Cool old slab........Walking Liberty Half. Offer a grade.

relicsncoins · January 11, 2011 11:34AM

Here are better photos of that early Slab I picked up off the bay. Care to offer an opinion as to grade and overall thoughts of the coin.

This was the seller's photo.

Here are my photos.

darktone · January 11, 2011 11:42AM

I have owned a few of these on the past. Was DH David Hall? I think I asked this question a few years back. My guess is 63-64.

Meltdown · January 11, 2011 11:42AM

It looks 64 to me... a few too many little ticks for 65 - How's the luster?

relicsncoins · January 11, 2011 11:44AM

<< <i>It looks 64 to me... a few too many little ticks for 65 - How's the luster? >>

Average for the date.

291fifth · January 11, 2011 12:12PM

AU58.

relicsncoins · January 11, 2011 12:13PM

<< <i>AU58. >>

There is no wear on the coin.

Flatwoods · January 11, 2011 12:45PM

Looks 65 to me.

robkool · January 11, 2011 12:46PM

MS64+ Can't tell if it's well struck tho...

Frankcoins · January 11, 2011 1:47PM

I think it's 65 easy.

Some of the in-house grading from honest major dealers from the 1980s - before PCGS - Hannes Tulving, Blanchard, David Hall, NCI (Heritage) was quite strict. Today people consider it "shameless self slabbing" without even looking at the quality of the coins or the reputation of the dealer that graded it.

mumu · January 11, 2011 2:05PM

I vote 65 minus, but not in a bad way, just sdaying it looks better than 64+

joebb21 · January 11, 2011 2:06PM

relicsncoins · January 11, 2011 4:28PM

I paid $55 for it shipped, so not really much downside, or upside for that matter. It is what it is; A pleasing, uncirculated common date walking from the 40's.

Sorry about the reverse photo, my white balance was screwed up. It doesn't have bluish look in person.

JJ

lordmarcovan · January 11, 2011 5:14PM

I tend to agree with the certificate. Looks 65-ish to me. My initial thoughts were 64, but when I saw they'd graded it 65, I couldn't really find enough on there to disagree.