I like this NEWP 1935 Walker. Do you? (photos added)

clarkbar04

While I go crazy waiting for my last group of 5 coins to say something other than they are still not graded, (must be a lot of MOD sets to look at, no?) let me know what you think of this '35 philly walker I bought last night on the 'bay, and feel free to assign a grade.

Other than the lack of thumb detail I think it is a real beaut, the original skin more than makes up for it in my eyes.

EDIT I received the coin today, quite pleased. In addition to tons of luster, the coin also has some light toning on 100% of the obverse ranging from light iridescent blue to pink to gold and the russet at the LH rim. Photos didn't do a great job of capturing this however.

Ironically, I should have grades tomorrow on the coins I posted about above.

Walkerfan

She's pretty. I'd grade her a MS 64, only b/c of muted luster. Strike is well above average for the issue and it looks smooth surface-wise. WTG!!

DennisH

I agree with 64, and for the same reason as Walkerfan.

Ablinky

I would also agree about the muted luster but the coin still is original in my opinion which is always a plus.

deltadimeman

I like it because it looks original

TomB

It's interesting to see how folks interpret images. While others think it has muted luster, I think it is likely a boomer under undipped skin.

clarkbar04

<< <i>It's interesting to see how folks interpret images. While others think it has muted luster, I think it is likely a boomer under undipped skin. >>



Kinda what I thought too, but different browsers, and even different monitors will show coins differently so its hard to tell what it looks like on your end.

Looks like he only used ambient light to take the photo which doesn't show off the luster much - pretty good for what is probably a cell phone pic.

stman

Looks to me like that white skin will have a very nice pearly luster. Lately around here if it's not a flattering image shown at 1 degree, folks don't seem to like it. I recall when all we used was flatbed scanners. and could almost predict what it looked like. Of course that took some effort.

clarkbar04

Got this today and added my own pics in the 1st post. Quite happy with it. Not real sure if it would qualify as a true gem but it is real nice to look at in hand. Might be worth a shot since it is a $200 coin in 65.

DennisH

I see a lot of light green on the obverse; I hope it isn't PVC.

lasvegasteddy

wow...what a sweet reverse on this
the obverse will call the grade though and it looks like lite toning mutes the luster

should be a solid 64 but way higher if that obverse matched it's reverse

sweet coin regardless...hopefully you got for a deal too

clarkbar04

No shortage of luster on the obverse and it 100% matching luster on both sides. Was trying mainly (though I seem to have failed) to show the color with that obverse photo. Into this for a couple of jacksons.

Not sure why I can't take photos like I was just a week ago. Think I will submit this 1935 instead of the thread newp.

Connecticoin

<< <i>No shortage of luster on the obverse and it 100% matching luster on both sides. Was trying mainly (though I seem to have failed) to show the color with that obverse photo. Into this for a couple of jacksons.

Not sure why I can't take photos like I was just a week ago. Think I will submit this 1935 instead of the thread newp.

>>



Nice coin -- Looks 64+ with a good shot at 65. Definitely worth submitting. Submit the other one as a "setup" coin -- however if that green stuff is PVC, give it a good acetone soak.

lasvegasteddy

<<< adds a point with this new obverse image
sweet example here
congrats

Connecticoin

<< <i><<< adds a point with this new obverse image
sweet example here
congrats >>



I believe it is a different coin

291fifth

The toning is attractive but the obverse strike is unimpressive. In addition, I see what may be some rub on the feathers of the eagle on the reverse (a very common thing on WL Halves). I would personally grade it AU58 but would guess it would slab as a 62 or 63.

It is a coin I would pass on unless the price was very "right".

ricko

Both are nice Walkers... though I do prefer the second one (based on pictures).... Cheers, RickO

Bankerbob56

<< <i>

<< <i>No shortage of luster on the obverse and it 100% matching luster on both sides. Was trying mainly (though I seem to have failed) to show the color with that obverse photo. Into this for a couple of jacksons.

Not sure why I can't take photos like I was just a week ago. Think I will submit this 1935 instead of the thread newp.

>>



Nice coin -- Looks 64+ with a good shot at 65. Definitely worth submitting. Submit the other one as a "setup" coin -- however if that green stuff is PVC, give it a good acetone soak. >>




I don't get the "set-up coin" philosophy???

How can you predict that the supposed set-up coin will be viewed BEFORE the gem coin????

Just curious!

Connecticoin

<< <i>I don't get the "set-up coin" philosophy???

How can you predict that the supposed set-up coin will be viewed BEFORE the gem coin????

Just curious! >>



Well, first off I would only submit a coin worth submitting. A 1935 in MS-64 is on the fence of being worth submitting for me, but if I had both coins, I would submit them both because the second one has a shot at 65. So if the grader sees the first as a solid 64, then sees the second is better, the chances of that coin getting 65 might be better. Not really sure if it works, but if a have a few coins of the same date, I try to arrange them progressively by quality, if anything just to see if the graders agree with my progression of the quality. That's what I did in this case:

14 1 32463981 7378 1935 $1 USA MS62
14 2 32463982 7378 1935 $1 USA MS64
14 3 32463983 7378 1935 $1 USA MS64
14 4 32463984 7378 1935 $1 USA MS64+
14 5 32463985 7378 1935 $1 USA MS65
14 6 32463986 7378 1935 $1 USA MS65

Who knows, maybe it backfired -- if I mixed them up in the submission, maybe three or four would have been 65 instead of just 2.