PCGS ms67 Walkers... You got to be kiddin me!!!

puff

I wonder how many times these "two" pieces of doo doo, (1946 & 1946-D ms67's), had to be resubmitted? What a joke! Look at the hits on this turkey! The graders should be ashamed of themselves for grading these two in ms67's! Both coins have way to many marks in my opinion for ms 67's!!!

MadMarty

Buy the insert not the coin!!!!

puff

<< <i>Buy the insert not the coin!!!! >>



I have both of these in 67's without all the hits! Whoever winds up with these two will definately be
buying plastic!

Sphinx357

That's terrible, 5grand a piece for those uglies?!

darktone

Look like they have very nice eye appeal and scans can make every little tick stand out not to mention the pictures are four times the actual size. I think these coins look much different if seen in person. mike

puff

<< <i>Look like they have very nice eye appeal and scans can make every little tick stand out not to mention the pictures are four times the actual size. I think these coins look much different if seen in person. mike >>



Mike.... The scans have been enhanced by the seller, and there are for two many obvious hits in the skirtlines and elsewhere for these to be considered 67's... Of the 12 Walkers that I have in PCGS ms67's "none" have marks this obvious. "All" of my ms66's look better than these two.......

But then I buy the coins and not the "labels" in the holders!

Steve355

Wouldn't say they are ugly (some nice color on both) , but 67 is outrageous. Both look like legit
65's.

Gradeflation strikes again.....

Steve

darktone

Puff, Don't forget a picture can makes marks appear much more severe than they really are and there are other factors that determine the grade. mike

puff

<< <i>Wouldn't say they are ugly (some nice color on both) , but 67 is outrageous. Both look like legit
65's.

Gradeflation strikes again.....

Steve >>



You hit it on the head Steve..... Apparently there was a demand for more ms67's in these dates to fill the demand!

razorface1027

I guess we can say...Welp, just another PCGS grading ERROR, and, lest we forget, they're human....HILARIOUS

puff

<< <i>Puff, Don't forget a picture can makes marks appear much more severe than they really are and there are other factors that determine the grade. mike >>



Mike... This is true, but even if you take the magnification out of the picture, and using PCGS's grading standards these two still don't cut it in ms67's, No way no how! Take a look at this 1937-D and tell me why it is in a PCGS ms66 holder.... The pic isn't that great and take my word for it any marks you think you see are non existant, and the luster just blast through the powder blue original toning...

darktone

What about this one? It's graded MS68. I am finding after looking at coins at Heritage contact marks appear to be pretty normal on these coins in these grades? Maybe the coins in your collection are PQ for the grade?

puff

<< <i>What about this one? It's graded MS68. I am finding after looking at coins at Heritage contact marks appear to be pretty normal on these coins in these grades? Maybe the coins in your collection are PQ for the grade?

Mike That's a nice 1939 but maybe I'm just to picky, and your right every coin in my set is highend for the grade... Here is my 1939 PCGS ms68, and any marks you see jsut aren't there! Also the colors are "very" accurate!

darktone

Very nice Puff! How did you take those pictures? The luster on the reverse is just dripping off the coin. mike

puff

<< <i>Very nice Puff! How did you take those pictures? The luster on the reverse is just dripping off the coin. mike >>



I didn't take the pictures Mike! Mike Printz at Larry Whitlows took them before he sold me the coin on approval!

DAM

puff,

Maybe the 5 ticks on the skirt of the '46D were considered as 1, because they were so close together.

roadrunner

MS67's tend to be graded on eye appeal and luster first, then strike, then marks. A clean 66 will never make 67 if it doesn't have that sizzle. But a sizzling 66, even marked up, can make 67. Just like superb eye appealing coins can get a 1-2 point grade bump, so can a coin with dazzling fresh luster. So many coins have been screwed with over the years that very few remain with that monster blast of luster. You often see such coins with obvious blast get graded high, esp. if an older 19th century coin.

For what it's worth, I have a tough time seeing the diff between a nice 65 and a low end 67 Walker. Buyers like Puff have probably creamed all the real 66's and 67's off the market so that all is left for sale are the low end pieces. Pretty soon, we'll all be thinking that these low end pieces look pretty darn good as there will be little else to compare them to...

roadrunner

DAM

<< <i>So many coins have been screwed with over the years that very few remain with that monster blast of luster. >>



That's why I don't understand why some collectors feel they have to dip everything they touch. Dip away! It makes the original coins I, and others own, worth more.

Fairlaneman

Are those really hits on the two Walkers ? I have a couple of 67 Mercs that at first glance they look like they have hits on them but when you put a loupe on the coin it is sort of like a small crater with rounded edges. They look just like what I see in the two pictures here. At first I said the Mercs were not 67 but after inspection I can go along with the grade.

Ken

Russ

Any guesses?

Russ, NCNE

LucyBop

yeah Russel, ms64 for you!

MrEureka

Puff - If you were taking the PCGS grading test and those two "pieces of doo doo" were part of the test, how would you grade them? Assume that you want to win the contest, of course.

jom

Darktone is correct. Dependiing on how the pic was taken (or scan) it can magnifiy the "significance" of the coin. Plus, all the pics you've showed seem to be scans. The luster does NOT show well in scans, if at all. You simply cannot grade a coin by a picture....

jom

puff

<< <i>Puff - If you were taking the PCGS grading test and those two "pieces of doo doo" were part of the test, how would you grade them? Assume that you want to win the contest, of course. >>



Andy.... If I were grading these two Walkers, and just had the photos to go by, they definately wouldn't meet my standards for ms67. Forget about the luster, and how much the photos magnify the marks, the marks are to many, and to obvious, and not well enough hidden in the divices to justify these two coins of being no better than ms66. I would be willing to bet anyone that not to long ago both of these Walkers resided in ms66 holders, and were cracked out, or resubmitted for regrade and slipped through. I think there are several of you that missed the point on these two Walkers, and that is they take a big jump in price, when they go from 66 to 67,and the demand for the 67's for the collectors is very high just so they can say they have them in 67 and are willing to pay 67 price for 66 Walkers.

RUSS... From the photos of your 1944 Walker I would say it's a ms67 I can't see any contact marks, are broken luster, (which seems to be dripping from the coin), and the strike even though a little weak in the central obverse, and possibly some very minor marks around the hand... If it's for sale on approval PM me, I have all the references you would want or need!

Russ

<< <i>From the photos of your 1944 Walker I would say it's a ms67 >>



It's an MS64.

Russ, NCNE

tgilliams

I think they're very borderline, but with great luster MS67 possible.

puff

<< <i>

<< <i>From the photos of your 1944 Walker I would say it's a ms67 >>



It's an MS64.

Russ, NCNE >>



Must have been alot of problems that the photos just don't show for that to be a 64.... Could you explain why it was graded ms64? Also is it PCGS?

puff

<< <i>MS67's tend to be graded on eye appeal and luster first, then strike, then marks. A clean 66 will never make 67 if it doesn't have that sizzle. But a sizzling 66, even marked up, can make 67. Just like superb eye appealing coins can get a 1-2 point grade bump, so can a coin with dazzling fresh luster. So many coins have been screwed with over the years that very few remain with that monster blast of luster. You often see such coins with obvious blast get graded high, esp. if an older 19th century coin.

For what it's worth, I have a tough time seeing the diff between a nice 65 and a low end 67 Walker. Buyers like Puff have probably creamed all the real 66's and 67's off the market so that all is left for sale are the low end pieces. Pretty soon, we'll all be thinking that these low end pieces look pretty darn good as there will be little else to compare them to...

roadrunner >>



I think you hit the nail right on the head "roadrunner"!

Russ

Puff,

It's undergraded. Got penalized for a flat strike. Surface preservation is MS65 and luster is MS66. When I was building my set, I specifically looked for coins like it. Yes, it's PCGS.

Russ

rainbowroosie

Russ,
would that all 64s look like that one!!!!

Elcontador

Puff,

I get annoyed when I see obviously overgraded material like those two Walkers. And you're right, many coins in this series skyrocket in price when comparing MS 66 & MS 67 grades.

I'm surprised the first one (which may be original, can't tell from the scan) graded out higher than a 5. I could see the 2nd one in a 6 holder, as it seems to have more eye appeal. Strikes on the skirt lines behind Miss Liberty's legs are weak on both coins, ditto re the motto, though both of them appear to have fully struck heads (I'm guessing this is normal for the 1946 P & Ds).

Roadrunner - you can typically see contact marks on the skirt lines -- like you see on these coins -- with the naked eye on an MS 65 Walker. A 7 is supposed to have incredible eye appeal with no contact marks in grade sensitive areas. I can't comprehend the concept of a Walker in an 8 holder.

It is frustrating to see IMO misgraded coins like the two examples. This will make someone think, "well, my Walker in 6 is worth $1,000, it goes for $4,500 in 7. If PCGS blew this one, maybe they'll make the same call on mine." This is how Las Vegas makes its $.

Furthermore, when these coins sell, they will go for a substantial discount. This is the type of stuff that is or s/b offered below bluesheet on the bourse floor.

Baley

They must be something in person if they graded 67. Technically they're nice 65s to middle 66s by the images. Booming luster? Attractive toning? those can be worth half a point or more to the coin on a "market" or in person, sight seen basis, and might not show in the scans.

Since we're showing and telling,
Here's a coin with superb fields, and good color, only held back by a tic or three at the hip.



Technically 65 but "market" 66?

stman

Hi Puff, you being picky and not letting them tell you it's OK to bump up the grade for color or whatever? GOOD FOR YOU. Nice to see someone else join the "Old Grumpy Technical grading club." You'll never go wrong this way. Might miss a nice coin once in a while but that's cool. Sometimes these are graded sooo lenient it's sickening. Then people say the services are being "Tight" when they are graded correctly.

Here is all I have to say for "Market Grading."

Merc

I'd like to see these 1946 walkers sent back in for a grade review. I have several of these in MS65 and 66 but none in 67. Neigher looks nicer that my MS66 coins. The first coin looks 65 while the 2nd could grade 66. Send them back for another try at grading.

khayse

That's why I haven't bought any 67 Walkers (also cuz I'm too cheap ).
I don't want one that isn't clearly better than every 66 I own.

One of these days I'll find the right one (or I'll get sick of waiting and plunk down the money
just so I can join the club ).

-KHayse

puff

<< <i>Hi Puff, you being picky and not letting them tell you it's OK to bump up the grade for color or whatever? GOOD FOR YOU. Nice to see someone else join the "Old Grumpy Technical grading club." You'll never go wrong this way. Might miss a nice coin once in a while but that's cool. Sometimes these are graded sooo lenient it's sickening. Then people say the services are being "Tight" when they are graded correctly.

Here is all I have to say for "Market Grading." >>



Thanks Stman... Comin from and old grump like you I take what you said as a compliment, and a true statement of what goes on with the grading services!

BTW.... You can count me in as a member of the "Old Grumpy Club"! Wether it has anything to do with coins or not my wife says I should join!

stman

<< <i>BTW.... You can count me in as a member of the "Old Grumpy Club"! Wether it has anything to do with coins or not my wife says I should join! >>



Ha, I knew I could count on you. Perhaps I failed to mention "Initiation" which would be lets say your icon Walker. I'll be checking my mailbox and holding my breath. Welcome to the club.

BTW, sounds like your wife might be happy for you to join any club, I'm sure that was your take as well.

puff

<< <i>

<< <i>BTW.... You can count me in as a member of the "Old Grumpy Club"! Wether it has anything to do with coins or not my wife says I should join! >>



Ha, I knew I could count on you. Perhaps I failed to mention "Initiation" which would be lets say your icon Walker. I'll be checking my mailbox and holding my breath. Welcome to the club.

BTW, sounds like your wife might be happy for you to join any club, I'm sure that was your take as well. >>



Stman... I think you have a thing about my icon. I must admit having seen two of the 1934-S ms67's, they don't hold a candle to this one!

stman

<< <i>Stman... I think you have a thing about my icon >>



Well It's a beautiful coin and a better date as well. I'm not a set builder any more and just go by the "Look" of what I like. If it was a more common date I'd probably try and do what I could to "Pry" it out of your hands. Which you probably wouldn't let her go anyway. I have been known to do this on occasion.

But since I know the value of this piece, I stole the image and will just sneak a peak when necessary.

puff

<< <i>

<< <i>Stman... I think you have a thing about my icon >>



Well It's a beautiful coin and a better date as well. I'm not a set builder any more and just go by the "Look" of what I like. If it was a more common date I'd probably try and do what I could to "Pry" it out of your hands. Which you probably wouldn't let her go anyway. I have been known to do this on occasion.

But since I know the value of this piece, I stole the image and will just sneak a peak when necessary. >>



Aha! An image thief!