Test your grading abilities - Grade revealed - winner is NH484000

Boom · March 27, 2007 5:13AM

Grade this coin.

Let me first clue you in to the fact that it is 100% White and very lustrous, More pix available if need be.

Please explain what precipitates your opinion. A token giveaway prize to be given to the first person to get it correct, without guessing. Must be able to explain why he/ she grades as such without some lame reason such as "Well, it's a grade that no one else picked." Ultimately I have the final say-so as to who the winner will be.

Even if someone gets the grade correct right from the jump I will permit the grading to continue in an attempt to eliminate guessing. F

Posted for learning purposes, hopefully to help all become better at screening coins to be considered for grading. Thanx & enjoy!

guitarwes · March 27, 2007 5:16AM

A wonderful MS 64 with a weak strike with tremendous luster with a few scattered tics.

The weak strike (left hand and gown area) kept it out of a 65 holder.

Thanks for the chance.

291fifth · March 27, 2007 5:18AM

The photos are too overexposed to give an accurate grade guess.

TCoins · March 27, 2007 5:22AM

From the photos I say MS65, weak strike with very few hits. Thanks for letting me participate in this give-a-way.

NH484000 · March 27, 2007 5:25AM

MS63.

Good luster, a few hits, but perhaps the rim ding on the obverse knocks it down a bit?

eyoung429 · March 27, 2007 5:27AM

AU58 - Nice luster, branch and hand both show wear on the obv...wing edge and breast show slider marks.

Thanks for the chance

jmj3esq · March 27, 2007 5:28AM

MS62. Small rim ding at 11:00 on obverse. Several dings and chatter on the high points liberty's dress and leg. Small ding on breast. There is also some small dings on the reverse on the high points on the eagle's leg. The fields are very clean and nice.

Edited to add: There also appears to be a scratch or ding across the eagles lower breast. I lowered my grade to MS62 because of this.

Newcomp103 · March 27, 2007 5:28AM

AU58...possibly the nicest I have seen...excellent eye appeal giving the impression(and for good reason) of a much higher graded coin. The slightest bit of above the knee...or I could be way out to lunch on this one!

Boom · March 27, 2007 5:28AM

Please explain as I certainly am no pro when it comes to digital photography. I've sent the setup specs and camera settings to you via PM. Any help you can provide regarding "overexposure would be appreciated.

Thanx

cartwheel · March 27, 2007 5:29AM

AU58; weak feather definition on the eagle's left leg (our right) and left hand not well defined. It's in a PCGS holder; could have gone 63 (been there, done that).

Cartwheel

Boom · March 27, 2007 5:41AM

I've tried a setup that was first suggested to me by a very prolific camera whiz here on these very boards.

I am using 3 clear bulbs, two 40s on either side and a 60 Watt high in the middle, basically trying to surround the coin rather than shine directly onto the surfaces.

According to manufacturer's manual the White Balance is set according to specs for this type lighting and the EV balance is set at 0.3

Am I putting too much light onto the coin's surfaces in an attempt to show the entire surface with no shadows? Or just what am I doing that is not correct causing "over exposure?

I can also try with an OTT lamp which would be the exact opposite so far as WB is concerned. Any help offered would be appreciated.

eyoung429 · March 27, 2007 5:44AM

Boom, are you using a white card to set your balance? You may want to try the Party Favorite and use a small lampshade between the lights and the coin...heck I have even used a styrafoam (sp?) cup with a hole cut out to do trimes. Anything that will diffuse the lighting a little bit and not have the glare on the coin/plastic.

HonoluluDude · March 27, 2007 5:44AM

64 or 65

AU58WALKERS · March 27, 2007 5:46AM

ms65/ms66

Connecticoin · March 27, 2007 5:46AM

Looks MS-66 to me.

Very few marks, and the ones that are there are very tiny. No hairlines that I can see. Full cartwheel luster. Well struck, but not 100% full, a couple weak skirtlines are holding it back from 67.

Geoman · March 27, 2007 5:46AM

I'll guess MS-66. No marks, but weak strike. However, shows full thumb.

Elcontador · March 27, 2007 5:46AM

Appears to be a nice MS 64 from the pic. Just a tad too many small contact marks (above eagle's lt. claw, obverse rim @ 11:00, skirt & thigh, open field above IN GOD WE TRUST) for a 5.

I still get a bit grossed-out by the fact that the mint discontinued this coin in favor of the Franklin Half.

Tonedbuff · March 27, 2007 5:51AM

I am in the MS62 camp. I think that this is a really great looking coin with a lot of luster and very few hits, but just a bit of rub or friction on the eagles breast. Could go AU58 but overal strength of the coin would place it in the slider grade for me.

50cents · March 27, 2007 5:56AM

Looks like a very nice 66

Longacre · March 27, 2007 5:56AM

65

Jcarney · March 27, 2007 6:00AM

<< <i>Appears to be a nice MS 64 from the pic. Just a tad too many small contact marks (above eagle's lt. claw, obverse rim @ 11:00, skirt & thigh, open field above IN GOD WE TRUST) for a 5.

I still get a bit grossed-out by the fact that the mint discontinued this coin in favor of the Franklin Half. >>

Better not let Lucy hear you say that.

As far as the Walker, this is a tough one and is a poster child for why grading from a photo is truly impossible. Does this coin have a weak strike or is there a bit of rub present. In hand I would rotate the coin under a strong halogen light and determine whether luster was present on the high points. However, since I don't see the slightly grayer areas on the high points than can be indicative of wear, I'll assume the coin simply has a weaker than average strike for a 1940s Philly Walker. PCGS isn't usually horribly tight with weakly struck Walkers although I've seen them downgrade the 40s S mint coins with incredibly bad strikes. Based on the fact that the coin seems to have great luster and minimal hit on the devices, not the fields, I grade it MS65.

JJM · March 27, 2007 6:02AM

im in the 64 crowd, tiny chatter on the Rev.....

DennisH · March 27, 2007 6:07AM

MS66

planetsteve · March 27, 2007 6:11AM

MS65. Not an AU as I can't really discern any rub from the images. Not 64 as nearly all of the hits, which are small at that, are confined to the devices. The strike is really not bad on the obverse -- though this level of definition should be expected on a P mint coin -- but for the now you see 'em, now you don't skirt lines, and a trifle missing information in the left hand and hair.

The reverse strike is relatively weaker than the obverse, as seen on the eagle breast and especially the left leg. And so the strike deficiencies keep it from getting a 66.

Boom · March 27, 2007 6:17AM

Fresh set coming in. Remember, this is a Blast White coin. I am glad I asked as this is proving to be very educational to me as a photographer as well.

Any better? Still using clear 40 Watt bulbs, one at 10 the other at 2, doing away with the middle lamp altogether which is using a 60Watt Reveal. Still have not even begun to master OTT as I think I should use a duo. I don't care for the way 1 lamp works.

Opinions welcomed.

planetsteve · March 27, 2007 6:21AM

It looks like you are positioning the bulbs at a more extreme angle. With what appears to be a lot of breaks in the luster at the high points, I am changing my mind completely and calling it an AU55.

291fifth · March 27, 2007 6:35AM

The photo is still overexposed, but there appears to be wear on the high points of the obverse and reverse. I would call it AU55 or AU58.

Boom · March 27, 2007 6:40AM

still overexposed ??

planetsteve · March 27, 2007 6:41AM

I really don't think it's overexposed; it's just that the highlights on this lustrous coin are reflecting lots more light than the rest of the coin. I would try to diffuse the light (in fact, I just got some diffusers from bhphotovideo.com today).

I think the first photo is much more pleasing. I would darken the first obverse image less than half a stop and the reverse about a stop (50%), then see how it looks.

Anyway I will be putting my own skills to the test with a bunch of BU Walkers soon.

Rollerman · March 27, 2007 6:52AM

Wow! I hope you haven't played a joke on us with that 2nd picture - it looks like a different coin to me!

Based on the first picture, full thumb, decent strike, nice luster and fairly clean obverse with a few light ticks on the reverse, I was going to say solid MS65 shot at 66.

Then I see the next image and the thumb is gone, the her breast looks lightly rubbed and so does the eagle's breast as well, making me say it's very nice AU58.

That's how I see the photo's, I have no idea what the coin actually grades at.

Interesting!
Pete

AZCoinDevil · March 27, 2007 7:00AM

Comparing the images with a 1941 MS 64 , this is cleaner in the fields.

I dont see any wear that others have seen , sorry but I am a rookie.

I dont think the strike is that weak , there is a good amount of detail in the small features.

Given what I see , and what I have I would give it a EASY 65 with a shot at 66.

I agree , this is a nice design , my favorite, and risking the wrath of Lucy , would agree its superior to a Franky.

Cheers

Azcoindevil

Boom · March 27, 2007 7:03AM

And now!

eyoung429 · March 27, 2007 7:07AM

Whole lot better Boom....I am still going to stick with my original opinion though.....

richardshipp · March 27, 2007 7:08AM

AU-58

Clearly in the second set of pictures there is a break in luster on the breast. Without the rub maybe 64 as the soft strike and a couple of dings holding it down.

To me its one of those examples though where an AU-58 has much better eye-appeal than a lot of low MS coins do.

Connecticoin · March 27, 2007 7:14AM

With the updated pics, I will change to MS-65 -- more ticks on the middle of the skirt are apparent, as well as the "cabinet friction" on the breast (not enought the "AU-it" though).

Boom · March 27, 2007 7:36AM

Tough crowd! Lol. I think I'll stick to Washington Quarters.

You boys are seeing things that you wouldn't see in hand or even with a 5X.

Now, take your hand and place it up against the monitor. The issue is I've taken a 50c piece and blown it up to the size of a pie plate. Now you know why when we all first started we were told that it isn't wise to look at coins through too powerful magnification.. You are "seeing" things you can't even see with a 16x loupe.

Cam40 · March 27, 2007 7:40AM

66

Boom · March 27, 2007 7:44AM

This is also the reason we should never even attempt to grade a coin from a one dimensional image or make

anywhere close to an expensive purchase based on pix alone. I don't even use Photoshop.

This is a Blast White piece that is very lustrous and quite attractive in hand, very eye appealing.

The guessing continues.

spelling edit, of course!

itsnotjustme · March 27, 2007 7:45AM

I'll join the AU55 minority. Wear on leg, breast, eagles breast.

richardshipp · March 27, 2007 7:58AM

<< <i>Tough crowd! Lol. I think I'll stick to Washington Quarters.

You boys are seeing things that you wouldn't see in hand or even with a 5X.

Now, take your hand and place it up against the monitor. The issue is I've taken a 50c piece and blown it up to the size of a pie plate. Now you know why when we all first started we were told that it isn't wise to look at coins through too powerful magnification.. You are "seeing" things you can't even see with a 16x loupe.

>>

I knew I shouldn't have guessed