Options
Walkers grade them PLZ#2
my experiment 
Like to get some other opinions on how these may grade out, Thanks in advance
P.S. PLZ DECIDE your practical GRADES BEFORE VIEWING REPLYS!
1.


2.

Like to get some other opinions on how these may grade out, Thanks in advance
P.S. PLZ DECIDE your practical GRADES BEFORE VIEWING REPLYS!
1.


2.

SMILEFORSOMECHANGE LLC
RAD#306
RAD#306
0
Comments
<< <i>
Curious why you say this for the top coin? I see nothing to say otherwise.
<< <i>
<< <i>
Curious why you say this for the top coin? I see nothing to say otherwise. >>
There is very visible wear, even to the untrained eye. This is not my series, not close, and the wear on Liberty's left hand on the top coin, moreso on the second coin, with wear on the breast and hand, for starters.
Does the OP want the forum to grade all his raw Walkers?
<< <i>
Does the OP want the forum to grade all his raw Walkers? >>
This was a grading experiment, and I have to admit the 2nd coin looks better the second go around next to the top coin, and Id bet the top coin would look even better next to a few 66s
<< <i>Where did you get these, if you don't mind me asking? >>
Looking to thin my collection out
RAD#306
Sometimes, it’s better to be LUCKY than good. 🍀 🍺👍
My Full Walker Registry Set (1916-1947):
https://www.ngccoin.com/registry/competitive-sets/16292/
Remember this, we are grading pictures of coins, not the actual coins.
"Keep your malarkey filter in good operating order" -Walter Breen
<< <i>
<< <i>
Curious why you say this for the top coin? I see nothing to say otherwise. >>
Referring back to the first pair as he is showing one of the coins in both groups.
BTW grade number one in this post as over exposed and slightly weak on the focus.
not only MS, but probably at or near the gem level.
The bottom coin appears to be ~AU53.
55
<< <i>Not worth grading >>
quite snobbish
Bottom - 55-58 . . . or a very light strike, probably dipped. Can't tell without the coin in-hand.
Just my WAG . . .
HH
1947-P & D; 1948-D; 1949-P & S; 1950-D & S; and 1952-S.
Any help locating any of these OBW rolls would be gratefully appreciated!
I don't even see records at Heritage for an Unc DDR half.
<< <i>
<< <i>Not worth grading >>
quite snobbish >>
Really? I call it financially prudent. I have a short set in a Dansco album in choice BU that I say the same about...
<< <i>A mint state '46P DDR walking lib half not is worth grading? XF's have sold for ~$100.
I don't even see records at Heritage for an Unc DDR half. >>
WOW . . . I'm kicking myself for not looking closer.
Good eye Walkerguy ! ! !
HH
1947-P & D; 1948-D; 1949-P & S; 1950-D & S; and 1952-S.
Any help locating any of these OBW rolls would be gratefully appreciated!
<< <i>A mint state '46P DDR walking lib half not is worth grading? XF's have sold for ~$100.
I don't even see records at Heritage for an Unc DDR half. >>
Like the rest of us would recognize that variety...
55
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>Not worth grading >>
quite snobbish >>
Really? I call it financially prudent. I have a short set in a Dansco album in choice BU that I say the same about... >>
The OP didn't ask if they should professionally grade them. The asked our opinion on the grade.
I've always wondered why if I send a coin that looks MS65 to grade it ends up being a 65 but If I send it with a batch of 6 identical coins, that very coin ends up being a 64 because it may have been on the lower end and the others were definitely 65s but better shape ( as in 65A or +)
...thus swinging it to the 64( when it in fact may have been a 65c) And the same goes with if I sent that coin in with some dog graded coins, it just might make a 64, because the graders eyes are being swayed towards lower grades.
Here I posted the same bottom coin in (2) threads and it looks better in the second thread following the higher graded coin, (then had it following the lower graded coin) but it didn't matter too much since most of you saw it once before already and formed an opinion already.
Thanks
RAD#306
<< <i>Top coin looks like it could be a 63 or 64 just by the images alone but the bottom coin has wear and I'd call it a 58. >>
Yep! I agree!
Pete
Louis Armstrong
2. AU58...
55
55