Is it me or is incorrectly attributed? PCGS
1 1

28 posts in this topic

1,171 posts

Not my specialty, but I do enjoy a puzzle. (and especially a "puzzle box" full of gold)

I'm seeing their 4.

The pit in the enlargement is just above the interior arch of the 4's "tent."

And the horizontal, straight, crossbar of the 4 can just be made out, too.

I can't imagine PCGS getting this wrong.  This is part of their "bread and butter," after all.

I have no idea what words are used to describe the features of typed-numbers, but things like — serif, dash, horizontal line, vertical line, slanted line — would probably be involved.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 posts

Haha, yea i know it is a real "1794". however for liberty cap large cents, there are three distinct head varieties of 1794. the head of 93, head of 94, and head of 95.

take a look at the pictures of it. take note of the facial features and hairstyle. 

which does it look more like to you?

cheers

6633D7CB-CBB3-40C9-9E4F-3F32343294DC.jpeg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,866 posts
18 minutes ago, USAuPzlBxBob said:

Not my specialty, but I do enjoy a puzzle. (and especially a "puzzle box" full of gold)

I'm seeing their 4.

The pit in the enlargement is just above the interior arch of the 4's "tent."

And the horizontal, straight, crossbar of the 4 can just be made out, too.

I can't imagine PCGS getting this wrong.  This is part of their "bread and butter," after all.

I have no idea what words are used to describe the features of typed-numbers, but things like — serif, dash, horizontal line, vertical line, slanted line — would probably be involved.

TPG's make mistakes, just like anyone else.  My favorite dealer has a PCGS graded coin he likes to show people when they think the grading services are infallible.  It's labeled as a 1941 S Mercury Dime in MS 65, but the coin is actually a 1944 Philly coin.  And NGC just labeled two 1971 Canadian coins of mine that are Uncirculated Set issues as Proofs.  Canada didn't strike any proofs in 1971 at all, just circulation strikes, Uncirculated Set issues and Specimens.  I'm working on getting that fixed right now.  Coins are graded by people, and people make mistakes.  It happens.

As far as the OP's cent, I really cannot help there as I know nearly nothing about US coins of that age.....they never interested me and I don't sell them either.  Hopefully, someone will be able to help her out though!

EDIT: The pics provided helped me immensely.  See my reply below.

Edited by Mohawk

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,866 posts

Hi Sonia,

Thanks for providing the photos of the different types.  They were very helpful.  Though I do not collect nor sell classic US coins, I do sell moderns and world coins and I've been collecting continuously since 1999, so I look at a lot of coins and I'm used to discerning varieties from small details.   In looking at your coin and the pics provided, I'm going to say PCGS did properly attribute the coin.  It's a Head of 1795.  I think that the heavy wear on it threw you....if you look closely, you can see that the shape of the space in the hair loop is shaped like that in the Head of 1795 photo and, though it is heavily worn, you can still just see where the hair loop begins to turn upward.  I can see how you would have thought it was the Head of 1794 at first glance, but if you look closer and compare the photos, you'll see it's actually a Head of 1795.

Cheers!

~Tom

Edited by Mohawk

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,171 posts

Ignore me, please.  :kidaround: 

Was up late last night and I'm extremely hungover today.  :makepoint:

I need something of a little "lighter fare," to further completely befuddle my mixed metaphors.  :flamed:

Think I'll read Charmy's Report.  :whistle:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,866 posts
4 minutes ago, USAuPzlBxBob said:

Ignore me, please.  :kidaround: 

Was up late last night and I'm extremely hungover today.  :makepoint:

I need something of a little "lighter fare," to further completely befuddle my mixed metaphors.  :flamed:

Think I'll read Charmy's Report.  :whistle:

It's all good......we've all been there at one time or another.  I was just having a polite "rebuttal" to what you said.  I'm considering it just a friendly discussion, so no worries :).  Charmy's report is definitely worth checking out.  Looks like the Expo went well and a good time was had by most.  Lots of pics, too. However, I must say I was disappointed in the lack of vegetarian fare in the restaurants that everyone ate at......I guess I'll be packing my own food if I ever get to that show!

Cheers!

Tom

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 posts

im not sure it is. if you look at the contour of the forehead to nose, it matches the head of 94 more. more like the slope of the head of 94. the hair at the end curls more like a hook than a c, like the head of 95. the head of 95 seems more like a "wider face", with a different angle. EAC members who specialize in LCs would be appreciated, but i am pretty sure it is a head of 94. lets just see. Conder101 if you're around , please take a look.

Edited by Sonia Lopez

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,866 posts
10 minutes ago, Sonia Lopez said:

im not sure it is. if you look at the contour of the forehead to nose, it matches the head of 94 more. more like the slope of the head of 94. the hair at the end curls more like a hook than a c, like the head of 95. the head of 95 seems more like a "wider face", with a different angle. EAC members who specialize in LCs would be appreciated, but i am pretty sure it is a head of 94. lets just see. Conder101 if you're about take a look.

Fair enough.  Like I said, I'm far from an expert on US coins of this age.  They've never interested me.  I was just stating what I felt I saw from the one diagnostic that I could make out.  Admittedly, I don't see the contour differences that you are referring to that much.  The coin is very worn.  I could definitely be wrong and if Mark is saying Head of 1794, it likely is.  I was just offering my observations.  Maybe people who are into this sort of thing will chime in and help out more.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,866 posts
10 minutes ago, Sonia Lopez said:

Mark and Mohawk, thanks a lot for your input!

No problem.  Sorry I wasn't of more help.  There are many Classic US people on here, I'm sure you and they will get this figured out.  Sometimes I try to wade into questions where I'm not as knowledgeable as some members if I think I have something worth saying.  Well, I'm right and I'm wrong.  Good luck with your coin!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,371 posts

Looks like a 1794 to me, the face and hair profile and the indent under the lips match the 1794 better.  I see what Mohawk is seeing as it looks like the bottom curl does curl under; like a "C"; as it would on a 1795, but I'm still going with 1794.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,568 posts
2 hours ago, Mohawk said:

TPG's make mistakes, just like anyone else.  My favorite dealer has a PCGS graded coin he likes to show people when they think the grading services are infallible.  It's labeled as a 1941 S Mercury Dime in MS 65, but the coin is actually a 1944 Philly coin.  And NGC just labeled two 1971 Canadian coins of mine that are Uncirculated Set issues as Proofs.  Canada didn't strike any proofs in 1971 at all, just circulation strikes, Uncirculated Set issues and Specimens.  I'm working on getting that fixed right now.  Coins are graded by people, and people make mistakes.  It happens.

I can't remember exactly what It was anymore but a submission I sent in years ago came back either with a half dollar labeled as a quarter or a quarter labeled as a half. It happens and even escapes QC. People miss things.

Edited by Revenant

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4,572 posts

The only cent that Bowers lists wirh the head style of 1795 is the one called "Exact head of 1795" above. The curl of the lower lock points downward. The picture above of the "Head of 1795," with the lower curl forming almost a circle, describes what Bowers calls "Modified Head Style," Breen-59 through 64. I am curious about who created the above chart. But, back to your question: Your coin looks like a Head of 1794.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,866 posts

OK.....trying this again (I'm a glutton for punishment, I guess) but I'm seeing that the distance between the head and the R and T is like that of the Head of 1794. But that hair curl does look like the Head of 1795.  But that appearance could be caused by wear on the coin or some other factor that we are unaware of.  This is a coin that has obviously been out there and used in commerce in its time.  And a lot of collectors who I respect highly and who know a lot more about US classic coins than I do have also voted Head of 1794.  In light of the distance between the head and the R and T in Liberty and the fact that Mark Feld, Coinbuf and Bob have all voted 1794, I'm thinking they're right.  I'm changing my vote to Head of 1794.

Edited by Mohawk

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4,572 posts
57 minutes ago, Mohawk said:

 But that hair curl does look like the Head of 1795.  

I did not use the above chart to attribute the OP's coin. I used Bowers' large cent book. The curl on the OP's coin does match the picture of the Head of 1795 in the chart above, but Bowers calls those coins with that curl type "Modified Head. "  All of the cents minted in 1795 had a curl that pointed down, except the "Jefferson Head" coins, Breen 10 a&b and 11a&b. So, a coin with a Head of 1795 would have a curl that pointed downward. In other words, the above chart and Bowers' book do not agree.

Did I make that clear as mud? 

Edited by Just Bob

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,866 posts
1 hour ago, Just Bob said:

I did not use the above chart to attribute the OP's coin. I used Bowers' large cent book. The curl on the OP's coin does match the picture of the Head of 1795 in the chart above, but Bowers calls those coins with that curl type "Modified Head. "  All of the cents minted in 1795 had a curl that pointed down, except the "Jefferson Head" coins, Breen 10 a&b and 11a&b. So, a coin with a Head of 1795 would have a curl that pointed downward. In other words, the above chart and Bowers' book do not agree.

Did I make that clear as mud? 

Hey Bob,

Well, you certainly have a resource that I do not have, nor will I ever have (it wouldn't make much sense for me to run out and buy Bowers' book on coins I never intend to collect nor sell, now would it?), but I believe you for sure.  Bowers' books are great and very well researched.  They're great references and a diagnosis made based on that resource is likely spot on.  Since the the chart disagrees with the Bowers book, I'd say that the Bowers book would be the proper resource for us to go on here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
56 posts

Weren't all the dies made by hand at that time? Wouldn't that mean there are differences in every pair? 

I am not familiar with any varies or the series for that matter, but from here it looks like a 5 in the date not a 4. 

I see a lot of damage from the die around the rim, but do not understand exactly where the rim damage is that gave it the details grade.

Please excuse my ignorance in these matters, I just would like to learn.

1794PCGSlgcent95?.png

Edited by Edthelorax
added picture

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8,577 posts

It is a head of 94, in fact it is one of the earlier heads of 94 (S-21 - S-43).  One of the first things I do with a 1794 is look at the gap between the bottom of LIBERTY and the top of the head.  On the early heads of 94 LIBERTY is well away from the bust.  On S-44 and later it gets down close to the bust often less than a quarter of the height of the letter away from the bust.  The heads of 95 also have LIBERTY down close like that.  The OP coin has LIBERTY far away from the bust.  It CAN'T be a head of 95.  Look at the picture Sonia posted.  The head of 94 is one of the early ones, the later heads of 94 have LIBERTY similar to what you see on the "Head of 95" pictured there,  Look at the difference in the spacing between the bust and LIBERTY.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,866 posts
10 hours ago, Conder101 said:

It is a head of 94, in fact it is one of the earlier heads of 94 (S-21 - S-43).  One of the first things I do with a 1794 is look at the gap between the bottom of LIBERTY and the top of the head.  On the early heads of 94 LIBERTY is well away from the bust.  On S-44 and later it gets down close to the bust often less than a quarter of the height of the letter away from the bust.  The heads of 95 also have LIBERTY down close like that.  The OP coin has LIBERTY far away from the bust.  It CAN'T be a head of 95.  Look at the picture Sonia posted.  The head of 94 is one of the early ones, the later heads of 94 have LIBERTY similar to what you see on the "Head of 95" pictured there,  Look at the difference in the spacing between the bust and LIBERTY.

Well, there we go!  Case closed.  Thanks Conder!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,866 posts
2 hours ago, Sonia Lopez said:

What would you do if you sent this coin to a TPG, and it came back misattributed like this? Just curious to hear your thoughts.

Well, though you and I collect very different coins, I'm having a similar issue right now.  As I mentioned in the above thread, I have a pair of 1971 Canadian coins from a Canadian Uncirculated Set which both have deep cameo contrast.  NGC labeled them both as proofs, though Canada didn't strike any proof coinage in 1971 at all.  What I've done is contacted NGC via email informing them of the situation.  I haven't heard back yet, but hopefully next week.  If I were you, I would do the same thing.  Inform PCGS of the error and give them a chance to fix it for you.

I hope this helps!

Cheers!

~Tom

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8,577 posts

The real annoyance comes when someone BUYS a slabbed coin based on the attribution on the holder and then later finds out the attribution in wrong.  It used to be when that happened if you couldn't return it to the person you bought it from you were out of luck.  It used to be that neither PCGS nor NGC would guarantee their attributions.  The best you could hope for was they would reholder the coin for free.  Any premium you paid for the variety you lost.  PCGS does now guarantee their attributions, but NGC still does not.  I have no idea how much money PCGS has lost having to make good on their attribution errors, but I know back when they didn't guarantee them there were a LOT of 1794 head of 93 cents in PCGS slabs that were NOT heads of 93.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
1 1