I appreciate your thoughts/grade on this raw 1918 s Walker?

bidask

Photography by COINPICTURES.....

Walkerguy21D

Minimum of AU58, probable MS61 or 62 from a technical standpoint.....I'd have to see it in hand to refine this, and to ensure it's not 'crusty' to the point of having environmental damage though.

291fifth

AU, but not 58. Too many little nicks on the rim to merit a 58.

Eye-appeal on the obverse is negative due to the splotchy toning.

IGWT

PVC/environmental damage

hammered54

AU50, its been spent a few times, love it none the less. give it the old solvent bath.

ACactions

Body bag- Corrosion, PVC, and environmental damage-

This is not a tough coin in AU+ If you paid strong money for it return it- If you paid silver value for it- Soak it in acetone for 12 hours then mineral oil for 6 months and you may have a "decent" coin. But regardless it is an enviromentally damaged coin.


John

hammered54

I'd love to have a few 18S's that looked like that for silver melt fer sure.

pmac

I'm going to be critical. I think with the wear on the front skirt, she'll be judged at XF45, but imagine what she has paid for in the early 20th century.

garsmith

Crusty AU53

doh

Crusty 53-55. Impossible to tell if that's 'environmental damage" from the pic. It might be, it might not be.

RYK

I do not care for it.

Longacre

45, no sticker.

Walkerguy21D

There is little if any actual 'wear' on this coin. To be sure, she has other faults. But if anyone has pre-1930 walkers with 'wear' like this that they are willing to sell as XF and AU50's, please let me know!

ricko

I see crust and gunk but no pvc or environmental damage.... would dip out really nice... Cheers, RickO

nicetoning42107

Hard to tell how much wear is on the coin but since i don't see much luster i'll be conservative and says it's an XF45 with an interesting personality.

AU58WALKERS

ef 45

BillJones

I think that there is an AU sharpness coin under there, but the trouble is you have spotting and other problems that are going to make it candidate for a body bag. I wish I say something more encouraging.

jsf

an 18-S is among the last 5 I need for my complete set. I have a raw one, but, ugh. You see? It's easy to admit.

Manorcourtman

ditto on the 45 opinions. Looks like luster is gone.

Mowgli

<< <i>There is little if any actual 'wear' on this coin. To be sure, she has other faults. But if anyone has pre-1930 walkers with 'wear' like this that they are willing to sell as XF and AU50's, please let me know! >>

keets

the pictures show me a coin which looks AU55, but that just judges the picture. what appears to be PVC residue, missed by some, seems most prevalent on the obverse to either side of Liberty's head, but i assume there is probably more. the tone looks to be too heavy/long term to be easily dealt with. if the coin is Mint State, as an in-hand assessment might tell us it is, then i would suggest it is as good a candidate as any for conservation at NCS.

they should be able to resolve the problems it has while preserving the luster.

metalmeister

Nice AU coin for a AU album.
Clean head, breast and arm!

Rollerman

The luster, if there, is very subdued. The rim is pretty chewed up also. I'm in the xf45 crowd on this one as I do think I see some wear and if the luster is nearly gone, it can't be higher than that for me....maybe that's why I don't buy many old Walkers? LOL
Pete

WoodenJefferson

I think a correct dip would leave some noticable blotches, especially on the obverse.

This coin leaves me to believe that it was not in a collectors hands for the first few decades of it's life.

golfer72

EF

bidask

I appreciate all your comments but I am going to go with Walkerguy 21D on this one.

I will submit it to pcgs and let you know what they think.

Thanks,

cladking

It looks like a really nice XF to me. Most people will say AU because
the wear is light enough for AU but I won't because the coin appears
to have suffered wear twice; extensively before it spotted and then
lightly later.

I prefer to price coins like this at strong XF money rather than weak
AU money. Sometimes it makes a big difference and this is one of
them.

Of course if all that dipped out it could be a really nice AU under there.
I don't believe it will.

Rampage

My guess is AU53. Looks really nice.

Walkerguy21D

Sending you a PM....

cartwheel

Looks AU53-55-ish to me in wear (weak 'S' mint strike to boot?) and I don't see any luster (though prolly the image). I would never dip a non-MS coin, but this one would benefit from an acetone soak. Bottom line: A little too crusty for my tastes.

Cartwheel

supertooth

If I do not catch pictures early on, I many times will just sit back and read the replies. Most of the time the guys are right on top of things. They do a nice job overall and you folks should be proud of yourselves.

But, I wanted to add a couple of things that were not mentioned about this half dollar.

One is that there does appear to be hairlines in the reverse field to the left of the Eagle's head. That "ALWAYS" bothers me.

Second, while I agree that the obverse of the coin is an AU, I simply don't like it as much as the reverse.

Thirdly, no one has mentioned the chatter in the obverse field above the "IN" of the motto.

Some have questioned the toning and well they should. Although I love almost any old toning on an old "early" dated Walker, I think that this toning could be a definite problem. It almost looks to me as if the coin could have spent some time in the ground. But, in any event, that spotty and splotchy toning could, for certain, get this coin into a "genuine" holder at PCGS.

Naturally, an in hand inspection of the coin could clear up some of this. It certainly would be worthwhile to see it with one's own eyes. But I have a feeling there are some definite "underlying" problems with this piece. The kind of problems that may not be easily fixable---or fixable at all---I'm sorry to say. Just my very humble opinion of course. Bob [supertooth]

bidask

Damn...came back genuine......cleaned??

None of us got that right especially me.... I need to have my eyes exmained if that coin is cleaned!


Line # Item # Cert # PCGS No. CoinDate Denomination Variety Country Grade

1 1 15735255 6576 1918-S 50C US Genuine (92 - Cleaned)

jmj3esq

Cleaned? I think PCGS bailed out on this one.

Connecticoin

Looks like there are some hairlines in the left obverse field which would "no-grade" the coin.

If I am wrong, then AU53.

IGWT

-- 1 1 15735255 6576 1918-S 50C US Genuine (92 - Cleaned) --

Bidask -- You're reading that wrong. It's not a report of what's wrong with the coin; it's a recommendation of what needs to be done.

DennisH

AU53 or 55

Connecticoin

<< <i>Looks like there are some hairlines in the left obverse field which would "no-grade" the coin.

If I am wrong, then AU53. >>



Oops, did not notice this was a bumped old thread. Looks like my first guess was correct.

bidask

Wanr ro make sure you guys saw this......it came back today from pcgs as genuine/cleaned .

Cleaned?? Does this coin looked cleaned?

1 1 15735255 6576 1918-S 50C US Genuine (92 - Cleaned)

ColonialCoinUnion

I certainly would not have guessed cleaned. I would not have been shocked to hear that it came back in a GEN holder for Environmental Damage though.

Connecticoin

<< <i>Wanr ro make sure you guys saw this......it came back today from pcgs as genuine/cleaned .

Cleaned?? Does this coin looked cleaned? >>



From THAT image no, it does not. But if it has very fine harilines, they may not show up in an image. Try looking at the coin under a halogen light in a dark room and tilt the coin in several directions -- if it has very fine hairlines, they should show up. If you don't see any hairlines (or only see 2 or 3) then try NGC or even re-try PCGS.

7Jaguars

Yes, I did not see this until a few rounds of responses went up and I felt cleaned and partial retoning....Skin stripped to some agree with the cleaning then retoned partially. I have seen a number of similar coins. I would have BB'd it and also feel it not that attractive (IMO) though not that much net wear as has been stated.