The Barber half that you shared appears to either be an overexposed photograph or a scan. Either way, if it looks like my interpretation of it then, yes, I think that pale, sickly color is indicative of having been given some type of bath in something at some point in its life. I can't prove it, of course, especially given the tiny image, but that is an example of something I tend to avoid.
(I’ve found circulated Barber halves VG-F non-trivial; not hard really, but requireing a lot of patience and about three years)
Walkers are G to BU.
Barbers are AG to VF.
Once I got serious about finishing the sets (~10 holes in the barbers and ~5 holes in the walkers), I had them completed within 3 months.
Certainly doable in that grade range but the OP stated that he wants his set to be in mint state 63/64, which is, quite mildly, a horse of a different color…
Sometimes, it’s better to be LUCKY than good. 🍀 🍺👍
(I’ve found circulated Barber halves VG-F non-trivial; not hard really, but requireing a lot of patience and about three years)
Walkers are G to BU.
Barbers are AG to VF.
Once I got serious about finishing the sets (~10 holes in the barbers and ~5 holes in the walkers), I had them completed within 3 months.
Certainly doable in that grade range but the OP stated that he wants his set to be in mint state 63/64, which is, quite mildly, a horse of a different color…
Thats what I get for not reading.
I'd do Barbers then. Some of those walkers in 63/64, hoo boy.
"It's like God, Family, Country, except Sticker, Plastic, Coin."
(I’ve found circulated Barber halves VG-F non-trivial; not hard really, but requireing a lot of patience and about three years)
Walkers are G to BU.
Barbers are AG to VF.
Once I got serious about finishing the sets (~10 holes in the barbers and ~5 holes in the walkers), I had them completed within 3 months.
Certainly doable in that grade range but the OP stated that he wants his set to be in mint state 63/64, which is, quite mildly, a horse of a different color…
Thats what I get for not reading.
I'd do Barbers then. Some of those walkers in 63/64, hoo boy.
A quarter-million dollars for the Barbers in that range and with some color, as well. Pick your poison. However, the OP has already stated he was given a reality check on that goal and has adjusted downwards.
@Eldorado9 said:
My vote is Barbers, but I collect and love Walkers too, so I have an interesting perspective. The value proposition, and rarity of the Barbers, factored with being less popular with collectors make them very compelling to me i.e. a small-time guy like me, can actually own a coin like this!
Wow! Beautiful coin!
The longer I live the more convincing proofs I see of this truth, that God governs in the affairs of men. And if a sparrow cannot fall to the ground without His notice is it possible for an empire to rise without His aid? Benjamin Franklin
I collected upper circ Barber halves for a number of years, with help from Mike Hayes…fun series, and there was a ready market for them when I decided to sell them off. I’m now content with a single decent piece for my type set, though it’s certainly no Eldorado-caliber coin. It’s still dear to me, as my very first BST transaction on the forum, from specialist Glenn H.
I'm about 1/3rd done on my PCGS VF Barber Half set, with many from Mr Mike Hayes as well. He got me hooked, and once you're hooked, there is no return. NOT an easy series in original mid-grades like VF or XF.
Dave
Always looking for original, better date VF20-VF35 Barber quarters and halves, and a quality beer.
I'm about 1/3rd done on my PCGS VF Barber Half set, with many from Mr Mike Hayes as well. He got me hooked, and once you're hooked, there is no return. NOT an easy series in original mid-grades like VF or XF.
Dave
Mike got me started on Barbers as well in 2011. Even though it's not a main collecting interest for me as much these days, I still get excited when I see an original better date half in F-XF.
As an added note, the early Walkers (1916 thru 1933) are very tough in eye appealing VF to XF. I've been working on that set for years and am finally down to 1 coin, the 17-S obverse.
@oreville said:
Start with a type coin of both Barbers and Walkers and see which coin strikes your fancy more. You will know. The interesting thing about Walkers is that they look fabulous in any grade from Good to Super gem. Barbers do not look good in more circulated grades.
I’d respectfully disagree with this (ironic, from a Walkerguy!).
Walkers lose all appeal to me below VG, and slicks are just junk silver.
To me, Barbers look appealing as classic American coinage, even at AG with mostly missing rims.
My real appreciation is for the early walkers in XF-AU. Here you have beauty, scarcity, and strong demand all rolled into one. At Winter FUN, there was a dealer who had a nice run of these, which is highly unusual these days. They were priced at moon money of course, but he could, as there were very few others of these dates, even on that massive bourse.
Even though they were for the most part comparable to mine, I still spent quite a while examining and appreciating these coins for what they were.
Well ok just change my comment to “from VG to super gem.”
LOL.
I myself have a very hard time buying coins in lower grades whatever the type of coin. I was able to build my 1933-1947 Walker set in MS66 to MS68. I stopped there as I just couldn't afford the 1916-1929 in those grades. I would rather have beautiful high grade coins then those just filling a slot.
JMO
@alaura22 said:
I myself have a very hard time buying coins in lower grades whatever the type of coin. I was able to build my 1933-1947 Walker set in MS66 to MS68. I stopped there as I just couldn't afford the 1916-1929 in those grades. I would rather have beautiful high grade coins then those just filling a slot.
JMO
Wow; more power to you, but I thought I was being tough with my criteria for my walker set; only in my fantasies would I ever own a walker (even a common-date walker) in MS66-MS68 (much less the 1933-S)!
Given my impecuniousness (at least relative to you; few people elsewhere on earth would give me that label), I'm very glad I feel that lots of coins (including walkers) are still "beautiful" well below MS66, not "just filling a slot"!
@alaura22 said:
I myself have a very hard time buying coins in lower grades whatever the type of coin. I was able to build my 1933-1947 Walker set in MS66 to MS68. I stopped there as I just couldn't afford the 1916-1929 in those grades. I would rather have beautiful high grade coins then those just filling a slot.
JMO
Wow; more power to you, but I thought I was being tough with my criteria for my walker set; only in my fantasies would I ever own a walker (even a common-date walker) in MS66-MS68 (much less the 1933-S)!
Given my impecuniousness (at least relative to you; few people elsewhere on earth would give me that label), I'm very glad I feel that lots of coins (including walkers) are still "beautiful" well below MS66, not "just filling a slot"!
Believe me, I'm not pecunious. It took me years to build that set, a little at a time. My point is, that given enough time anyone one can build a nice high grade set.
It's nice looking back and seeing that set of Walkers is still ranked #12th all time
If impecunious means "penniless," then it stands to reason that "pecunious" can describe someone who has a lot of money. That is true, but "pecunious" is used with far less frequency in English than its opposite and is not found in many dictionaries. What's more, on the rare occasion when "pecunious" is put to use in English, it often means not "wealthy" but "miserly or ungenerous," as in "a pecunious attitude toward the less fortunate." "Impecunious" describes somebody who lacks the money to buy necessities, but it does not carry the connotation of desperation found in such words as "indigent" or "destitute." Both "pecunious" and "impecunious" derive via Middle English from the Latin pecunia, meaning "money."
May I suggest a date set and not limiting oneself to a particular mint.
In either case, collecting Walkers or Barber halves is perfect for one who is willing to spend years putting together a quality set; especially, if one does have a somewhat limited budget. A less expensive alternative is a date set of Barber quarters which have the same design as the Barber Half.
I was able to build my 1933-1947 Walker set in MS66 to MS68. I stopped there as I just couldn't afford the 1916-1929 in those grades. I would rather have beautiful high grade coins then those just filling a slot.
That's impressive that you took the time to find those 1930s in MS66. I would have been happy with MS64s. However, I limited myself to pre1933 Walkers and I put together a partial set in MS64, many with CACs. I ran out of money. : )
While I also collect modern bullion type coins and can pretty much distinguish between a PR69 and a PR70, I still can appreciate a coin from the early 20th century being only a 64. My question is did you really appreciate the MS68s given the price jumps or looking back would you rather have put the money towards those earlier coins.
I was able to build my 1933-1947 Walker set in MS66 to MS68. I stopped there as I just couldn't afford the 1916-1929 in those grades. I would rather have beautiful high grade coins then those just filling a slot.
That's impressive that you took the time to find those 1930s in MS66. I would have been happy with MS64s. However, I limited myself to pre1933 Walkers and I put together a partial set in MS64, many with CACs. I ran out of money. : )
While I also collect modern bullion type coins and can pretty much distinguish between a PR69 and a PR70, I still can appreciate a coin from the early 20th century being only a 64. My question is did you really appreciate the MS68s given the price jumps or looking back would you rather have put the money towards those earlier coins.
You have to remember that this set was built back in the 2000s
Altough prices were on the rise they were nothing like they are now
I remember I paid $4500 for the 33-s in MS67. The MS68s were less than that
There was no CAC then, it was all my eye. Most of the coins were bought at either a coin show (long Beach was my favorite) and a few at coin stores. Not much online then like it is today.
There were a few of us on the registry that traded a few coins also, we were always trying to top one another.
That was a really fun time for me.
To look back and still see my retired set at #12 gives me great pride in what I was able to accomplish not having the "big bucks" that some of the others had. I also had mint sets for those years 33-47 that were #1 at some point in time, still ranked pretty high and of course my Mercury Dime Set that I had help building with Larry Sharpiro.
Fun times indeed
@Walkerguy21D said:
63’s? That don’t even have truviews!
Where are your standards!
Gorgeous coins. I think walkers are very pretty in any grade 50 and above, and can be very pretty below that. And, heck, I'll admit it: I'm pretty thrilled with my 1921-D that checks in at PCGS/CAC VF25.
@Walkerguy21D said:
63’s? That don’t even have truviews!
Where are your standards!
Gorgeous coins. I think walkers are very pretty in any grade 50 and above, and can be very pretty below that. And, heck, I'll admit it: I'm pretty thrilled with my 1921-D that checks in at PCGS/CAC VF25.
That is a beautiful mid circ 21D, and quite scarce as such, but it looks like it’s in an NGC holder.
@Walkerguy21D said:
63’s? That don’t even have truviews!
Where are your standards!
Gorgeous coins. I think walkers are very pretty in any grade 50 and above, and can be very pretty below that. And, heck, I'll admit it: I'm pretty thrilled with my 1921-D that checks in at PCGS/CAC VF25.
That is a beautiful mid circ 21D, and quite scarce as such, but it looks like it’s in an NGC holder.
Thanks for all the information and suggestions. Since a MS set is out of my reach I'm going to see where the sweet spot is that's both affordable and still has some eye appeal. Or I could toss aside all of that and go for this...
The longer I live the more convincing proofs I see of this truth, that God governs in the affairs of men. And if a sparrow cannot fall to the ground without His notice is it possible for an empire to rise without His aid? Benjamin Franklin
@pmh1nic said:
Thanks for all the information and suggestions. Since a MS set is out of my reach I'm going to see where the sweet spot is that's both affordable and still has some eye appeal. Or I could toss aside all of that and go for this...
I still suggest quality over quantity
You can build a really nice set of Walkers from 1941-1947 in high grade MS66 that will look great and is still affordable. Then work off that set and fill in the 1916-1933 as money and coins become available.
I would not be interested in that set, at all!
@pmh1nic said:
Thanks for all the information and suggestions. Since a MS set is out of my reach I'm going to see where the sweet spot is that's both affordable and still has some eye appeal. Or I could toss aside all of that and go for this...
I still suggest quality over quantity
You can build a really nice set of Walkers from 1941-1947 in high grade MS66 that will look great and is still affordable. Then work off that set and fill in the 1916-1933 as money and coins become available.
I would not be interested in that set, at all!
True!
Me either!!!
Sometimes, it’s better to be LUCKY than good. 🍀 🍺👍
If you put the two completed sets together just have to ask yourself which you’d rather see. I find the Barbers better looking in lower grades so if your goals have changed away from MS, thinking Barbers would be a better looking lower grade set to complete.
@pmh1nic said:
Thanks for all the information and suggestions. Since a MS set is out of my reach I'm going to see where the sweet spot is that's both affordable and still has some eye appeal. Or I could toss aside all of that and go for this...
To me, a lot of the fun in this hobby is the chase; buying a complete set (especially low grade) would have no charm to me.
Go to a big coin shop, that has a lot of inventory in both sets. Figure out what grade makes you happy. And I don't see any particular charm in having all the coins be the same grade; that results either in having the more-common coins be in a much lower grade than necessary, or in spending too much money to complete the set.
@pmh1nic said:
Thanks for all the information and suggestions. Since a MS set is out of my reach I'm going to see where the sweet spot is that's both affordable and still has some eye appeal. Or I could toss aside all of that and go for this...
To me, a lot of the fun in this hobby is the chase; buying a complete set (especially low grade) would have no charm to me.
Go to a big coin shop, that has a lot of inventory in both sets. Figure out what grade makes you happy. And I don't see any particular charm in having all the coins be the same grade; that results either in having the more-common coins be in a much lower grade than necessary, or in spending too much money to complete the set.
Your call, obviously. But you asked us.
I was kidding about that set on Ebay. The fun is the chase and finding the right pieces.
The longer I live the more convincing proofs I see of this truth, that God governs in the affairs of men. And if a sparrow cannot fall to the ground without His notice is it possible for an empire to rise without His aid? Benjamin Franklin
@pmh1nic said:
Thanks for all the information and suggestions. Since a MS set is out of my reach I'm going to see where the sweet spot is that's both affordable and still has some eye appeal. Or I could toss aside all of that and go for this...
To me, a lot of the fun in this hobby is the chase; buying a complete set (especially low grade) would have no charm to me.
Go to a big coin shop, that has a lot of inventory in both sets. Figure out what grade makes you happy. And I don't see any particular charm in having all the coins be the same grade; that results either in having the more-common coins be in a much lower grade than necessary, or in spending too much money to complete the set.
Your call, obviously. But you asked us.
I was kidding about that set on Ebay. The fun is the chase and finding the right pieces.
Full sets of both series, still do an occasional upgrade (a nice 18D, PCGS AU 55), You're spot on, it's the thrill of the hunt.
Comments
@Higashiyama I hope you are doing well!
The Barber half that you shared appears to either be an overexposed photograph or a scan. Either way, if it looks like my interpretation of it then, yes, I think that pale, sickly color is indicative of having been given some type of bath in something at some point in its life. I can't prove it, of course, especially given the tiny image, but that is an example of something I tend to avoid.
In honor of the memory of Cpl. Michael E. Thompson
I see I am not the only one working on lower grade barber sets. That makes me happy.
Certainly doable in that grade range but the OP stated that he wants his set to be in mint state 63/64, which is, quite mildly, a horse of a different color…
Sometimes, it’s better to be LUCKY than good. 🍀 🍺👍
My Full Walker Registry Set (1916-1947):
https://www.ngccoin.com/registry/competitive-sets/16292/
Thats what I get for not reading.
I'd do Barbers then. Some of those walkers in 63/64, hoo boy.
"It's like God, Family, Country, except Sticker, Plastic, Coin."
A quarter-million dollars for the Barbers in that range and with some color, as well. Pick your poison. However, the OP has already stated he was given a reality check on that goal and has adjusted downwards.
In honor of the memory of Cpl. Michael E. Thompson
Wow! Beautiful coin!
Of course there are always proofs, and far fewer at 24 coins total for the complete set!
I collected upper circ Barber halves for a number of years, with help from Mike Hayes…fun series, and there was a ready market for them when I decided to sell them off. I’m now content with a single decent piece for my type set, though it’s certainly no Eldorado-caliber coin. It’s still dear to me, as my very first BST transaction on the forum, from specialist Glenn H.
Great 1892 @Walkerguy21D !
I'm about 1/3rd done on my PCGS VF Barber Half set, with many from Mr Mike Hayes as well. He got me hooked, and once you're hooked, there is no return. NOT an easy series in original mid-grades like VF or XF.
Dave
Very interesting thread with some excellent insight.
Mike got me started on Barbers as well in 2011. Even though it's not a main collecting interest for me as much these days, I still get excited when I see an original better date half in F-XF.
As an added note, the early Walkers (1916 thru 1933) are very tough in eye appealing VF to XF. I've been working on that set for years and am finally down to 1 coin, the 17-S obverse.
10-4,
My Instagram picturesErik
My registry sets
Well ok just change my comment to “from VG to super gem.”
LOL.
I myself have a very hard time buying coins in lower grades whatever the type of coin. I was able to build my 1933-1947 Walker set in MS66 to MS68. I stopped there as I just couldn't afford the 1916-1929 in those grades. I would rather have beautiful high grade coins then those just filling a slot.
JMO
Mike
My Indians
Danco Set
Wow; more power to you, but I thought I was being tough with my criteria for my walker set; only in my fantasies would I ever own a walker (even a common-date walker) in MS66-MS68 (much less the 1933-S)!
Given my impecuniousness (at least relative to you; few people elsewhere on earth would give me that label), I'm very glad I feel that lots of coins (including walkers) are still "beautiful" well below MS66, not "just filling a slot"!
Believe me, I'm not pecunious. It took me years to build that set, a little at a time. My point is, that given enough time anyone one can build a nice high grade set.
It's nice looking back and seeing that set of Walkers is still ranked #12th all time
Mike
My Indians
Danco Set
Interesting choice of a very rarely used word. Pecunious has three very different definitions.
having very little or no money; usually habitually penniless.
having plenty of money; wealthy
describes someone who has money or loves money, but is very stingy with that money. Someone who is pecunious is miserly and ungenerous.
Impecunious is not not having money
pecunious is having money
Mike
My Indians
Danco Set
From
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/impecunious
If impecunious means "penniless," then it stands to reason that "pecunious" can describe someone who has a lot of money. That is true, but "pecunious" is used with far less frequency in English than its opposite and is not found in many dictionaries. What's more, on the rare occasion when "pecunious" is put to use in English, it often means not "wealthy" but "miserly or ungenerous," as in "a pecunious attitude toward the less fortunate." "Impecunious" describes somebody who lacks the money to buy necessities, but it does not carry the connotation of desperation found in such words as "indigent" or "destitute." Both "pecunious" and "impecunious" derive via Middle English from the Latin pecunia, meaning "money."
May I suggest a date set and not limiting oneself to a particular mint.
In either case, collecting Walkers or Barber halves is perfect for one who is willing to spend years putting together a quality set; especially, if one does have a somewhat limited budget. A less expensive alternative is a date set of Barber quarters which have the same design as the Barber Half.
I'm glad this is back to the main topic
Mike
My Indians
Danco Set
I would start with the WLH 1941-47 short set. If the interest and desire remains, the short set expands from 1934-47.
Barbers... well that would be further down on my list... if they even make the list.
In the matter of taste- there is no dispute
Experience the World through Numismatics...it's more than you can imagine.
I agree with the above statement.
I was able to build my 1933-1947 Walker set in MS66 to MS68. I stopped there as I just couldn't afford the 1916-1929 in those grades. I would rather have beautiful high grade coins then those just filling a slot.
That's impressive that you took the time to find those 1930s in MS66. I would have been happy with MS64s. However, I limited myself to pre1933 Walkers and I put together a partial set in MS64, many with CACs. I ran out of money. : )
While I also collect modern bullion type coins and can pretty much distinguish between a PR69 and a PR70, I still can appreciate a coin from the early 20th century being only a 64. My question is did you really appreciate the MS68s given the price jumps or looking back would you rather have put the money towards those earlier coins.
Thank you
You have to remember that this set was built back in the 2000s
Altough prices were on the rise they were nothing like they are now
I remember I paid $4500 for the 33-s in MS67. The MS68s were less than that
There was no CAC then, it was all my eye. Most of the coins were bought at either a coin show (long Beach was my favorite) and a few at coin stores. Not much online then like it is today.
There were a few of us on the registry that traded a few coins also, we were always trying to top one another.
That was a really fun time for me.
To look back and still see my retired set at #12 gives me great pride in what I was able to accomplish not having the "big bucks" that some of the others had. I also had mint sets for those years 33-47 that were #1 at some point in time, still ranked pretty high and of course my Mercury Dime Set that I had help building with Larry Sharpiro.
Fun times indeed
Mike
My Indians
Danco Set
My lowly 64’s, just filling slots with dreck…
More dreck, junky older holders that don’t even have stickers!!
63’s? That don’t even have truviews!
Where are your standards!
Gorgeous coins. I think walkers are very pretty in any grade 50 and above, and can be very pretty below that. And, heck, I'll admit it: I'm pretty thrilled with my 1921-D that checks in at PCGS/CAC VF25.
Just don't send them to Legend.
That is a beautiful mid circ 21D, and quite scarce as such, but it looks like it’s in an NGC holder.
Oops; 'tis NGC!
Thanks for all the information and suggestions. Since a MS set is out of my reach I'm going to see where the sweet spot is that's both affordable and still has some eye appeal. Or I could toss aside all of that and go for this...
https://ebay.com/itm/Silver-Barber-Half-73-Coin-Complete-Set-Certified-Problem-Free-PCGS-NGC-ANACS-IG/285238628768?hash=item42698c11a0:g:mEQAAOSw0RFjtvyX&pageci=7fbbd917-5608-4041-b24e-caa80fbae2ce&redirect=mobile
Walkers
Surely you jest!
I still suggest quality over quantity
You can build a really nice set of Walkers from 1941-1947 in high grade MS66 that will look great and is still affordable. Then work off that set and fill in the 1916-1933 as money and coins become available.
I would not be interested in that set, at all!
Mike
My Indians
Danco Set
True!
Me either!!!
Sometimes, it’s better to be LUCKY than good. 🍀 🍺👍
My Full Walker Registry Set (1916-1947):
https://www.ngccoin.com/registry/competitive-sets/16292/
Vote for Barber
If you put the two completed sets together just have to ask yourself which you’d rather see. I find the Barbers better looking in lower grades so if your goals have changed away from MS, thinking Barbers would be a better looking lower grade set to complete.
To me, a lot of the fun in this hobby is the chase; buying a complete set (especially low grade) would have no charm to me.
Go to a big coin shop, that has a lot of inventory in both sets. Figure out what grade makes you happy. And I don't see any particular charm in having all the coins be the same grade; that results either in having the more-common coins be in a much lower grade than necessary, or in spending too much money to complete the set.
Your call, obviously. But you asked us.
I was kidding about that set on Ebay. The fun is the chase and finding the right pieces.
Full sets of both series, still do an occasional upgrade (a nice 18D, PCGS AU 55), You're spot on, it's the thrill of the hunt.
The final answer: Do both!