I found a really nice Rattler Walking Lib today...

Meltdown

1936 P - MS64 in an old rattler.
This walked into a local shop today while I was browsing from a family collection being sold. When the deal was done, I asked to see it and agreed to buy it pretty quick... shop owner "owned it" less than 5 minutes.
It's pretty mark free and has really satin like luster. You can see some of the "haze" on the obverse & reverse fields which to me says it has 100% original and un-dipped surfaces.

What do all think?

1Bufffan

I think it could be under graded by todays standards but would be worth more to keep it in the "Rattler"

coinbuf

Very nice. looks graded right but that thick skin is a real +

bearcave

CAC?

MFeld

If you’re looking for opinions, mine isn’t nearly as positive as the previous ones. It looks as if there’s considerable haze and/or splotchiness on each side - in particular, between the IB in LIBERTY on the obverse and in the area between the eagle’s neck and the rim on the reverse.

Jimnight

Nice!

mannie gray

It is decent but the haze/rattler combo doesn't necessarily mean it is "100% original."
I see what I think is dip residue on the reverse under beak and UNITED and EPU.
But if you are happy that is all that is important.

DelawareDoons

Looks nice. I would not think it is a gold sticker though. Probably a green sticker today.

I would say its a P4+, N5 on regrade.

ThreeCentSilverFL

Nice skin

Meltdown

All valid input, thanks all. I don't know for sure but haze just happens doesn't it? Does it have to be dip residue?
How about my avatar? Dip residue or original skin? Maybe comparing one to the other doesn't work in this scenario.

MFeld

@Meltdown said:
All valid input, thanks all. I don't know for sure but haze just happens doesn't it? Does it have to be dip residue?
How about my avatar? Dip residue or original skin? Maybe comparing one to the other doesn't work in this scenario.

The area on the reverse of the 1936 which mannie gray and I mentioned, isn’t merely haze and it didn’t just happen. On the other hand, the 1944 is gorgeous and you’re right - comparing the two coins doesn’t work.😉

Walkerfan

I like your rattler. I don't see a 'haze issue' as others have noted. If there is one---it's negligible and wouldn't be something that I'd label as 'problematic'.

However, I wouldn't grade it higher than 65, which wouldn't be worth the shipping, grading fees and losing the rattler.

As for your avatar--I don't think it's original but she sure re-toned nicely.

SurfinxHI

I wouldn't kick it out of bed for eating crackers!

JimTyler

Nice hand detail

Catbert

That 44 is gorgeous!

ricko

That is a nice WLH....Though it does appear to have been dipped....not to the point of damage. The haze mutes what may be remaining of the luster. Cheers, RickO

keets

asheland

I think the haze is PVC.

abcde12345

I like it outside of the haze right above the date on the skirt line. I am hoping it isn't a 'tell' of something a bit more sinister.

metalmeister

Very clean 1936. Looks like a 65 in a 64 holder.

MFeld

I get the feeling that the holder is blinding some observers to problems with the coin. At the risk of beating a dead horse, I again point to the area on the reverse, to the left of the eagle’s neck/above PLURIBUS. It looks like a dip gone badly. But whatever it is, I wouldn’t want it on a coin graded 64, much less, higher.

Walkerguy21D

I like it for what it is, a common date in nice condition in a very old holder.

But it does remind me of a major regret. I had a nice ‘33S Walker in a rattler holder many years ago. I say ‘had’, because it too had moderate haze on it. NGC had just launched its conservation service, so I submitted it to make it look nicer....And now I have a McWalker in a McHolder.....

mannie gray

@Walkerguy21D said:
I like it for what it is, a common date in nice condition in a very old holder.

But it does remind me of a major regret. I had a nice ‘33S Walker in a rattler holder many years ago. I say ‘had’, because it too had moderate haze on it. NGC had just launched its conservation service, so I submitted it to make it look nicer....And now I have a McWalker in a McHolder.....

Still the same coin though!😊

Elcontador

@Walkerguy21D said:
I like it for what it is, a common date in nice condition in a very old holder.

But it does remind me of a major regret. I had a nice ‘33S Walker in a rattler holder many years ago. I say ‘had’, because it too had moderate haze on it. NGC had just launched its conservation service, so I submitted it to make it look nicer....And now I have a McWalker in a McHolder.....

One of the first coins I bought was a 36 S Walker at a George Bennett auction at the Masonic Hall in Van Nuys. I was in high school. It had great luster behind a layer of yellowish silver sulfide which formed in the 2 * 2. Bidding was fierce; had to pay $35 for it, which was a lot of money in 1968.

I finished high school, went to college, worked up the ladder in my career and forgot about it. Thirty years later, inspired by the SS Central America auction, which was right across the street from my office, I went through my coins.

I took this particular coin to a dealer, and he suggested that he dip it to bring out the luster and get rid of the silver sulfide haze. I agreed, and we sent it to PCGS. Nice strike, great eye appeal, very clean coin except for a minor hit on one of the wings on the reverse. Came back as a MS 65.

Looked a number of Walkers in 5 holders. Mine did not have the light hits on either the sun or skirt lines. Sent it back. Came back in a PC 6 holder and along the way got a sticker.

A dip done right can get rid of crud that developed on the surface of a coin without stripping it.

ChrisH821

@MFeld said:
I get the feeling that the holder is blinding some observers to problems with the coin. At the risk of beating a dead horse, I again point to the area on the reverse, to the left of the eagle’s neck/above PLURIBUS. It looks like a dip gone badly. But whatever it is, I wouldn’t want it on a coin graded 64, much less, higher.

If it is the case that the haze is from a dip, from your experience is there a way to remove it or is it etched into the coin?
My concern with this coin isn't as much the haze, but what appears to be some horizontal hairlines(or is it die polish?) through the sun rays.

ThreeCentSilverFL

That '44 has a nice look to it.

Meltdown

@ThreeCentSilverFL said:
That '44 has a nice look to it.

Good eye. I think that is from the plastic, I can't see them on the coin.

MFeld

@ChrisH821 said:

@MFeld said:
I get the feeling that the holder is blinding some observers to problems with the coin. At the risk of beating a dead horse, I again point to the area on the reverse, to the left of the eagle’s neck/above PLURIBUS. It looks like a dip gone badly. But whatever it is, I wouldn’t want it on a coin graded 64, much less, higher.

If it is the case that the haze is from a dip, from your experience is there a way to remove it or is it etched into the coin?
My concern with this coin isn't as much the haze, but what appears to be some horizontal hairlines(or is it die polish?) through the sun rays.

In the scenario you described, there’s a good chance that the coin can’t be permanently improved.

I can’t tell for certain what those obverse lines are. Do they bother you more than the reverse splotches that I’ve mentioned a few times?

ChrisH821

@MFeld said:

@ChrisH821 said:

@MFeld said:
I get the feeling that the holder is blinding some observers to problems with the coin. At the risk of beating a dead horse, I again point to the area on the reverse, to the left of the eagle’s neck/above PLURIBUS. It looks like a dip gone badly. But whatever it is, I wouldn’t want it on a coin graded 64, much less, higher.

If it is the case that the haze is from a dip, from your experience is there a way to remove it or is it etched into the coin?
My concern with this coin isn't as much the haze, but what appears to be some horizontal hairlines(or is it die polish?) through the sun rays.

In the scenario you described, there’s a good chance that the coin can’t be permanently improved.

I can’t tell for certain what those obverse lines are. Do they bother you more than the reverse splotches that I’ve mentioned a few times?

If they are hairlines then yes they would bother me more than the splotches on the reverse. If they are an artifact of the die then they wouldn't bother me at all.

ThreeCentSilverFL

Here is my ‘36 D in a rattler. This coin has nice luster In hand which is visually impaired by the old plastic.

Walkerfan

Great strike for a '36 D. Sun and rays look great. There's some significant haze, in the right facing the field, as long as it's not active; I am okay with it.

cameonut2011

I can't rule out the bad dip theory, but on my screen the haze has a light blueish green look. I'm thinking PVC.