Huh. I didn't get to post, but my opinion was essentially "it's definitely not a 4 or 7, and probably not a 0, 1, 2, 3, 6, or 9".
The last digit, whatever it is, had definitely been hit, which obscures the identification. If I had to guess (without the further info) I'd say 5 or 8, probably 8 because the 5 wasn't usually S-shaped back then.
Knowing the options, I can't actually choose between "damaged 0" and "damaged 1", though of course the 1 not being attested suggests the 0.
It probably looks a lot more like a damaged 2 than either 0 or 1; does the timing allow a 2?
(...Actually, what does the last digit look like on other 1490 examples? IIRC sometimes the 0 was smaller than other digits, and a strong downward hit along a half-size 0 could provide the shape seen here.)
EDIT: apparently this is the Kunker 307 lot 176
coin; the photo there makes the 0 far clearer - looks like the thin line forming its left side was hard to see right next to the 9, so we were all guessing at the wrong shape.
Compare the definite 1490 in the next lot