1940s proof walkers. Advice for a potential new buyer?
bagofnickels
Posts: 349 ✭✭✭✭
I'm in the market to buy a walking liberty proof. Ever since I started building a short set I've wanted one. I've never spent the amount of money I'm about to on a proof coin and was wondering if anyone could tell me what things I should watch out for in one of these 40s proofs. Hairlines and unattractive haze? I'm under the impression that the haze is due to the cellophane these were shipped in from the mint. So is it an indicator of originality and most that are blast white were dipped? I prefer coins with some color and I like when they appear original and unmessed with. My aim is a 1940s proof in 65 or 66. If you have one of these I would love to see it and hear your advice on buying one.
3
Comments
It seems that you would like a coin with some nice toning, these are really hard to find for these dates. Most seems to be in the bluish range of colors. I have seen very few attractive proofs with the brown haze, but I do find the brownish spots fairly attractive, the coins I have with them seem to almost have the spots appear around the rim and they highlight the devices quite well. I advise you to wait for a coin with full details at a minimum, that means a full hand and flag on the obverse and full designers initials and wings on the reverse. This is something that makes these proofs true quality, as many of them are over-polished and lose these details, and sometimes circulation strikes have more details than the comparative proofs. This is something that would not make sense, as the proofs are generally made to have the most attractive eye appeal and full details, but collectors complained that the coins were not distinguishable from circulation coins and the mint polished the heck out of the dies as a result. That was the one thing that took the longest, finding an attractive proof with full details. I dropped the color requirement in my hunt because I didn't think that I would find a proof with good details and color for another two years without costing me an arm and a leg and the hunt was getting long already (2 years), so I went for one with contrast instead. This may be something to consider, but many are blast white and dipped so you many not want to sacrifice color instead. Yes, color is generally an indicator of originality, but a lot of original proofs are downright unattractive, so choose wisely and take your time. With a 65 or 66 you won't have too many distracting hairlines but there will be hairlines so just be aware of that. A 1942 will be the cheapest, but prices have been rising for all of these. I put images of my 1942 quarter with blue toning for a color sample and my 1942 half below. Good luck with the hunt!
Coin Photographer.
These are not rare. Do not settle on quality. Avoid coins with hazy, brown toning, or coins covered in hairlines. Look for coins with clean surfaces and deep mirrors. Also even though proof, some fine design elements may have been polished away. Look at details. Bonus for beautiful rainbow toning (uncommon) and coins with cameo contrasts even if not worthy of a designation.
These were issued in cellophane which did tend to produce haze and brownish toning. Although original, this is one area where the market does not reward originality and the homelier looking examples can be more difficult to move when the time to sell comes.
I personally wouldn’t buy below PF66 unless cameo or rainbow toned. For the Uber common dates PF67-PF67+ seem to be the sweet spot before prices explode. PF 66 is a decent trade off if budget limited. Most mid to lower grade coins are treated as widgets. CAC can help add liquidity there. The true interest and premium is for deeeeeep mirrors, nice color, and cameo contrasts but those will cost much more to acquire. It would be worth it to me for those, but your taste may not be the same as mine.
If you do decide to save up to buy something truly unique or scarce designated cameo proofs exist for 1938, 1939, and 1942 and are rare especially for a coin all there. For 1939, there was purportedly a 64 sold at Teletrade in 2009. I think it upgraded and now is the sole top pop PCGS PF65 CAM which is off the market and not coming on the market anytime soon (I know where that one is). If you want a cameo your best bet is 1942, but most of those are likely in deep hands as well. There are also coins with appreciable frost (70-80% of the eye candy) but without designations and the associated large premiums.
I am not in the market for WL half proof but I came across some (40,41,42) CAM, exceptionally beautiful coins w/o haze or toning in auctions just last year. They can be had for reasonable premium.
I’m slowly working on a proof Walker set. As others have said, they are abundant, so it pays to be picky.
It’s easy to find dipped ones with nice cameo (though short of the full cameo designation), especially for the later dates. I share your preference for originality, and in my experience it can be quite challenging to find ones with nice eye appeal. The vast majority have a hazy/foggy look and unattractive color from cellophane toning. As Roger Burdette wrote in his book on proofs from that era, attractive coins with color are “scarce to exceedingly difficult to locate.”
They are out there, but it may take some time to find one that speaks to you, and you will likely need to pay a premium. The one below is an NGC 66 CAC from CRO that I’ve posted before.
I don’t know what you mean by “reasonable premium”, but examples which have been designated as “Cameo” sell for multiples of the price of non-Cameos.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
I would assume he meant coins with cameo contrast but without designation as some of those years have no designated examples. Moderate contrast coins aren’t common but as you know there are many more of them out there than many collectors probably think.
Years with cameo designated coins:
PCGS: 1938, 1939, and 1942
NGC: 1938 and 1942
If you are going to get a cameo WLH, it will not be cheap. They are beautiful, but expensive. Cheers, RickO
Yes, cameos will cost you an arm and a leg based on my YN budget lol. The last CAM sold was a 1942 in 66CAM in 2016, its went for $13,513. I got this from coin facts. On a side note, the 1939 CAM on coinfacts doesn't look very CAM, almost no frost on the sun.
Coin Photographer.
As others have said cameos are a big reach, but I find that there are lots of near cameos (nice mirrors, lots of contrast and frost but almost undoubtedly none on the sun) and they seem to sell quickly when they come up. This is what I look for in Walker proofs.
Thanks to everyone who replied. I feel like I got a lot out of asking this here. As for cameo WLH proofs as much as I would love to own one my budget does not permit it. I think I will likely look for a coin in the PR66 range potentially going a point above or below depending on the coin. I dont typically purchase coins in this price range and therefore am keen to not jump at the first attractive proof that crosses my path. Someone mentioned a book about US proofs from 36-42 by Roger Burdette so I'm going to likely buy a copy of that and read it.
I didn't know that proof WLH sometimes do not possess full detail. I was, for whatever reason, assuming that most proofs are fully or well struck compared to a business strike WLH. This is another thing to look out for in addition to determining whether or not the level and tone of the haze is acceptable. The coins posted are beautiful and right up my alley and I appreciate posting them. Thanks again all who replied I'm feeling more confident going forward.
Don't buy into the "missing initials" varieties. This just means the die was polished too much and is missing a lot of detail. Make sure one you choose has sharp detail on the lowest relief parts of the design, like the deeper folds of the flag/gown and the feathers between the eagle's legs. Look at a bunch of CoinFacts and you'll see what I mean. The 1942 half that FlyingAl and the 1941 the BigTree posted are both coins I would recommend.
Keeper of the VAM Catalog • Professional Coin Imaging • Prime Number Set • World Coins in Early America • British Trade Dollars • Variety Attribution
Here is an example of an over-polished die from my set. This coin has excellent mirrors but lacking in low relief detail. Note the re-engraving of the flag outline and that the sun sort of melts into the field.
FWIW this coin graded PR67
Collector, occasional seller
I too am in the market for a 1941 Proof half dollar. I have not found the right one yet.
Many original surface (never dipped) examples of these coins have a haze on them that was left there by the celluloid sleeves the mint used to package these coins. If the owners left them in those holders, the coins got the haze.
The grading services can give coins with heavy haze very high grading numbers, like PR-67 or 68. CAC likes them too.
I don’t care for these coins when the haze is really heavy. It can obscure the mirrors. I like a little haze, but also don’t mind coins that have been dipped, which was frequently done in the past, to remove the haze, if the Proof mirrors are still nice.
Here is 1937 Proof half dollar that has been dipped. NGC graded it PR-65, and I liked it.
This 1942 half has original surfaces with the haze. NGC graded this one PR-67. Obviously it was okay by me since I bought it. These coins are hard to photograph.
And here is a 1936 Proof Half Dollar that has original surfaces. This one is graded PR-66.
I know that you want one from the 1940s because they are cheaper, but the earlier dates tend to come with better design details. The mintages were smaller in 1930s, and the die polishing, which removed a lot of the sharpness, was seen less often.
As I often do, I’ll take the minority view.
So what’s so nice about a Proof Walker that has haze caused “unnaturally” by the cellophane, as that haze is a distraction, versus a coin that was very gently and quickly dipped, and looks like the designer envisioned the coin to look? Is the Emperor wearing no clothes? Being honest, a Walker that is fully brilliant IS a more attractive coin than one with haze but no attractive toning.
I have a set of 1936 - 1942 Proof Walkers, and CAC put their coveted sticker on every one, despite the dipping, as it was done gently enough. We all agree that overdipped coins are not attractive!
Here’s my 1939 PR67+ w/CAC:
Steve
My collecting “Pride & Joy” is my PCGS Registry Dansco 7070 Set:
https://www.pcgs.com/setregistry/type-sets/design-type-sets/complete-dansco-7070-modified-type-set-1796-date/publishedset/213996
Super nice set, winesteven. I have seen a few other of your coins that you have posted and are also super nice.
Here's my 41 proof:
Keeper of the VAM Catalog • Professional Coin Imaging • Prime Number Set • World Coins in Early America • British Trade Dollars • Variety Attribution
I like my proof walkers sans haze. Yes, haze is original, but it's from a poor storage medium too. Go for 66's, thats where they really start to pop. CAC if you can. Ratchet up the difficulty by going for older holders if you want. A matching, pq set in fatties, for example, would be a sight to behold.
"It's like God, Family, Country, except Sticker, Plastic, Coin."
Thanks for posting what I should keep an eye out for. I'm realizing I may spend longer and more money looking for the right coin than I thought. I knew that the 30s proof walkers had lower mintages but didn't know they had less die polishing and sharper struck details. I'm going to reevaluate which dates I'm choosing from. I really appreciate all the advice and the pictures especially. I think that PR66 CAC coins may be what I aim for.
I always keep my eye out for old holders. Never a requirement ut always a bonus for me when choosing coins.
Thank you again. This has been a buffet of information. A lot of which I didn't have before.
All, I think that we can agree that the haze often present on these coins is fairly unattractive. But there are also those coins that have color resulting from the haze that is attractive.
For example, let’s take @BillJones’s 1942 half. The coin has some haze that seems to have resulted from the cellophane but it does not detract from the eye appeal, but rather highlights the devices and surrounds the rims with a nice gold tone. This coin would be the “diamond in the rough” because the haze is attractive and the coin would likely be a coin that many of us would pass on without it.
Now in the case of coins with unattractive haze or cameo contrast, which many dipped Walkers have, a quick dip is certainly a good option. It’s just deciding if the haze adds to the coin, or detracts. I’ll put an example of a 1938 quarter below. It has haze that detracts. Is a dip a good choice? Probably. But I would never dream of dipping my 1942 quarter, I’ve grown fond of the blue toning.
Coin Photographer.
I have some Proof Walkers.
I prefer blast white or attractively toned. I try to stay away from the coins with unattractive haze from the OGP cello.
I picked up an attractively toned 1941 proof set at a Santa Clara show a few years ago. It contained this gorgeous Walker:
Cameo vs non cameo doesn't matter to me IMO. The contrast isn't as strong plus the way these coins were designed, a brilliant proof finish doesn't do these coins justice whereas a satin proof would.
I wouldn't entirely dismiss PR65's from the running, there are some very nice ones out there.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PpZiLEzNzxk
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bmz5IO8Vdg4
I was lucky to find this beauty semi-locally a couple years ago (not a 1940's but you get the idea)
Collector, occasional seller
@ChrisH821 That is a beauty! I think anyone would be pleased with that!
Coin Photographer.
I looked any many a 1940's proof Walker but didn't find any I really liked. Too many were "original" and ugly at the same time. Finally I saw one that jumped out at me, a clean and watery mirrored 1939 (just shy of the 40s!) that was close to being a cameo (save for the sun) as well. It grades PF-66 but has a gold CAC bean. To me it could be a 67 or 67+ on a good day. It filled that spot very well!
Tilted more into the light:
10-4,
My Instagram picturesErik
My registry sets
Thanks Cameonut for clarification. Yes I was bidding on a nice, clean cameo contrast WL half proof coin in PCGS holder and I believe the coin was sold for less than $2000. At that time, I had 3 in my watch list.
Here are some nice looking 1941 and 1942 proof WL half sold by Legend recently.
https://www.legendnumismatics.com/archive-inventory/?search=PR+Walking+Liberty+Half
Sold for $1292 in 2021 PCGS PR67 CAC
Sold for $1880 in 2021 PCGS PR67CAC
Sold for $5523 in 2021 in Legend Auctions PCGS PR66 CAC
Someday in the future I might search for the 1940-1942 proof set in cellophane holder/envelope. The coins may not be attractive but its originality is fascinating.
That’s a newer true view as there was nothing there until very recently. That is definitely a different coin after all.
That’s not the minority view at all. It is the prevailing market view.