1797 Large Cent -- Really Large!

The Mint Act of 2 April 1792 set the weight of the cent at 11 pennyweights, or 17.11 grams.
The Act of 14 January 1793 reduced the weight of the cent to 208 grains, which is 13.48 grams.
The Act of 3 March 1795, permitted the President by proclamation to reduce the weight of the cent not more than 2 pennyweights, which was done 26 Janurary 1796. The Act of 1837 gives the weight of the cent at 168 grains, or 10.89 grams, which may be taken as correct for the whole period from 1796 to the end of the large-cent coinage.

How much did you pay for it? Where did it come from?

I can imagine a scenario where a number of these may have been released at 31 mm due to a die collar being too big. The resulting coins look weakly struck as a result...then along comes this fella with a thicker planchet, it looks normal, a little wide and a little heavy. Could be well with in the tolerances used at that time.

Have you been holding out on us? Sure looks like the same reverse, down to the slightly mushy features, splayed-looking M, and points of weakness around ER and ITE. So, what's this "mystery coin" supposed to be?

1799 is the most heavily-counterfeited large cent date out there, and yours doesn't seem to match either S-188 or 189. Looks like a counterfeiter was trying to diversify their wares by re-using this reverse.

Believe me, I've tried to consider all of the possibilities...From what I've read, a counterfeiter (assuming he didn't have access to the original die -- inside job?) would've had to create his own die by "marrying" an original coin to fabricate a new die. That would make his choice of reverse rather questionable, considering the mushy details. (Not that it is outside the realm of possibilities) The other thing that gets me is that I can't match the obverse to any of the published Sheldon varieties for ANY year, although I am far from an expert. From handling it I am reasonably sure that the coin itself was stamped and not molded or made through electrolysis. It passes the "ring" test. Also it weighs in at 10.61 grams but is also slightly larger in diameter at about 30 mm. The slightly larger diameter was a "red flag" until I obtained the 1797, which is even bigger. Hence, the reason for this thread. In addition, it can't be an altered date 1797 because they all had the first hair style that year. Weird, huh?

I've never seen a picture of a counterfeit 1799, has anyone else?

The 1799 is an obvious fake as the date is completely wrong. The rev is that of 136 which was used on S-136 and 97 NC-6. At first I thought the 99 was just an altered date because it is just all wrong, but there is no variety it could be altered from. The reverse has no berry right of the T in Cent. That only matches S-136, 97 NC-6, and two reverses in 1802, but the reverse does not match the 1802 reverses. It can't be altered from a 1797 though because it has type 2 hair and type 2 obv letters which weren't introduced until 1798.

Conder, can you please be more specific as to how the date is all wrong? I am looking at the date on a 1799/98 sold at a Heritage auction in 2008 that has similarities in the date area. Thanks!

http://coins.ha.com/c/item.zx?saleN...0&lotNo=2191