Doesn't look like a 40 based on those pics, I definitely would pass on that one. That one looks like it had an old wipe or a soap and water wash. Here's a pic of the 16-D in my collection; it is a 40 with the look I like:
Originally posted by: ElmerFusterpuck Doesn't look like a 40 based on those pics, I definitely would pass on that one. That one looks like it had an old wipe or a soap and water wash. Here's a link to my early Walker set, the 16-D is a 40 with the look I like:
If this is a fine, do you have a pic of what you would grade an au55?
Not very difficult. Find a coin with approx 50-75% field luster, I'd call that a 55. It's when these coins have almost no remaining luster, and centers appearing flat, that they become more difficult. Luster makes it easy to confirm higher circ grades. From what I've seen more luster is required on an AU55 20th century silver coin vs. a 19th century one....sometimes it's a huge difference.
In my mind it would he helpful to have considerable drapery and eagle feather detail on an XF WLH. A seated half would rarely get an XF40 grade if the centers were flat and half of the eagle's feathers were missing. More weakly struck seated and bust halves usually get penalized and net graded from XF40 to VF35 (or XF45 to XF40). It would appear than early WLH's get no such deduction.
Comments
10-4,
My Instagram picturesErik
My registry sets
Tom
DPOTD-3
'Emancipate yourselves from mental slavery'
CU #3245 B.N.A. #428
Don
Doesn't look like a 40 based on those pics, I definitely would pass on that one. That one looks like it had an old wipe or a soap and water wash. Here's a link to my early Walker set, the 16-D is a 40 with the look I like:
Early Walkers
Elmer--I agree that it looks like a soap and water wash, which isn't the worst thing in the world. Your link doesn't work. Oh wait...now that's a 40!
Tom
In honor of the memory of Cpl. Michael E. Thompson
10-4,
My Instagram picturesErik
My registry sets
That could be very possible.
DPOTD-3
'Emancipate yourselves from mental slavery'
CU #3245 B.N.A. #428
Don
like the eagle neck feathers, but other areas look low VF at best.
My opinion is that the images are overexposed and make it quite tough to actually tell what level of detail is present.
Hard to tell if the coin is really that blah from the pics.
16-D in 30 and 35.
His 64 picture doesn't look that great either
DPOTD-3
'Emancipate yourselves from mental slavery'
CU #3245 B.N.A. #428
Don
My opinion is that the images are overexposed and make it quite tough to actually tell what level of detail is present.
My thoughts exactly!
Ended eBay auction
IMAGIFIED!
About thirty years of change in the same grade in my opinion.
I hear you. Walkers I'd have graded Fine back then, appear to be XF's today. This one looks F-VF to me.
Sometimes, it’s better to be LUCKY than good. 🍀 🍺👍
My Full Walker Registry Set (1916-1947):
https://www.ngccoin.com/registry/competitive-sets/16292/
I wear glasses.
BHNC #203
Some PCGS graded xf40 Walkers.
except for the '17 D obv, what a waste of plastic
BHNC #203
About thirty years of change in the same grade in my opinion.
I hear you. Walkers I'd have graded Fine back then, appear to be XF's today. This one looks F-VF to me.
If this is a fine, do you have a pic of what you would grade an au55?
Some PCGS graded xf40 Walkers.
except for the '17 D obv, what a waste of plastic
It's not like the baby had to give up Pablum for a month. Why would you give a rat's patoot about what someone else does?
Not very difficult. Find a coin with approx 50-75% field luster, I'd call that a 55. It's when these coins have almost no remaining luster, and centers appearing flat, that they become more difficult. Luster makes it easy to confirm higher circ grades. From what I've seen more luster is required on an AU55 20th century silver coin vs. a 19th century one....sometimes it's a huge difference.