| Author |
 Replies: 23 / Views: 2,930 |
|
Valued Member
United States
65 Posts |
1804 Half CentI think its a Cohen 3 Maybe? Thanks     |
|
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
3253 Posts |
Sure looks like the "spikeless chin" version of that obverse die, but not the right reverse for Cohen 3, and I'm having trouble pinning down the reverse.
|
|
Moderator
 United States
16679 Posts |
She's banged up but yeah, Cohen 3.
swcoin.ecrater.com
|
|
Valued Member
 United States
65 Posts |
Nice,,, I was hoping I was right about it...
Value wise what do you think?
|
|
Valued Member
United States
65 Posts |
PCGS states in 2004 a G-5 sold for over ten grand
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
3253 Posts |
Wait a minute; maybe I'm just looking at a bad Cohen-3 reverse pic, but I'm still seeing differences. V, can you post a pic of an authenticated Cohen-3 reverse? I think if you were to draw a line down the length of the I in AMERICA, you would hit very different places on the wreath.
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
3253 Posts |
Oh, and  danny! |
|
Valued Member
United States
65 Posts |
thanks to both vermontensium and philadelphian for the spending their time on my post, much appreciated :)
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
3253 Posts |
Ok, here's the Cohen-3 from PCGS Coinfacts (shhh; don't tell them I borrowed it!):  And our danny's:  Can we really say this reverse is the same? |
|
Bedrock of the Community
United States
17884 Posts |
It definitely isn't C-3 (Which is the same dies as C-5 before the obverse die was damaged.) I'm coming up with C-1.
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
3253 Posts |
Thanks, Conder! Was thinking about C-1, since that one has the early, spikeless chin die state of this obverse as well.
|
|
Valued Member
United States
396 Posts |
Edited by BigAppleBucky
03/04/2013 9:18 pm
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
3253 Posts |
The Cud above ERTY identifies the obverse used on C-4 and C-2 (in that order). Probably C-2. Should have the same reverse as danny's, if his is C-1 (right, Conder and vermontensium?). |
|
Valued Member
United States
65 Posts |
I must disagree with the C-1 call,,,, There is no die break between T in states and F in half on reverse
Edited by dannytreeguy
03/04/2013 4:07 pm
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
3253 Posts |
It sure doesn't, and that why I wasn't really considering C-1 to begin with. But was this die break present for all known die states of the C-1 marriage? Anybody know?
The presence of a die break is diagnostic; it's absence may not be.
|
|
Moderator
United States
23522 Posts |
Quote:
But was this die break present for all known die states of the C-1 marriage? Anybody know? Near as I can tell (without owning any reference material) is that C-1 was at least the third use of that reverse die; it was originally an 1803 die. Haven't found any attributed C-1's without the crack as of yet. |
| |
Replies: 23 / Views: 2,930 |
Posted 03/03/2013 5:30 pm
