing higher relief. That would account for the crispness of both the date and the LIBERTY motto. That is manifested on BOTH the 1797 AND 1799.

I know this may sound far-fetched (no, crazy!) to many here on the forum, but different die combinations were used all the time back then. If there exists a 1798, reverse of '96 (S-155 and 156), why can't there be a 1798, reverse of 97? Isn't it possible that the mint ran off a few of these and decided that the reverse die was just too rusted and broken? This coin could've simply been one that received the 1799 overstamp. Obviously they went through a lot of dies that year.

I'm having trouble accepting that the coin is a completely retooled 1797, and the perfect match of the S-136 reverse along with the look and feel of it makes me think the coin is not a fake. So what exactly is it?

Ok, I'm off to the rubber room! lol