The same coin?

ElmerFusterpuck · February 13, 2013 9:54AM

I think so, and it has jumped in the grade. I'm looking at the two small spots on the sun.

1941-S 50 PCGS MS-65

1941-S PCGS MS-66+

magikbilly · February 13, 2013 9:57AM

Yes, same coin.

Eric

Edit to add: There are more than the two spots to correlate. But a point and a plus jump...how is this strike for this date/mm? Average?

LanceNewmanOCC · February 13, 2013 10:04AM

.
walkers usually don't move me but my chair shifted a bit over that one!
.

LindeDad · February 13, 2013 10:08AM

Dang if I win the lotto I'll drive into town and look at that one.

lkeigwin · February 13, 2013 10:50AM

Mighty nice Walker.
Lance.

Edited to add additional images. Presented are:
#1 Mark Goodman
#2 from Pinnacle website
#3 True View @65
#4 True View @66
#5 True View @66 (different cert, regrade/crackout? dunno which 66 came first)
#6 True View @66+

ElmerFusterpuck · February 13, 2013 11:14AM

That coin is very nice. Quintuple nice? I'll leave that up to the next buyer. Too bad that coin dsoesn't have a full strike...

LindeDad · February 13, 2013 11:23AM

About as good of strike as I have ever seen for a 41-S and the color and luster came into play.

Tdec1000 · February 13, 2013 11:49AM

It an S/S Rpm to boot!

sniocsu · February 13, 2013 11:57AM

Awesome Walker

ricko · February 13, 2013 11:54PM

Looks the same with different lighting.... Cheers, RickO

Type2 · February 14, 2013 12:30AM

WoW nice and yes it is.

bolivarshagnasty · February 14, 2013 1:21AM

I'm looking at the two small spots on the sun.

DON'T STARE INTO THE SUN!!!!

BTW, Really attractive rim toning on that Walker. I'm envious.

johnny9434 · February 14, 2013 5:21AM

nice coin indeed

pmac · February 14, 2013 5:29AM

At first I was going to say "no" because of the smudge in the field behind Liberty, but looking at the rim in front of her, there seems to be an "s" that matches. Nice coin.

stman · February 14, 2013 5:41AM

I wonder what happened to the stain in right obverse field?

stman · February 14, 2013 5:48AM

BTW, I once owned this coin in the first example, so I'm very familiar with that stain in right obverse field.

Unknown · February 14, 2013 6:16AM

This content has been removed.

mkman123 · February 14, 2013 6:24AM

Did this have a green bean before the upgrade or ? How many submits did it take to upgrade?

stman · February 14, 2013 6:26AM

<< 

<< BTW, I once owned this coin in the first example, so I'm very familiar with that stain in right obverse field. >>

I still see the stain albeit much lighter or is it the result of the angle of the shot and it is still as dark as it appears on the first image. Either way it is still there, so we shouldn't act like it is gone, it may however be a lot lighter and therefore still a relevant issue imho. >>

I only pointed out what I see. I know this coin very well, and I'll act how I feel like acting. I'm not stating anything as fact as I can't see this coin now. I do know it is a very nice looking Walker. But, one of the reasons I sold the coin is because that stain bothered me. I've looked at that coin and studied it from every angle known to man.

stman · February 14, 2013 6:32AM

<< Did this have a green bean before the upgrade or ? How many submits did it take to upgrade? >>

It did not have a green bean when I owned it. A board member owned this coin before me that he sold it to a dealer, who then sold it to me. I don't know if the board member submitted to CAC for sure, or not. I do know he likes his coins CAC'd. So, only he can say for sure.

Kaline6 · February 14, 2013 7:04AM

I'm a real rookie compared to you all so I have no doubts that you are right. But I have two questions:

1. What happened to the mark over the rightmost obverse ray? Is it on the plastic?

2. The toning looks different around the obverse. Lighting?

Very educational thread, this is a great forum. Thanks to all of you!

Kaline6 · February 14, 2013 7:34AM

Yup, gotta be the same--that little rim nick to the left of the date, and the two small hits on the eagle feather--remarkable difference the lighting makes. What is up with the ray thing though?

ElmerFusterpuck · February 14, 2013 8:24AM

The more I look at it, I think it's the same coin. I think it's all about the lighting angles which can make things appear and fade. Those two small spots on the sun are a marker for me. Someone did really well on the upgrade, no small potatoes there.

Bochiman · February 14, 2013 8:41AM

I'd be willing to say it is the same.
Slightly different camera angle and definitely different lighting.....makes a difference.

magikbilly · February 14, 2013 8:57AM

Its clearly the same coin since it was posted. Seems a moot point. Maybe lets talk about the grade bump, did it have a green or gold bean...any other changes. Juts my .02.

Eric

lkeigwin · February 14, 2013 8:58AM

Does anyone think it's not the same coin? Clearly it is.

I too noticed the tic to the ray. It's still there. It's all about camera lighting and focus. The 65 has sharper focus and contrast lighting that tends to pick up disturbances. The 66+ is softer...not as focused (inferior photos, IMO). Compare Liberty's left thigh, e.g. Or detail almost anywhere.

Generally, if lighting is directed across a light scratch it will highlight it. Direct light along the scratch and it can be difficult to see.
Lance.

stman · February 14, 2013 9:05AM

I have no doubt it's the same coin. I agree the angle of the image taken the hit on the rays might not show. I'm curious about the stain obverse right field. I know lighting and angle can make a difference. When I owned the coin, I never could find the angle where it didn't show, hence, it bothered me and I sold it.
It could still be there I guess. I'd love to see this coin....... now. BTW, the first image when it was in a 65 holder is by Mark Goodman, and he nailed it.

stman · February 14, 2013 9:17AM

Here is an icon that I believe is the same coin shot by somebody else way back. For sure different lighting, very small and I still see the obverse stain.

stman · February 14, 2013 12:51PM

True view............. When it was a 65.

19Lyds · February 14, 2013 5:28PM

Is it possible that the coin has had some subtle work? I find it odd that it got a point and a half upgrade when some of the negative qualities were no longer that apparent.

Unknown · February 14, 2013 5:38PM

This content has been removed.

magikbilly · February 14, 2013 7:17PM

Light and angle are amazing. From the three photographs the coin seems to be getting a tad less colorful?
In the second large photo page one - where the stain seems less apparent - why does the vertical ray emanating from the sun make a small 90 degree move to the left 2/3 of the way up? It is evidence of some image editing (see below).
One might wonder if the lighting in this second photo was arranged to make the strike look better? Look at the hip in the second photo and compare with the strike as shown above- it looks less flat (although no more detailed). Look at the Rev. and where its hotspot is. Makes the breast seem dramatic.
Where is the spot above the "I" in "IN GOD..." now? Where is the stray odd speck such as the bit of red after "AMERICA"? Indeed, stain aside, it seems many tertiary artifacts (those little things that keep a 5 a 5) seem to be less...problematic now. The very light overall brown speckling seems lost in less than focused fields. With all that, the fabric of the surfaces... seem less tightly woven. Photoshop or other - I can't know - but I don't think I like it.

Eric

Edit to add: I prefer it as a 65 in the True View images.

magikbilly · February 15, 2013 3:48AM

Bumped for morning/afternoon crowd - some interesting comments and questions about this coin.

Eric

commoncents05 · February 15, 2013 4:12AM

<< Is it possible that the coin has had some subtle work? I find it odd that it got a point and a half upgrade when some of the negative qualities were no longer that apparent. >>

I agree, I think the coin was helped between trips to PCGS. I don't think lighting angles are hiding the obverse left stain, I think it was removed. Notice the spot above "IN" is also missing, and the "line" over the ray next to Liberty's leg. Notice the new dark line across the eagle on the reverse, which would likely get there from someone subtly adding a little toning to blend their work.

-Paul

Justacommeman · February 15, 2013 4:33AM

<< 

<< Is it possible that the coin has had some subtle work? I find it odd that it got a point and a half upgrade when some of the negative qualities were no longer that apparent. >>

I agree, I think the coin was helped between trips to PCGS. I don't think lighting angles are hiding the obverse left stain, I think it was removed. Notice the spot above "IN" is also missing, and the "line" over the ray next to Liberty's leg. Notice the new dark line across the eagle on the reverse, which would likely get there from someone subtly adding a little toning to blend their work.

-Paul >>

This is what went through my head as well. MJ

stman · February 15, 2013 4:36AM

For educational purposes, one might want to check Coinfacts images of the 66 AND 66+. Many to choose from. Then, check the 65 image.

magikbilly · February 15, 2013 5:29AM

<< 

<< 

<< Is it possible that the coin has had some subtle work? I find it odd that it got a point and a half upgrade when some of the negative qualities were no longer that apparent. >>

I agree, I think the coin was helped between trips to PCGS. I don't think lighting angles are hiding the obverse left stain, I think it was removed. Notice the spot above "IN" is also missing, and the "line" over the ray next to Liberty's leg. Notice the new dark line across the eagle on the reverse, which would likely get there from someone subtly adding a little toning to blend their work.

-Paul >>

This is what went through my head as well. MJ >>

Yes and yes, that is what I have been getting at also.

Eric

mkman123 · February 15, 2013 5:32AM

tisk tisk if this coin was worked on and received a upgrade. Does the sniffer detect this?

magikbilly · February 15, 2013 5:35AM

<< Does the sniffer detect this? >>

Eric

ColonelJessup · February 15, 2013 7:32AM

Color now seems less intense. Never would have guessed a 66 (or +) based on minor ROT and, especially for this date, a barely vestigial thumb.

Edited to add: I don't think the PCGS Restoration service touched this coin, but if so, I want to compare chemicals and processes

Half this stuff you can do from home, and some coins/problems they'll choose not to touch. But the insurance of keeping the coin in the holder is probably worth it. Eyeballs sharper than yours or mine have frowned most severely within seconds of a coin being breathing the fresh air of liberation.

GrumpyEd · February 15, 2013 7:41AM

I also think it had may have some work.
Lighting can change things but but I don't think it would lighten up that spot in the field.

It would be interesting to know if it was cracked out before the upgrade.

magikbilly · February 15, 2013 8:02AM

This coin is pregnant with questions. Answers would be interesting, but they are NOT necessary. Remember the old short film about crossing the street? Just "Stop, Look and Listen" ...it seems "Wash, Rinse, Repeat" has been taken.

Eric

Unknown · February 15, 2013 8:51AM

This content has been removed.

nwcoast · February 15, 2013 10:03AM

Interesting that others have brought up the possibility of some very skilled 'conservation' on this coin. This was my immediate opinion though I didn't have the guts to bring it out in the open. Lighting can do a lot, but it doesn't selectively remove a spot like the ones discussed. Easy to retouch digitally but lighting is another matter entirely. The spot on the ray and in the right field are certainly an interesting topic to ponder.....
Dipping the entire coin would have likely affected the rim toning more IMO.
I wish it were lighting! And hope there's some lighting trick I don't know about to account for this...

magikbilly · February 15, 2013 10:10AM

<< Interesting that others have brought up the possibility of some very skilled 'conservation' on this coin. This was my immediate opinion though I didn't have the guts to bring it out in the open...

The spot on the ray and in the right field are certainly an interesting topic to ponder....

I wish it were lighting! And hope there's some lighting trick I don't know about to account for this... >>

Some of the best stuff goes unsaid. My last poll revealed that I hope. This coin is a great learning point in many ways.

Have a good weekend,
Eric

PS - Wish and hope, yes and yes - but trust the eyes and experience!

Justacommeman · February 15, 2013 10:14AM

<< 

<< Interesting that others have brought up the possibility of some very skilled 'conservation' on this coin. This was my immediate opinion though I didn't have the guts to bring it out in the open...

The spot on the ray and in the right field are certainly an interesting topic to ponder....

I wish it were lighting! And hope there's some lighting trick I don't know about to account for this... >>

Some of the best stuff goes unsaid. My last poll revealed that I hope. This coin is a great learning point in many ways.

Have a good weekend,
Eric

PS - Wish and hope, yes and yes - but trust the eyes and experience!

>>

There are a lot of woman I practiced yoga with that may have had some work done along the way. I would still sticker some of them. MJ

magikbilly · February 15, 2013 10:19AM

triple-entendre two

Eric

lkeigwin · February 15, 2013 11:20AM

<< 

<< 

<< 

<< Is it possible that the coin has had some subtle work? I find it odd that it got a point and a half upgrade when some of the negative qualities were no longer that apparent. >>

I agree, I think the coin was helped between trips to PCGS. I don't think lighting angles are hiding the obverse left stain, I think it was removed. Notice the spot above "IN" is also missing, and the "line" over the ray next to Liberty's leg. Notice the new dark line across the eagle on the reverse, which would likely get there from someone subtly adding a little toning to blend their work.

-Paul >>

This is what went through my head as well. MJ >>

Yes and yes, that is what I have been getting at also.

Eric >>

I don't agree. The stain is still there. The spot above IN is still there. They are just not so prominent because of the way the coin was shot.
Lance.

magikbilly · February 15, 2013 11:28AM

"In the second large photo page one - where the stain seems less apparent - why does the vertical ray emanating from the sun make a small 90 degree move to the left 2/3 of the way up? It is evidence of some image editing (see below)." - me

The image I am referring to no longer appears the same? I am not alone in saying the ray was moved digitally indicating image editing.

I just learned the photo was switched to remove a glitch. A few photographs in different light ought to clear this all up then.

Best wishes,
Eric

Unknown · February 15, 2013 11:29AM

This content has been removed.

magikbilly · February 15, 2013 11:35AM

So the coin is so incredibly optimally illuminated to the degree where we are discussing if it is the same coin or if it had some work? And what's with what appears to be judicious selective focus between the "T" and the laurel leaves? Other areas are not as blurred. It comes off as Photoshop in a way.

Poster right above me here - are you saying it was dipped lightly or?

Best,
Eric

The same coin?

Comments

Leave a Comment