Grade opinions on this 1916- S Walker Half?
boyernumismatics
Posts: 473 ✭✭✭✭
Hi all. I have recently come across this 1916- S half. It's in a last gen PCGS slab slab. To me, it appears to be undergraded. Its current grade is MS64. Let me know what you all think. Thanks!!
The breast feathers and hand definition seem to be very strong for the date and mint comparative to the high end coins on CoinFacts. I've had recent luck with walking halves and am looking to extend it!
0
Comments
Really nice strike & color. If right field doesn't have any singularly distraction abrasions, it's worth a regrade shot, in my opinion.
Sometimes, it’s better to be LUCKY than good. 🍀 🍺👍
My Full Walker Registry Set (1916-1947):
https://www.ngccoin.com/registry/competitive-sets/16292/
Judging by the little contact marks on the obverse, I think it's fine as a 64.
I know this date comes with satin luster, so it's probably hard to capture in the photograph,
but I assume it's pretty nice. If booming, then perhaps it will get a nudge to a plus grade.
Very nice original better date walker regardless!
Only thing that bodes me into the 65/66 world is this coin i just got graded and subsequently sold:
It just graded 65, and there's some contact marks on the skirt as well as the breast area. However, the reverse is very defined, as well as the hand, as is this 16- S.
Since you have the advantage of having had both coins in hand, I will defer to your thinking.
And with all the talk of gradeflation, I guess an upgrade today isn't out of the question.
I do know that most 16S and 34S walkers come pretty well struck as a general rule, but perhaps the grader will see a number of 42S or 44S walkers first, then be impressed when they see the full thumb on the 16S.
Very nice Walker... can not really tell from the picture due to the tarnish, however, you could well be correct that it would bump a grade... Cheers, RickO
CAC likes it and there is also a Gold stickered coin, same grade, for sale. When comparing, this coin does have a negative eye appeal with a flat look, to me anyway.
Your recent upgrade does not have negative eye appeal and looks to have amazing luster.
It might be difficult to get the coin you are posting about, into a 65.
I would agree with Walkerguy21D -- the luster looks subdued under the toning which I think is the main source of the 64 grade. Hard to tell from photo but it might suggest a very light cleaning or dip a long time ago with the subsequent sandstone-like toning. I think it is a pleasantly toned coin with an appropriate grade from the photo. But in hand you might see more luster which would then merit considering sending it back in. The 16-S starts to jump in price at 65.
Also, the 34-S looks to have much more luster and Walkers from 1916 are hard to compare to ones from the thirties -- very different surface characteristics.
Good luck and thanks for posting.
"Look up, old boy, and see what you get." -William Bonney.
It's not in his hand, it's on eBay.
Would these photos of my 34 S change your mind if you had seen these and judge grade based on it? Scans are awful, as they show zero luster. In hand, this is a luster bomb.
I think it unwise to take a single data point from a 1934-S and attempt to extrapolate that to a 1916-S; they are different animals. Regardless, the image of the 1916-S is poor, but leads me to believe the luster is at least partially subdued and that this was the major impact on grade. However, the cost to regrade is small and you are not dealing with a rare holder, so if you feel lucky then you may want to submit it again. After all, regrades are a win-win for PCGS; that is even if it doesn't upgrade they still get paid!
In honor of the memory of Cpl. Michael E. Thompson
The photo appears to be overexposed. Grading from that kind of photo is unwise since overexposed photos tend to hide minor nicks and scratches. It is also very difficult to judge the true color and luster.
I like everything about that 34-S, even in the scans.
It is a tough hill to climb when a coin doubles in value at the next grade. I will root for you if you pull the trigger on the 16-S. I would not. I would try and chisel that Gold CAC 16-S down and buy it!
That is a great-looking 1934-S!
Ouch! Somebody stabbed her Boobie!
I think the 16-S is destined at most a 64+.
Luster is too subdued unless it looks different in hand.
Well?? Did you decide to send it in?? Inquiring minds want to know... Cheers, RickO
Looks like a 64 to me.
It would have to have exceptional luster to get the gem grades. Something that is easy to miss. I recently sold this 31-s FSB dime that I thought was a lock 64. It had been in an OH PCGS with some unattractive toning that I cautiously dipped out.
http://i.ebayimg.com/images/g/kewAAOSwo4pYlkXf/s-l1600.jpg http://i.ebayimg.com/images/g/bvUAAOSwNnRYlkYU/s-l1600.jpg The only thing I could think of was not enough luster, and since I had paid express grading I figured it was maxed out.
No, I decided against buying it.
Oh well... I think a judicious dip would have given you a nice coin... Cheers, RickO
Agree with the dip.