Which coin do you like better? UPDATE

Walkerfan · February 6, 2015 7:38AM

Both are 1917 S rev. coins graded by PCGS with same numerical grades. Please tell me which one you prefer and why? Thanks.

Unknown · February 6, 2015 7:40AM

This content has been removed.

DennisH · February 6, 2015 7:41AM

<< Second one. Don't like the spotty, dark toning on the first. >>

Yep. Beat me to it.

Kyle · February 6, 2015 7:42AM

I have to agree with the others.

The second coin.

StrikeOutXXX · February 6, 2015 7:43AM

I'd take the 2nd coin.

I actually prefer the color/luster/skin of the first one, but... I'm not a fan of that type of toning, and think I would find it more of a distraction to me than what I would consider a more subdued surface on the 2nd coin without the toning.

bosco5041 · February 6, 2015 7:44AM

Second one. I think it is struck a little better although I don't know that much or collect walkers. I do like the toning on the first one but its got a mark on the head and a softer struck hand.

GoldCoin98 · February 6, 2015 7:58AM

Second one, due to better eye appeal

deltadimeman · February 6, 2015 8:02AM

first one, because it's original

291fifth · February 6, 2015 8:03AM

<< Second one. Don't like the spotty, dark toning on the first. >>

I agree as well.

chrisfl · February 6, 2015 8:08AM

the second one here also....think the spotty toning is more distracting than complimentary.

lasvegasteddy · February 6, 2015 8:16AM

second one
more eye appeal
better strike
frostier luster
her face doesn't look like it was run over by a mack truck

thank you for entering me in your generous giveaway too

stman · February 6, 2015 8:17AM

I'll take #1. It has a certain skin and glow that I kinda like.

erwindoc · February 6, 2015 8:21AM

#2

Whats the grades? 63? 64?

Rayman311 · February 6, 2015 8:24AM

<< second one
more eye appeal
better strike
frostier luster
her face doesn't look like it was run over by a mack truck

thank you for entering me in your generous giveaway too

>>

+1

Wabbit2313 · February 6, 2015 8:26AM

Coin one with a little magic would be the better of the 2.

Walkerfan · February 6, 2015 8:27AM

<< Whats the grades? 63? 64? >>

Both are 64s and both are CAC stickered.

Timbuk3 · February 6, 2015 8:31AM

#2

keyman64 · February 6, 2015 8:34AM

2nd

Flatwoods · February 6, 2015 8:37AM

I think I like #2 better.
It would be easier to tell if the lighting/ white balance was the same in both pics.
The second pic has a purple tint that doesn't seem to do the coin justice.

lasvegasteddy · February 6, 2015 8:42AM

of course price point plays it's roll too

hopefully someone is not peddling coin #1 off as premium toning example with a price to commensurate
just saying...as #2 would shine all the more

Ablinky · February 6, 2015 8:43AM

The first coin, the second coin is far too white for me.

fcloud · February 6, 2015 8:49AM

2

DIMEMAN · February 6, 2015 8:51AM

1st coin for me. More original and better skirt lines to boot.

roadrunner · February 6, 2015 9:03AM

<< I'll take #1. It has a certain skin and glow that I kinda like. >>

Me too.

The luster on the 2nd one is slightly impaired/overdipped. Probably would have been a grade higher if not for that. The better strike and fewer marks on the 2nd one comes at a price.

I actually like the crustiness of the 1st one....even the orig coppery toning seen so often on original 1916/1917 silver coins of this era.

crazyhounddog · February 6, 2015 9:18AM

I've gotta say the bottom one is more appealing to me because it has a cleaner appearance. It also seems as though the strike around Miss Liberty's head is a bit better than the top one as the top one looks to be a bit flat do to wear or weakness in strike. Although the top one has an original look, I still gravitate to the bottom one for the reasons stated.

Yorkshireman · February 6, 2015 9:20AM

Second one, with no doubt.

TwoBitWilly · February 6, 2015 9:55AM

Both coins look super nice for pre 20's

But the slash on the face of the first one ruins it for me even though it is in a secondary focal point
when I look at walkers, and would most likely be an issue if/when it comes time to sell it.

The second one seems to be a bit subdued more than the first but trumps the slash on the first one by a long shot
and most likely much less of an issue if/when it comes time to sell.

And givin the price range I'd like the upside in my favor.

silverpop · February 6, 2015 9:57AM

both

Raybo · February 6, 2015 10:05AM

Without a doubt #2 (but I will take your leftovers)

Walkerguy21D · February 6, 2015 10:14AM

I honestly can't decide - they are both very nice examples.

golden · February 6, 2015 10:15AM

Door #2 please.

lkeigwin · February 6, 2015 10:24AM

The first was dipped in eZest. The second was dipped in acetone and then eZest. A double dip.

Both look unimpaired. Though the photographer had the lights wrong on the reverses.

I'd pass on each.
Lance.

kaz · February 6, 2015 10:25AM

I prefer #1, it doesn't look dipped like #2. The head tics don't bother me very much except when the photos are enlarged to salad plate size. They are both attractive coins in their own way and I think the choice of which to buy is largely a matter of individual taste. My taste is towards #1.

david3142 · February 6, 2015 10:55AM

The 2nd one and it's not that close for me. I don't like the dark toning spots on the first (or the scratch on the face).
The frosty, clean, appeal of the 2nd is much better to these eyes.

Walkerfan · February 6, 2015 11:48AM

Here's the story----I own coin #2. I passed on the 'perfect' 1917 S Rev. coin in 2012 (I will never, ever live that one down). It took me 2 more years just to find this one (coin #2). 1917 S rev. coins are impossible to find nice in all areas. I paid about 30% above retail for this coin, which is a lot but I love the strike and surface preservation. It had sold a couple years prior to my purchasing it for almost the same amount, so at least I know that the hammer prices are consistent.

The price of #1 has yet to be determined, as it has not crossed the action block yet. Coin #1 is actually a MS 64 '+' coin, while coin #2 is a MS 64. I thought about buying coin #1 but have decided not to for a variety of important reasons:

1. Despite the crust; I feel that coin #1 is NOT original and has been dipped. I see luster that has been compromised on both the front and back of the piece. I also feel that the toning on coin #1 is not an attractive or colorful toning but instead looks spotty.

2. I don't like the scuffs and abrasions in the right facing field of coin #1 along with marks in other areas of the piece.

3. It would not serve me well to sell my coin #2 in order to just get a '+' upgrade as opposed to having a base 64. Besides, a dealer would not pay me what I have into coin #2 and I would never take that kind of a loss. The only way that I could retrieve my money is to either sell it on Heritage or to hold it longer-----and I am going to do the latter.

I believe that coin #2 has been dipped, as well, BUT I believe that BOTH coins still have a lot of good luster and frost remaining, when compared to other MS 64 & 65 examples of this issue (MS 65s cost 10-12K)! Although I like # 2 better, both coins are super rare and eye appealing (just in different ways) in this condition. IMO just because a coin has been dipped---that doesn't necessarily make it bad just as long as it retains most of it's luster, as these coins have. I am VERY happy with coin #2. I will be watching from the sidelines, however, with great anticipation to see what coin #1 sells for.

This has been a super thread for me and I'm really glad that I posted it, as I really had no idea what the opinions and responses would be. I have gained some very valuable insight and it mostly reaffirms my belief in coin #2.

Thank you SO MUCH to everyone who has responded, thus far.

GRANDAM · February 6, 2015 11:55AM

#2 by a mile,,,,,

GrandAm

Tootawl · February 6, 2015 12:01PM

Second one for me.

coinhack · February 6, 2015 1:17PM

Definitely #2

Vbowling299 · February 6, 2015 1:34PM

I have a nice original NGC61 CAC I can post tomorrow if its okay and you are interested in seeing it!

mariner67 · February 6, 2015 1:41PM

#2

lordmarcovan · February 6, 2015 1:44PM

<< Second one. Don't like the spotty, dark toning on the first. >>

No contest for me on this one. #2 by a landslide.

nwcoast · February 6, 2015 2:17PM

Second one for me too.
Though I'm often a fan of toning, the blotchy toning on the first coin does not do anything for me.
The hits on the head and face of coin 1 are troublesome for me as well.
In any case, I'm used to looking at and seeing bright Walkers, so no problems there.

Walkerfan · February 7, 2015 1:22AM

<< I have a nice original NGC61 CAC I can post tomorrow if its okay and you are interested in seeing it! >>

Sure--I'd like to see your coin.

Vbowling299 · February 9, 2015 3:23AM

NGC61 CAC as requested, just a few days late

mommam17 · February 9, 2015 3:27AM

being a toning nut, I'll take the first one, which I think would look much nicer in hand?

oih82w8 · February 9, 2015 3:28AM

Number 2 for me.

Rollerman · February 9, 2015 3:41AM

<< second one
more eye appeal
better strike
frostier luster
her face doesn't look like it was run over by a mack truck

thank you for entering me in your generous giveaway too

>>

TopographicOceans · February 9, 2015 4:09AM

#2

Barndog · February 9, 2015 4:13AM

first one seems to have more of its original skin and would be my choice

etexmike · February 9, 2015 5:53AM

I like "crusty" coins but even the first Walker is too crusty for my liking. Gotta go with coin #2.

Mike

puffer · February 9, 2015 6:04AM

Personally coin 1. For ease of resale coin 2. I like original toning.

Which coin do you like better? UPDATE

Comments

Leave a Comment