Two 1814 Large Cents … Which one do you prefer? INFORMATION REVEALED

[BillJones]

 

Coin B

[bsshog40]

I like coin B. I know the scratches on A look like slab scratches but also looks to have some rim damage and not quite the details as coin B. Coin B does look to have a little verdigris problems on the Rev. tho'.

[123cents]

Both are very nice Bill but I like B just a bit more.

[MikeInFL]

I would choose neither as I don't like their color, but if forced would choose B as it is better struck, better centered, and lacks the digs/scratches that A has on the obverse...Mike

[lkenefic]

The "B" coin does appear to be a better strike. Is it me, or does the color look a bit "too" uniform? I actually like both coins ...Mike...what are you seeing that would send off red flags?

 

Leo

[jesbroken]

My preference is B, the color is more even, stronger strike and altogether more appealing. Both suffer from the red splotching.

[MikeInFL]

The "B" coin does appear to be a better strike. Is it me, or does the color look a bit "too" uniform? I actually like both coins ...Mike...what are you seeing that would send off red flags?

 

Leo

 

You hit the nail on the head above. Would need to see the coins in-hand to confirm -- judging a coin, much less brown copper, from a photo is problematic. All IMHO...Mike

[rrantique]

I like them both but i prefer A

[1798CentCollector-migratio]

Boy that's a difficult task! The holders and differences in the lighting make an equal or really good comparison difficult. There appears to be a red area right sf S in STATES on the reverse of coin B. Possible carbon dusting or just the plastic holder and light. There is a thin scratch pointing downward from the back of the eye on Coin B. I see some good flowlines and underlying luster on the obverse. That said my preference is coin B. I don't think the color is unusual for a Classic Cent, and appears to be an original coin - to me, and from where I sit looking at the screen . A cracked out comparison would be nice

[MunkyMan95]

B

[BillJones]

NOTE:

 

Any red spots that you see are from the camera light that flashes with the picture and not the coin. I have covered that spot up, but it still shows. And yes there are more scratches on the holder for coin A than for coin B.

[construct]

I voted for A. I like the color better, and I was impressed by the wreath details. If it comes a little cheaper because of the marks, so much the better.

[Hoot]

Tough choice - I like the peripheral details of coin B more than A, but the central details of coin A more than B. The mark in the field in front of Liberty on coin A is a bit distracting, but overall, I'd choose A from the pics. Both are pleasing, however, and would not be disappointing in my collection.

 

Hoot

[BillJones]

OK. Here’s the scoop on the two 1814 large cents.

 

Coin A is in an NGC AU-58, BN holder. It was the coin I purchased at the recent EAC convention to fill the Classic Head large cent hole in my NGC registry type set. This coin has an impressive pedigree. It came from the Wes Rasmussen collection that Wes sold a few years ago. Although that might not be a household name to the general numismatic community, Wes was a prominent member of EAC, and EAC members greatly admired his large cent collection. The coin is generally quite choice except that there is one scratch from the 11th star to the upper half of Ms. Liberty’s bottom curl. It almost looks an early state of a crack that developed that developed on the OTHER 1814 variety, S-295, “the plain 4.” This coin is an S-294, “the crosslet 4.”

 

Coin B has been in my collection for more than 20 years. It was my type piece before there were slabs. This one caught a body bag for “artificial toning,” which really steamed me. After shopping for this type at the EAC convention, my dissatisfaction with the grading service has only grown. ALL of the slabbed, AU graded, Classic Head large cents that I saw had this same dark patina.

 

Coin B is now in an ANACS AU-50 holder. Amazingly ANACS got the attribution wrong on the die variety. They called it an S-295 when it is in fact an S-294. This is a “naked eye” variety (all you need to check is “4” in the date, and there are only two 1814 varieties.

 

When I purchased Coin A, I thought that I was going sell off Coin B. Now I’m so sure because I think that Coin B really is a better piece.

 

The prices I was quoted at the EAC convention reflect how that market works. The quotes for AU coins ranged from $2,200 to $4,000 with no significant difference in the rarity of the date. The $4,000 quote was for an 1813 in an NGC AU-58 holder. As a date 1813 is a little bit better than 1814, but it’s that much better. The 1813 coin was also a little better than the 1814 I purchased, but it also had a mark in the field, and the die state for the coin was a trifle more mushy. Classic Head large cents tend to come mushy because the mint often pushed the dies to the limit. For a type collector, a sharp strike is preferred. The bottom line is, it pays to shop and compare, especially when it comes to early copper, because the copper market is controlled by far fewer hands than other parts of the coin market.

 

Finally Coin A will look better when I get it re-holdered. The holder that it is in is a bit scruffy.

[1798CentCollector-migratio]

Coin B has been in my collection for more than 20 years. It was my type piece before there were slabs. This one caught a body bag for “artificial toning,” which really steamed me. After shopping for this type at the EAC convention, my dissatisfaction with the grading service has only grown. ALL of the slabbed, AU graded, Classic Head large cents that I saw had this same dark patina.

 

Wow. I think this (Coin B) is a nice looking cent overall. I've seen plenty of Classic Head cents with original darker chocolate toning. Tough to discern the problem from the photo (pictures, especially slabbed) seem to give me a problem - what do you think that they were specifically referring to when the coin was BB'd for "artifical toning"? A recoloring or some sort AT acheived through other means? Or did you just plain disagree with the grading opinion?

 

There were an quite a few recolored cents that made it into standard holders in the January 2006 Reiver sale . Many were pretty obvious - I bought one for my own collection. The coin was an acknowledged rarity for the variety and very nice lookiing .

[BillJones]

Or did you just plain disagree with the grading opinion?

 

I disagree with the grading services. They do a poor, spotty job when it comes to grading copper.

 

EAC collectors don't like slab at all for many reasons. Heading the list is that slabs are not greatest preservation devices because they can be moisture traps. But the slab company's poor record in grading copper is pretty high up on the list too.

 

For example one of my customers asked me to bid on a lot in the EAC auction that happened to be slabbed. The coin was in an NGC VF-30 slab, but the auctioneer's grade, using EAC standards, was only Fine-12+. Even adjusting for EAC grading conservatism, I couldn't give it any more than Fine-15.

 

Yet one can submit an really nice 1814 cent, like this one, you get a body bag. Go figure.

[Count_Erfit]

I caught that AT right away. Can't miss it. 4th berry on left wreath is too brown. Or is it the 5th?

Anyhow, an EXPERT like me can spot it across a room.