WLHHalf….only 28 PO01 PCGS graded? Is this PO01?

ambro51

1920 S

Manorcourtman

Looks way better than PO01 to me,

NewEnglandRarities

Looks significantly stronger than what I would expect for a 1 as well. It has a lot of wear obviously but looking at a 1 true view this seems to be more of a 3/4 coin to my eyes. But I could certainly be wrong (outside of my lane grading walkers haha)

Edited to add: here is a pic of a graded PO-01 for comparison.

ajaan

I would think it's difficult to get a PO1 WLH because the date wore off so quickly.

Walkerfan

If it were any more worn, one wouldn’t be able to determine the date and/or mintmark.

hummingbird_coins

@NewEnglandRarities said:
Looks significantly stronger than what I would expect for a 1 as well. It has a lot of wear obviously but looking at a 1 true view this seems to be more of a 3/4 coin to my eyes. But I could certainly be wrong (outside of my lane grading walkers haha)

Edited to add: here is a pic of a graded PO-01 for comparison.

I'm curious how it was determined to be 1917 and not 1916 because I don't see any visible numbers in the date. Is there something unique about the mintmark placement in 1917 that distinguishes it from 1916?

NewEnglandRarities

@hummingbird_coins said:

@NewEnglandRarities said:
Looks significantly stronger than what I would expect for a 1 as well. It has a lot of wear obviously but looking at a 1 true view this seems to be more of a 3/4 coin to my eyes. But I could certainly be wrong (outside of my lane grading walkers haha)

Edited to add: here is a pic of a graded PO-01 for comparison.

I'm curious how it was determined to be 1917 and not 1916 because I don't see any visible numbers in the date. Is there something unique about the mintmark placement in 1917 that distinguishes it from 1916?

Being no expert on the series, I assume there is a die marker or some design that confirms the date/mm. My search to look at a PO-01 brought up this pic. Not sure when it was graded, which could be a factor as well. But I notice a lot more detail on the OP coin, versus the graded 1. Again, not my area of expertise but my understanding is if there are clear indicators of the date/mm based on dies they will grade a coin with no date. Maybe I’m wrong on that , but certainly the way it is for colonials or Americana

johnny9434

You'll get a San Francisco mm on it either way...

tcollects

"only"

BillJones

If you can't determine the date on a modern coin (after 1900), it's not a PR-01.

Dr. Sheldon commented that a BS-01 (Basal State, same thing as Poor) did not necessarily have a readable date. In early large cents that is possible because other die variety features can be used to attribute the Sheldon variety, hence the date.

I've had experience with this. Years ago a collector gave me four dateless, Draped Bust large cents. There was enough left to determine the Sheldon numbers and the date.

The 1799, S-189 large cent is famous for having a "mint mark." There is a die chip on the reverse, between the "E" and "T" in "CENT" that goes larger over time. That lump can be used to attribute the piece as a 1799. I saw an experienced dealer pay $1,600 for such a piece at a Baltimore show.

291fifth

Fair 02. Not even close to Poor 01.

jmlanzaf

@291fifth said:
Fair 02. Not even close to Poor 01.

It's closer to a P01 than an AG03

pocketpiececommems

I didn’t realize that there were now 28 PCGS graded po01 graded WL halves. Nickelsearcher had the first one