So you think you can grade coins? Grade this Walker.

seateddime

This is in a PCGS holder and is graded

What do you think?

Broadstruck

MS63

coinguy1

MS66

Edited to add: I would have graded the coin at least a point lower, were it not for the thread title.

devious

MS64

djdilliodon

AU58

fivecents

MS64

Flatwoods

MS-65

123cents

MS-65.

MidLifeCrisis

It looks AU to me.

coinguy1

<< <i>It looks AU to me. >>

Forget about the dark, stained appearance of the toning - do you see any rub/wear at all? I don't.

seateddime

It is Not an AU

MidLifeCrisis

<< <i>It is Not an AU >>


Well, that's what happens when I give my opinion about a coin I don't collect and only from a picture. I didn't say it was AU...I said it looks AU to me.

morganbarber

I know that you just said it was not AU, but 58 was my guess.

supertooth

Ms65 IMHO

Elcontador

In terms of its preservation, it's clearly an Unc., but I can't tell about its eye appeal from the image. I'm assuming the scratches are on the holder. Mark, I can't see this in a 6 holder, because I don't see outstanding eye appeal on the coin. It's eye appeal to me is unattractive, and I wouldn't grade it higher than an MS 63, even though I don't see any hits on the eagle's breast or on the skirt lines.

ricko

63/64 I would say..... disgusting tarnish... would pay to have that one dipped.... Cheers, RickO

jsf

I think a 65 would have been VERY generous for this coin, depends on which side of the bed the grader got out on that morning.

coinguy1

<< <i>In terms of its preservation, it's clearly an Unc., but I can't tell about its eye appeal from the image. I'm assuming the scratches are on the holder. Mark, I can't see this in a 6 holder, because I don't see outstanding eye appeal on the coin. It's eye appeal to me is unattractive, and I wouldn't grade it higher than an MS 63, even though I don't see any hits on the eagle's breast or on the skirt lines. >>

Jeff, regardless of what the assigned grade of (edited for spelling) this coin is, there are many coins graded 66 (and higher) that lack "outstanding eye-appeal".

grip

Yup.64.

Geoman

Geoman

I'd grade it MS64. Don't know what PCGS graded it, but to me it's a MS64 coin.

Broadstruck

>>

Jeff, regardless of what the assigned grade of thisi coin is, there are many coins graded 66 (and higher) that lack "outstanding eye-appeal". >>



coinguy1, Remind me never to let you set me up on a blind date as we have different definitions of what outstanding eye-appeal is!

MS64 would not shock me on this example... but the hairline and scuff line on the reverse, along with the lower obverse murky spots was why I went MS63.

coinguy1

<< <i> >>

Jeff, regardless of what the assigned grade of thisi coin is, there are many coins graded 66 (and higher) that lack "outstanding eye-appeal". >>



coinguy1, Remind me never to let you set me up on a blind date as we have different definitions of what outstanding eye-appeal is!

MS64 would not shock me on this example... but the hairline and scuff line on the reverse, along with the lower murky spots was why I went MS63. >>

I didn't say that I think this coin has outstanding eye-appeal. I said that I have seen a lot of coins graded 66 and higher that don't have it. Do you disagree? And don't worry - I still have no intention of trying to set you up on a blind date.

SamByrd

considering the time period I can say ms64 its just a lds coin.

Walkerguy21D

I think I can assign a good technical grade to just about any walker, but market grading is another ballgame.....and we don't need to get into the profession TPGs who also think they can grade, but will assign different grades to the same coin upon resubmission.
The obv looks 65, though personally I don't care for the dark toning spots on the sun and gown. What appears to be a substantial scratch on the rev (through the O, across the foot, and up into the wing) keeps this out of a 5 holder - if the graders saw it and weren't mesmerized by the original toning. My grade = 64, assume the slab grade = 65

MidLifeCrisis

<< <i>

<< <i>It looks AU to me. >>

Forget about the dark, stained appearance of the toning - do you see any rub/wear at all? I don't. >>


OK...

1. I won't forget about the appearance of the toning because it affects my opinion of the eye appeal of the coin and is thus factored into how I would grade the coin.

2. When I reply to these types of threads, I try to give my first impression grade without doing any research or comparison to other coins...I want to quickly form an opinion about a coin and see how accurate that opinion is.

3. From the picture (and that's important), I see what appears to be wear on the obverse in Liberty's skirt in her hip area and down the leg; on the reverse at the tops of the eagle's wings, under his eye and in the feathers going down his legs.

4. Again, this was my opinion about a coin I don't collect and only from a picture. I didn't say it was AU...I said it looks AU to me.

I hope I didn't offend the op, but when you post a coin and ask for opinions, you should be prepared for a wide range of responses that may surprise you.

DennisH

Eagle appears to have wear all over it, so my initial reaction was AU55 or 58. But since the OP has said it is not AU, that means I don't have a clue about the grade.

CEOGBOSE

I'd go with MS62

coinguy1

<< <i>

<< <i>

<< <i>It looks AU to me. >>

Forget about the dark, stained appearance of the toning - do you see any rub/wear at all? I don't. >>


OK...

1. I won't forget about the appearance of the toning because it affects my opinion of the eye appeal of the coin and is thus factored into how I would grade the coin.

2. When I reply to these types of threads, I try to give my first impression grade without doing any research or comparison to other coins...I want to quickly form an opinion about a coin and see how accurate that opinion is.

3. From the picture (and that's important), I see what appears to be wear on the obverse in Liberty's skirt in her hip area and down the leg; on the reverse at the tops of the eagle's wings, under his eye and in the feathers going down his legs.

4. Again, this was my opinion about a coin I don't collect and only from a picture. I didn't say it was AU...I said it looks AU to me.

I hope I didn't offend the op, but when you post a coin and ask for opinions, you should be prepared for a wide range of responses that may surprise you. >>

I'm guessing that part of what looks like rub to you is just the effects of luster and lighting. I see no wear in the places which typically show it - for example, Liberty's breasts head and upper thigh, as well as the eagle's breast and upper wing feathers.

It will be interesting to learn the assigned grade. I will be stunned if it graded AU, very surprised if it graded lower than MS63, and even surprised if it graded as low as 63.

Broadstruck

<< <i>I didn't say that I think this coin has outstanding eye-appeal. I said that I have seen a lot of coins graded 66 and higher that don't have it. Do you disagree? >>



Yes I've seen and see a lot of WLH's even in MS67 holders that make me scratch my head.

Some may posses luster, color, and eye appeal... but technically are just not up to par surface condition wise to have been awarded such grades IMHO.

mumu

I think that scratch on the reverse is on the slab. It has a shadow. I say 65 kept out of 66 due to weak strike reverse and average or slighty above avg for D mint obverse?

derryb

64

50cents

63

Walkerguy21D

To help provide a little tip, what helped me determine immediately it was an unc coin (apart from the high point indicators) is the nice unbroken luster band in the field on the obv above the motto. You do not see this on AU walker coins - the luster in this region 'flattens out'. You also don't see it on Unc coins that have been dipped too many times; again, the luster will appear to flatten out.
Not sure if this helps, but after you look at a few hundred or so AU and MS walkers, you'll get a feel for it

LotsoLuck

65 sounds good.

TwoSides2aCoin

MS 64+ (the top 10 percent of 64's)

RebelRon

MS-64

Bubblehead

65

veryfine

MS66 was my first impression, although MS65 is very possible.

LindeDad

I'm in the 65 crowd but would not be suprised at a 66.

Connecticoin

65, possbily 66. The toning spots on the sun and skirt put it in the negative eye appeal category for me --otherwise, I like that kind of toning.

Ahrensdad

I will go 65.

relicsncoins

The coin just doesn't have that gem look to me......I'll go 64.

hockeyfan9

64

magikbilly

Hi there,

One again, I am with Mark. From the images, I can see this as a 6. Thought so immediately. Mark is right, there are plenty of not-super-appealing coins in 6 holders. Not below 64 either on this one I am guessing from the scans. Looking forward to the grade reveal.

Best,
Eric

thatboyaintright

At first glance I thought low MS 62. Closer inspection and I agree with the 65 crowd on technical merits, but drop a grade for ugliness and I'm settling on a MS 64. I rarely agree with Ricko on dipping but in this case I think he's right.... the splotches are awful.

DRUNNER

66. Hard to grade from the pix but I also think if the thread title is any indication, this is going to be a high grade coin.

OK, now that you have all waited for my guess and we are well into page 3 . . . . . . . . . . .what is it?

Drunner

MrSpud

Without loking at what the others said I'd say 64

grip

Yes,but a 66 dud.Unless it looks much better in hand.

kaz

I think it could be a 66, assuming the long mark on the reverse is on the slab and not the coin.