I found this while detecting many years ago but did not follow up on it. I can't find this combination of the front and back of the coin. It appears to be dated 1787. Thanks
I live in a state of rules where I am not permitted to live on my own country land because my home is not 130 MPH rated! I can only visit it from time to time and pay the fines. I feel so safe with Big Government protecting me. In some states its illegal to collect rainwater.
Thanks. You might be right. There are some differences, but with so many variations of the obverse and reverse, it is difficult to pin down without seeing a visual exact match. I guess to make a determination, I need to know which differences are signifigant.
Could you take another photo more directly above the Reverse side especially, would like to see not on an angle shot how the arm and branches align with the letters D E : I am leaning first towards seeing if it is a 1785, that it looks more like in design, than the 1787, which would be 2nd choice, but then it would be harder to find an example. The last digit might be a 7, but odds are more of it being a 5 that we just are not seeing clearly, It would be nice if it were a 7, since rarity wise it would be up there .
Don
"The mantra has always been don't clean a (copper) coin or it will lose value.
For undug coins this is true. For dug coins this is untrue.
The value will increase with judicious cleaning."
Could you take another photo more directly above the Reverse side especially, would like to see not on an angle shot how the arm and branches align with the letters D E : I am leaning first towards seeing if it is a 1785, that it looks more like in design, than the 1787, which would be 2nd choice, but then it would be harder to find an example. The last digit might be a 7, but odds are more of it being a 5 that we just are not seeing clearly, It would be nice if it were a 7, since rarity wise it would be up there .
Don
Here are a couple more of the reverse in macro. Had touble getting as close as I wanted without blocking the light. Thanks.
Could you take another photo more directly above the Reverse side especially, would like to see not on an angle shot how the arm and branches align with the letters D E : I am leaning first towards seeing if it is a 1785, that it looks more like in design, than the 1787, which would be 2nd choice, but then it would be harder to find an example. The last digit might be a 7, but odds are more of it being a 5 that we just are not seeing clearly, It would be nice if it were a 7, since rarity wise it would be up there .
Don
Here are a couple more of the reverse in macro. Had touble getting as close as I wanted without blocking the light. Thanks.
After seeing the odd shaped "5", I checked out my coin again. It might very well be a 1785. I believe that I can see the loop of the "5" under magnification. The pics you posted seem to match well.
After seeing the odd shaped "5", I checked out my coin again. It might very well be a 1785. I believe that I can see the loop of the "5" under magnification. The pics you posted seem to match well.
I think it was the light that made it look like a 7, the darker pics are much more inconclusive, probably meaning 1785. Hope it is 3.5-B, would be a fairly good coin.
AMERICAN DIGGERS ON SPIKE: THE TRASH WE WOULD LIKE TO DISCRIMINATE OUT!
IP, busy with yard work today, but after looking closely, can't say for certain, I think there might be a difference in the height of the 8 on his coin versus the one on coinfacts, I will look more closely later this afternoon in my catalogs..
But I do agree, it is a 1785 like I thought, and darn well might be the 3.5-B, if it is I will get that verified.
Don
"The mantra has always been don't clean a (copper) coin or it will lose value.
For undug coins this is true. For dug coins this is untrue.
The value will increase with judicious cleaning."
OK, lawn work done, and I had time to put your photos against the Milller 3.5-B and it is without a doubt a match. Just to be sure, I sent the photo along with the three 1798 Large Cents my son and I just found to an expert and all my variety attributions were correct. So, mark you Connecticut as a 1785 Miller 3.5-B variety, Rarity 5 or 5+ which is just a bit above average for Conn coppers.
Iron Patch has good eyes yet after another long winter for him..........
Don
"The mantra has always been don't clean a (copper) coin or it will lose value.
For undug coins this is true. For dug coins this is untrue.
The value will increase with judicious cleaning."
OK, lawn work done, and I had time to put your photos against the Milller 3.5-B and it is without a doubt a match. Just to be sure, I sent the photo along with the three 1798 Large Cents my son and I just found to an expert and all my variety attributions were correct. So, mark you Connecticut as a 1785 Miller 3.5-B variety, Rarity 5 or 5+ which is just a bit above average for Conn coppers.
Iron Patch has good eyes yet after another long winter for him..........
Don
I hope to have to ID some of my own soon but looks like another month to go.
Nothing wrong with a CT find like that!
The only question I had about it being a match was how wide the letters appear on the reverse I posted. I guess just an effect of being worn.
AMERICAN DIGGERS ON SPIKE: THE TRASH WE WOULD LIKE TO DISCRIMINATE OUT!
Nice to have an ID on this. Thanks for the time and effort guys. I always wonder who lost these coppers and under what circumstances. Given the buying power of these coins in their era, I am a bit surprised that they are still out there to be found. When they were lost, someone must have spent a lot of time trying to find them.