1797 Large Cent -- Really Large!

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