Guess the grade of this 1936 walker
oreville
Posts: 12,080 ✭✭✭✭✭
What is the grade of this1936 walker that sold at Great Collections?
A Collectors Universe poster since 1997!
0
Comments
It doesn’t look as nice as my 66. Though I’m sure it likely graded at least that or higher. I don’t like the fingerprint, at all, either. My grade is 65.
Sometimes, it’s better to be LUCKY than good. 🍀 🍺👍
My Full Walker Registry Set (1916-1947):
https://www.ngccoin.com/registry/competitive-sets/16292/
MS65
Coin Photographer.
Nothing is as expensive as free money.
64
66
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
I'll split the difference at 65+
Collector, occasional seller
64
Good to practice trying to view photos and guessing the grade.
Agree, but in this case I’m punting. Definitely MS, but I can’t tell for sure what’s going on in the critical right obverse field area (besides the fingerprint). Looks like some abrasions that have haze or pvc obscuring them? Or my over active imagination…
CACG graded this coin MS-64. Walkerguy21D and pocketchange correctly pointed out that there was some activity which I saw it as a bagmark or a heavy lustergraze which precludes a MS-66. The bagmark might even be severe enough to preclude a 65 as well?
Cougar1978 and Connectcoin both posted the correct 64 grade but would be more helpful to disclose their reasoning for the grade. It could also have graded 65 with PCGS with a marginal chance of CAC stickering.
As far as the fingerprint. I did not notice it. Perhaps walkerfan can focus our eyes to the precise area of what he sees?
I like the CACG grading approach. A good technical grading,
I bought this coin at $168.00 including the juice. Nice strike and nice luster. Reminds me of the nice lustrous 64 walkers Russ used to show us but this one has a nicer strike.
65
Founder- Peak Rarities
Website
Instagram
Facebook
My first thought is MS66.
My Collection of Old Holders
Never a slave to one plastic brand will I ever be.
66
I see the fingerprint below and across the motto in God we trust. I also see some wispy abrasions in that right facing field. For those reasons, I thought that it was less than 66. However, I really like that strike. It’s very good even for that normally well struck issue.. Yours has an ultra sharp thumb. Here’s my 66 for comparison-mine is also CAC approved:
For $168 you did well.
Sometimes, it’s better to be LUCKY than good. 🍀 🍺👍
My Full Walker Registry Set (1916-1947):
https://www.ngccoin.com/registry/competitive-sets/16292/
A 64 Walker generally tends to be a very nice coin IMO and a very good value grade. This is a good example.
My reasoning on my guess of 64 - mainly it’s a very high end 64 but falls a little short of 65 (rt obv area). However it has super luster, eye appeal, and acquisition wise you did well - it’s CAC 64 MV $180.
Had I seen it somewhere at that most likely would have bought it. It’s eye appeal superior to a lot of 65 pieces. A real nice keeper coin.
Reminds me of an old story. Many years ago when I lived in Ohio and belonged to the local coin club, we had an annual show with a large bid board. I joined the committee of “old timers “ whose job it was to screen all the auction lots and write up the descriptions. My first time participating, a very nice 36P walker was one of the lots. They graded it choice AU. I said that coin is definitely mint state, and close to or at the gem level. I tried to explain my reasoning, got a lecture about how they use old school grading, but if it makes me happy they’ll call it Unc. Ok…..
I wound up bidding on and winning it for around $20 or so, and it later slabbed 64….
Interesting story.
By the way, your 1936 MS-66 walker is the real thing. Many would try to get it into a 67 holder today if not a 66+. It is a keeper as an old time 66. The near total lack of any bagmarks in the devices and the outstanding luster overwhelms the very tiny bagmarks in the open field. Only by excessively enlarging the photo can you see the tiny bagmarks in the open field.
Sorry, Orville that’s my brother from another mother’s coin, @Walkerfan !
But otherwise I fully agree!
64
MS-65. It has an obvious mark in the right field, but those don't seem to count as much these days. Years ago, it would have been a nice MS-64.
Thanks, @Walkerguy21D - The feeling is mutual!
@oreville -That 1936 MS 66 CAC is from the Dakota Collection. I bought it 10+ years ago for $325. Funny, but that was a lot at the time, as most 66s were selling for around $200 back then.
Valued at approx. $550 today. And YES, I believe it has a real shot at an upgrade.
Sometimes, it’s better to be LUCKY than good. 🍀 🍺👍
My Full Walker Registry Set (1916-1947):
https://www.ngccoin.com/registry/competitive-sets/16292/
I think the scuff area from sun rays, hand and below hand to right field would keep this from a 65, So I would submit a 64. Some minor nicks on reverse wing and wing tip, but not too influential to grade this grade level.
Jim
When a man who is honestly mistaken hears the truth, he will either quit being mistaken or cease to be honest....Abraham Lincoln
Patriotism is supporting your country all the time, and your government when it deserves it.....Mark Twain
Walkerfan vs Walkerguy21D, I can easily get confused.
The revealed graded is exactly what I would have guessed.
On the web: http://www.earlyus.com
I received this 1936 half dollar today and insoected it closely. The activity shown on the obverse open field is only a luster graze not a bagmark. Looks nicer in hand than the photo. A lovely coin. I think CACG was a bit tough on grading this coin and should have graded it MS-64+. PCGS could have graded it MS-65 but with a questionable chance of CAC stickering.
To respond to @oreville , the chatter in the right obverse field held it back from a 65 IMO and would preclude a 65 at PCGS and CAC based on my submission experience.
Viewing the coin in person reveals only a light double luster graze not a chatter in the dreaded right obverse field and believe PCGS but not CAC might accept it as an MS-65. A large photo makes the coin look much worse than viewing it in person even under magnifying glass. But I like this coin more as an MS-64.
I'm late to the party. I think Oreville's coin would most likely 65 at PCGS. Right obverse field (the dreaded right obverse field as Laura Sperber would say) and the sun are critical focal points for grading Walkers and here both have some marks. Looks like a very solid coin otherwise and a good deal, Oreville. It pales next to your 1921 though.
I like Walkerfan's coin muchly!
"Look up, old boy, and see what you get." -William Bonney.
Perhaps, but coins with marks that large in the obverse fields, no matter how light, alway kept my submitted Walkers out of a 5 holder.
Personally I'd prefer a 65 not to have any luster breaks.