| Author |
 Replies: 14 / Views: 890 |
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
3298 Posts |
This coin is in pretty rough shape but it is the type that may turn out to be that diamond in the rough.   Edited by mdpmedia
12/05/2022 01:45 am
|
|
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
3298 Posts |
Here is an enhanced photo of the date: good luck on this one.  |
|
Moderator
United States
26148 Posts |
Hmm that fourth digit of the date doesn't look like a six to me. Perhaps an eight instead?
"If you climb a good tree, you get a push."
-----Ghanaian proverb
"The danger we all now face is distinguishing between what is authentic and what is performed."
-----King Adz
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
5685 Posts |
Can't be a 1796.
Draped Bust design; not Liberty Cap.
Describe it as if there were no picture.
Picture it as if there were no description.
|
|
Valued Member
United States
234 Posts |
|
|
New Member
United States
30 Posts |
Either 1798 or 1799. I'm leaning towards '99. The 4th digit looks like a "9"
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
2564 Posts |
Quote:
Can't be a 1796.
Draped Bust design; not Liberty Cap. There were both liberty cap and draped bust large cents in 1796... Looks like 1798.
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
3298 Posts |
I might just take a gamble and send it in to PCGS in hopes that it is a 1799. In CoinFacts a P1 grade for a 1799 1C is $2750 retail. I assume that a P1 grade is the absolute bottom of the barrel for any coin's condition. A) Could PCGS refuse to slab it because it does not have a back? B) Are there slabbed coins out there similar to this one without backs? C) If PCGS refuses to grade it, should there still be a grading fee assessed? |
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
9242 Posts |
It does have a reverse (you say back) - it's just that the design elements have worn off. Yes - PO01 is the lowest grade possible. Your coin even if dated 1799 would not receive this grade due to the environmental damages/corrosion. Your coin at best will come back as a Details coin. Numeric grades for TPG coins are reserved for only those examples that have not been tampered with. Yes - you pay the full PCGS grading fee (plus shipping both ways) just for them to look at it. It does not matter whether or not the coin is judged to be genuine and/or receives a slab. Take a look at my other hobby ... http://www.jk-dk.artToo many hobbies .... too much work .... not enough time. |
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
1270 Posts |
The grade "should" come back as a P01 ED / Corrosion. It's up to you to gamble the money in hopes it's a 1799. Might want to consider ANACS to save a few $ since grade is less in doubt. Attribution is a specialty of theirs.
My date set of large cents is P01-G4. P01 is the best many of us might do on a 1799 :) The coin is what it is, but there is still a market for rare and even Details early large cents.
My hoard of '82s is up to 241! 218 BC x 1, 118 BC x 3, 18 BC x 1, 82 x 1, 182 x 1, 282 x 2, 382 x 1, 582 x 2, 682 x 1, 782 x 2, 882 x 1, 982 x 4, 1082 x 1 1182 x 8, 1282 x 2, 1382 x 1, 1482 x 6, 1582 x 13, 1682 x 17, 1782 x 60, 1882 x 68, 1982 x 45
Edited by Collects82
12/05/2022 07:36 am
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
2564 Posts |
PCGS likely could send it back unholdered with an "Authenticity Unverifiable" label.
|
|
Valued Member
United States
239 Posts |
Look at the T in Liberty over the forelock (coin's not S-188 or S-189)...
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
3298 Posts |
Quote:
..will come back as a details coin. Would the slab also have the word, 'genuine', printed on it along with the 'details' designation? 'Genuine' is really all that I care about since it would be only a hole plug anyway.
Edited by mdpmedia
12/06/2022 07:07 am
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
748 Posts |
i agree with what oldgrouchy guy said. the t in liberty is in the wrong spot to be a 1799.
I collect low grade large cents. I currently have >230 Sheldon varieties and >235 middle date Newcomb varieties.
|
|
Bedrock of the Community
United States
17762 Posts |
It is a 1798, and it is one of the varieties with the type 2 hair. I haven't done any other in depth sleuthing on it. And no I don't believe it is worth sending in.
Gary Schmidt
|
| |
Replies: 14 / Views: 890 |
|
Posted 12/04/2022 08:00 am
