1802 Large Cent Error

I don't see an error either, and I have no problems posting photos after learning the ropes and using the "Preview" option to check my work. Otherwise, I'm staying out of this one!

Might the OP's coin be an S-239, the so-called elephant trunk variety? I know that many copper collectors oppose the "cute names" that have been attached to certain varieties, but I say, "If the schnoz fits, wear it." Here's mine:





P.S. - Welcome to the CCF, MikePellerin. I humbly suggest patience on your part. This is a great place for coin collectors!

I believe it's an R-3. Vermontensium.

MikePellerin .... Apology noted and hope you'll stick around; become a contributor. We all miss a beat, now and then.

It appears to me that my coin is a later die state; this, as my so-called "elephant trunk" is more prominent, despite having more wear than the subject piece. There are collectors who specialize in die states and will typically place more market value on pieces they covet. That said, the demand for this variety seems modest to me, despite the prominent die break. Personally, I've always liked anomalies in coins and tokens, illustrating aspects that are puzzling and challenge one's thoughts.

IMHO, the 1807 so-called "comet" cent is a sister piece to this one. The names add to the mystique, I think, but some collectors shun these labels. Both the elephant and comet varieties presently exist in sufficient numbers so as to make them collectible. Yet, there currently doesn't appear to be strong enough demand that they rate a healthy premium, price-wise, in the market. That said, I'd guess that these have good potential to be more competitively sought by collectors as knowledge of their existence spreads.

Given that the subject piece is an earlier die state of this error, many collectors would understandably assume that it is the result of PMD. It's only due to my familiarity with this error, this sub-variety, if you will, that I was able to recognize it for what it is. From a coppers' collector standpoint, I believe that it would make an interesting display to see a die progression of this variety. Perhaps, there are a few collectors out there who are looking to assemble such a set, and they would pay a premium for pieces that fit their scheme. To most collectors though, there's but a modest premium apparent. Many a coin or token simply awaits a more appreciative owner, it seems.

On another note I would like some thoughts, however, on why the indentation between the green arrows on a significantly more worn coin is so predominant while being virtually absent on the MS 61BN coin. I can't envision a progressive wear pattern like this one.

Also comment on why the PCGS coin has the upper elephant trunk bending down (between the black arrows) almost touching the upper forehead while the worn coin continues straight without curving downward and ends halfway up on the forward most curl.

Could there be something funny going on here for a buyer to be leery of in light of the fact that an R3 typically means 'approximately' only 300 - 400 'known' specimens exist?

I once owned a similar die wear progression that was evident on a variety of patriotic Civil War tokens (Fuld # 47/332). I was however never able to locate an example, wherein evidence of the die break was totally absent, but I did have some specimens that were extremely prominent. It was a cool mini-set of sorts, being eight pieces in all.

Very subtle examples of this die break are easily found. Here's a pic of a more extreme example, late die wear state, of the obverse die #47:



Here's an earlier die state of Fuld #47:



Might a similar wear progression, not as stark mind you, not be possible for S-239? Gives me pause ...

Does the die not evidence more wear with increased use, resulting in more metal flow into the stressed area, so to speak?