GTG on this PCGS graded 1916 walker which is stickered by Green CAC. Answer MS-66.

oreville

The coin looks much MUCH nicer in person. A solid MS-66. The luster is awesome.

CRHer700

That picture isn't of very high resolution, but MS63?

RobertScotLover

I know its mint state, but the toning is fugly

Cougar1978

MS60 - unattractive toning. Needs conservation.

Mr_Spud

64

1madman

Details environmental damage / mold

tcollects

it's gotta be something nuts like a 67

lermish

UNC Details - Damaged. It's a magician's coin, split in half, and only has an obverse.

PeakRarities

We only get to see the obverse? Based on the single photo provided, I'll guess MS-66.

Though it's not my favorite look for a walker, I don't really see any contact marks, and the luster under the crust looks radiant. It looks like a shot at 67 If it were white.

Torey

65/66, nice thumb. I'm guessing the toning looks better in hand.

TomB

I know you and I know what you like. Given that, and given my interpretation of the HA image that looks like it's circa 2010, I will go with MS66. However, that guess is predicated on the coin having terrific luster underneath the toning and having no hidden marks that I can't see in those images. I also assume the reverse looks essentially like the obverse and that both sides are well struck, since it appears the obverse is well struck.

If you had been an anonymous poster with that image, and I did not know the image was from HA so as to guess a timeframe, I would not have guessed so high and would likely have assumed it was an MS64.

dcarr

MS62

Copperindian

MS65 - crusty! Assume rev has a similar look.

pursuitofliberty

Based on a very difficult Obverse only image ... maybe 5 shot 6 ... and probably attractive with thick luster ... but that's a really tough image

Soldi

66

knovak1976

MS64+

shish

Why post a GTG without an image of the reverse?
Sorry, I can't make an educated guess from just the obverse image.

MFeld

@shish said:
Why post a GTG without an image of the reverse?
Sorry, I can't make an educated guess from just the obverse image.

I can. I grade the coin 6 (half of the grade for half of the coin) 😉

291fifth

Impossible to grade from that photo.

DisneyFan

MS66 - toned; but, strong hand, clean body, and fields

Walkerguy21D

@pursuitofliberty said:
Based on a very difficult Obverse only image ... maybe 5 shot 6 ... and probably attractive with thick luster ... but that's a really tough image

Same thoughts as well.
And as @TomB mentioned, I know the OP has some amazing walkers, so assuming he owns the coin, I wouldn’t guess it’s a low MS coin.

JBN

I know that one of the P67 examples for the date is toned in a similar fashion.
Showing great luster (remembering the more matte finish of the first year fields).
Great strike.
I'll go for a 67 GTG.

BillJones

My grade would be "pass." The toning is ugly and terminal in the darkest sections. If you dipped this, you might get an unpleasant surprise with dull spots in those areas. This is an example of where blindly following the CAC sticker would be a mistake. This coin would not be an easy resale to a discriminating buyer.

It's hard to tell if the frost has been broken on the toned high points from that photo. If it has not, then the technical grade is MS-63. If the mint frost is broken, it's an AU-58.

hummingbird_coins

High resolution photos of both sides

skier07

I suspect the coin looks much nicer in hand and also the HA slab shot.

I’m guessing it’s a 66 and it’s not my cup of tea if the coin looks like the picture in hand.

Walkerfan

I don’t care if it has a CAC sticker, as I strongly dislike the toning.

I’ll guess 65.

Cougar1978

That’s one without knowing their decision would say no sticker.

Torey

I used to own a similar-looking example and I think a forum member might still have it. It was hard to catch the luster in a photo, it didn't help that I used an old cell phone. Super nice in hand though.

Crypto

Coins like that I start at 64 (65-1) and then go up or down based on luster which I can’t really tell from the photo. For radiant Pearlessence glow like many early walkers it could go up to 67

marcmoish

65

Morgan13

Looks like a 66FH with a nice strike.
Not a fan of the toning at all but it's not my coin so it doesn't matter.

BillJones

@Torey said:
I used to own a similar-looking example and I think a forum member might still have it. It was hard to catch the luster in a photo, it didn't help that I used an old cell phone. Super nice in hand though.

I almost like that one. It would not be my first choice, but it is a nicely preserved piece with old time envelope toning.

When a piece has a lot of coal black toning, it's a pass for me.

privatecoin

64

RobertScotLover

If I were a grading com, which I am not, Would subtract for toning like this

MFeld

@Morgan13 said:
Looks like a 66FH with a nice strike.
Not a fan of the toning at all but it's not my coin so it doesn't matter.

The “FH” designation is reserved for Standing Liberty quarters.

shish

Thanks for the reverse image, just a guess, MS-65 or 66 depending on the luster.

MFeld

@hummingbird_coins said:
Here's the reverse, it's too bad the photos don't 'blow up'.

The photos can be enlarged, both on the Heritage site and here, for me.

oreville

@MFeld said:

@shish said:
Why post a GTG without an image of the reverse?
Sorry, I can't make an educated guess from just the obverse image.

I can. I grade the coin 6 (half of the grade for half of the coin) 😉

I now know not to forget to show the reverse of the coin as i posted this thread too late at night.

OldeTowneCoinShoppe

I find the coin to be pretty fantastic although apparently not as well struck as many 1916s. So my guess is MS-64. If it were possible for me to create a matched set with that toning, I would do it.

hummingbird_coins

@MFeld said:

@hummingbird_coins said:
Here's the reverse, it's too bad the photos don't 'blow up'.

The photos can be enlarged, both on the Heritage site and here, for me.

Yes, it can be enlarged as all photos can. What I meant was it isn't high resolution, so it only gets less defined as you zoom in.

lilolme

@hummingbird_coins said:

@MFeld said:

@hummingbird_coins said:
Here's the reverse, it's too bad the photos don't 'blow up'.

The photos can be enlarged, both on the Heritage site and here, for me.

Yes, it can be enlarged as all photos can. What I meant was it isn't high resolution, so it only gets less defined as you zoom in.

I just went to this auction lot on HA and used the HA enlargement only (nothing from my laptop features or on the screen shot I took). This is the screen shot on my laptop of the max enlargement. Seems okay to me but I don't know photography.

hummingbird_coins

@lilolme said:

@hummingbird_coins said:

@MFeld said:

@hummingbird_coins said:
Here's the reverse, it's too bad the photos don't 'blow up'.

The photos can be enlarged, both on the Heritage site and here, for me.

Yes, it can be enlarged as all photos can. What I meant was it isn't high resolution, so it only gets less defined as you zoom in.

I just went to this auction lot on HA and used the HA enlargement only (nothing from my laptop features or on the screen shot I took). This is the screen shot on my laptop of the max enlargement. Seems okay to me but I don't know photography.

Thanks for telling me about that, I had just copied the lot thumbnails because they looked large enough to me. Edited my first comment to include the better quality images.

golden

It might be PCGS 66 and CAC but it is too crusty for me. It would be a pass for me.

oreville

@golden said:
It might be PCGS 66 and CAC but it is too crusty for me. It would be a pass for me.

A little variety is cool.

I do like crusty coins dated before 1917 but also love white coins dated after 1916.

Copperindian

@oreville: love the originality & the excellent detail! Great piece!