Home› U.S. Coin Forum

1916 Walking Liberty Half Dollar Grade

jgivigljgivigl Posts: 35 ✭
in U.S. Coin Forum

Does anyone see something wrong with this coin for grading?




Answers

  • TomBTomB Posts: 22,080 ✭✭✭✭✭

    Looks okay to me and I would hazard an AU58 grade.

    Thomas Bush Numismatics & Numismatic Photography

    In honor of the memory of Cpl. Michael E. Thompson

    image
  • jgivigljgivigl Posts: 35 ✭

    It wasn't Cleaned.

  • WalkerfanWalkerfan Posts: 9,747 ✭✭✭✭✭

    Doesn’t appear to have any issues. Looks AU 58 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/

  • jesbrokenjesbroken Posts: 10,610 ✭✭✭✭✭

    I agree, 58 no issues from photo.
    Jim


    When a man who is honestly mistaken hears the truth, he will either quit being mistaken or cease to be honest....Abraham Lincoln

    Patriotism is supporting your country all the time, and your government when it deserves it.....Mark Twain
  • Steven59Steven59 Posts: 10,052 ✭✭✭✭✭

    Great looking AU Walker.

    "When they can't find anything wrong with you, they create it!"

  • pcgsregistrycollectorpcgsregistrycollector Posts: 1,486 ✭✭✭✭✭

    I would say that it looks AU-58+. Great date and coin however. Consider maybe sending to CAC?

    God comes first in everything I do. I’m dedicated to serving Him with my whole life. Coin collecting is just a hobby—but even in that, I seek to honor Him. ✝️

  • jgivigljgivigl Posts: 35 ✭

    Does it look like an altered surface?

  • TomBTomB Posts: 22,080 ✭✭✭✭✭

    @jgivigl said:
    Does it look like an altered surface?

    Several of us have written "Looks okay to me..." and "Doesn't appear to have any issues..." and "...no issues from the photo..." and "Great looking..." and "Great date and coin..."

    So, do you think we are writing that it looks like it has altered surfaces?

    Thomas Bush Numismatics & Numismatic Photography

    In honor of the memory of Cpl. Michael E. Thompson

    image
  • jgivigljgivigl Posts: 35 ✭

    I'm just asking if it appears to be an altered surface. I agree it looks to be a AU58+ I just had a coin returned as an altered surface that looked very simular. Not sure how to evaluate a altered surface.

  • jmlanzafjmlanzaf Posts: 36,651 ✭✭✭✭✭

    @jgivigl said:
    It wasn't Cleaned.

    You only know that if you've owned it since 1916.

  • jmlanzafjmlanzaf Posts: 36,651 ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited April 13, 2025 10:27AM

    @jgivigl said:
    I'm just asking if it appears to be an altered surface. I agree it looks to be a AU58+ I just had a coin returned as an altered surface that looked very simular. Not sure how to evaluate a altered surface.

    Can't be 100% sure with those photos. I don't see anything obvious, either market unacceptable cleaning or "altered surface".

  • RelaxnRelaxn Posts: 1,102 ✭✭✭✭✭

    I do not like the obverse... the luster looks muted... I have seen this haze on coins that have been wiped before... the haze is "applied" to cover the wipe... to me I see hairlines above the obverse gouge in the right field.
    The obverse gouge is separate... there is also a potential corrosion mark or improperly rinsed dip spot between the Obverse L and I

    If I am wrong it is AU58... not a chance IMHO at 58+... the gouge...

    ImHO AU details cleaned

    BUT I am reviewing photos and not in hand. In hand it could be gorgeous but if I were presented the coin for purchase, based on those photos, I would pass.

    Nbl
    J

  • MFeldMFeld Posts: 14,884 ✭✭✭✭✭

    My grade guess would be AU58.
    However, looking at the second obverse image, I’m wondering if the vertical scratches I’m seeing in the right obverse field (roughly half way between Liberty’s flag and the rim at 3:00) are evidence of tooling for a spot removal.

    Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.

  • MsMorrisineMsMorrisine Posts: 35,908 ✭✭✭✭✭

    i'm at 55 no cac

    Current maintainer of Stone's Master List of Favorite Websites // My BST transactions
  • MaywoodMaywood Posts: 2,876 ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited April 13, 2025 2:10PM

    If no clear luster breaks then MS63.

    "Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety," --- Benjamin Franklin

  • MFeldMFeld Posts: 14,884 ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited April 13, 2025 2:49PM

    @jesbroken said:
    I agree, 58 no issues from photo.
    Jim

    I’m curious, what did you find so funny about my below-copied post, that you awarded it a “LOL” ?

    “My grade guess would be AU58.
    However, looking at the second obverse image, I’m wondering if the vertical scratches I’m seeing in the right obverse field (roughly half way between Liberty’s flag and the rim at 3:00) are evidence of tooling for a spot removal.”

    Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.

  • coinkatcoinkat Posts: 23,848 ✭✭✭✭✭

    I share the concern expressed by MFeld. And expressing that concern is addressing the question raised by the OP

    Experience the World through Numismatics...it's more than you can imagine.

  • jgivigljgivigl Posts: 35 ✭

    The other coin I had returned as altered suface has similar vertical scratches on the obverse.

  • jesbrokenjesbroken Posts: 10,610 ✭✭✭✭✭

    @MFeld
    Unintentional. Only lol was for jmlanzaf's not cleaned remark. Should have hit like. Fat fingered it.
    Jim


    When a man who is honestly mistaken hears the truth, he will either quit being mistaken or cease to be honest....Abraham Lincoln

    Patriotism is supporting your country all the time, and your government when it deserves it.....Mark Twain
  • MFeldMFeld Posts: 14,884 ✭✭✭✭✭

    @jesbroken said:
    @MFeld
    Unintentional. Only lol was for jmlanzaf's not cleaned remark. Should have hit like. Fat fingered it.
    Jim

    Jim, thank you for clearing up my befuddlement.

    Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.

  • jesbrokenjesbroken Posts: 10,610 ✭✭✭✭✭

    Sorry to be a befuddler.
    Jim


    When a man who is honestly mistaken hears the truth, he will either quit being mistaken or cease to be honest....Abraham Lincoln

    Patriotism is supporting your country all the time, and your government when it deserves it.....Mark Twain
  • 7Jaguars7Jaguars Posts: 7,744 ✭✭✭✭✭

    @MFeld said:
    My grade guess would be AU58.
    However, looking at the second obverse image, I’m wondering if the vertical scratches I’m seeing in the right obverse field (roughly half way between Liberty’s flag and the rim at 3:00) are evidence of tooling for a spot removal.

    Hmmm, could be my eyes, but those "scratches" look to be in relief.... I was going to go 58 as even if flatly struck the flat surfaces not struck up are not what I would like in an unc. grade.

    Love that Milled British (1830-1960)
    Well, just Love coins, period.
  • jgivigljgivigl Posts: 35 ✭

    Thanks for all the input. I'm going to sent it out for grading. I'll post the results.

  • PeakRaritiesPeakRarities Posts: 4,563 ✭✭✭✭✭

    The touch of patina retained within the date makes me lean towards a possible light cleaning, but I agree there’s just something that’s a bit off with the surfaces. That and possible tooling aside, looks market acceptable and should grade at least 58, even if they decided to net it down for some small issue.

    Founder- Peak Rarities
    Website
    Instagram
    Facebook

  • jesbrokenjesbroken Posts: 10,610 ✭✭✭✭✭

    Regardless, I like it as a 58. Let us know how it grades.
    jim


    When a man who is honestly mistaken hears the truth, he will either quit being mistaken or cease to be honest....Abraham Lincoln

    Patriotism is supporting your country all the time, and your government when it deserves it.....Mark Twain
  • braddickbraddick Posts: 24,820 ✭✭✭✭✭

    I like it overall, especially so the reverse.
    I'd venture if there are any tiny imperfections PCGS sees in hand, AU55.

    peacockcoins

  • orevilleoreville Posts: 12,148 ✭✭✭✭✭

    The reverse more extensive wear has me thinking AU-55. Borderline details grade.

    A Collectors Universe poster since 1997!
  • jgivigljgivigl Posts: 35 ✭

    This coin is out for grading. I'll post the results. could take a while, use free grading voucher.

  • jgivigljgivigl Posts: 35 ✭

    PCGS grade - Genuine - UNC Details (92 - Cleaned)

  • seatedlib3991seatedlib3991 Posts: 1,158 ✭✭✭✭✭

    @jgivigl . Looks like Walkerguy21D really knows his Walkers. If this series is something you intend to pursue in the future I would seek his imput in the future. Still a very nice coin and well worth owning. James

  • MFeldMFeld Posts: 14,884 ✭✭✭✭✭

    @seatedlib3991 said:
    @jgivigl . Looks like Walkerguy21D really knows his Walkers. If this series is something you intend to pursue in the future I would seek his imput in the future. Still a very nice coin and well worth owning. James

    With no disrespect, whatsoever, to @Walkerguy#1D, his reply was:
    “Possibly cleaned but probably market acceptable, likely AU 58.”

    The majority of the guesses were AU58 or 58+ and four posters mentioned possible cleaning, altered surfaces or tooling.

    Only one poster even mentioned an unc. grade, as follows:
    “If no clear luster breaks then MS63.”

    Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.

  • Walkerguy21DWalkerguy21D Posts: 11,715 ✭✭✭✭✭

    @MFeld said:

    @seatedlib3991 said:
    @jgivigl . Looks like Walkerguy21D really knows his Walkers. If this series is something you intend to pursue in the future I would seek his imput in the future. Still a very nice coin and well worth owning. James

    With no disrespect, whatsoever, to @Walkerguy#1D, his reply was:
    “Possibly cleaned but probably market acceptable, likely AU 58.”

    The majority of the guesses were AU58 or 58+ and four posters mentioned possible cleaning, altered surfaces or tooling.

    Only one poster even mentioned an unc. grade, as follows:
    “If no clear luster breaks then MS63.”

    Yes, I appreciate the shout out, but many of us were in the ballpark.
    And I still think it looks to be AU58, with high point rub and luster breaks. But the pros saw it in hand and deemed it Unc.

    Successful BST transactions with 171 members. Ebeneezer, Tonedeaf, Shane6596, Piano1, Ikenefic, RG, PCGSPhoto, stman, Don'tTelltheWife, Boosibri, Ron1968, snowequities, VTchaser, jrt103, SurfinxHI, 78saen, bp777, FHC, RYK, JTHawaii, Opportunity, Kliao, bigtime36, skanderbeg, split37, thebigeng, acloco, Toninginthblood, OKCC, braddick, Coinflip, robcool, fastfreddie, tightbudget, DBSTrader2, nickelsciolist, relaxn, Eagle eye, soldi, silverman68, ElKevvo, sawyerjosh, Schmitz7, talkingwalnut2, konsole, sharkman987, sniocsu, comma, jesbroken, David1234, biosolar, Sullykerry, Moldnut, erwindoc, MichaelDixon, GotTheBug
  • MFeldMFeld Posts: 14,884 ✭✭✭✭✭

    @Walkerguy21D said:

    @MFeld said:

    @seatedlib3991 said:
    @jgivigl . Looks like Walkerguy21D really knows his Walkers. If this series is something you intend to pursue in the future I would seek his imput in the future. Still a very nice coin and well worth owning. James

    With no disrespect, whatsoever, to @Walkerguy#1D, his reply was:
    “Possibly cleaned but probably market acceptable, likely AU 58.”

    The majority of the guesses were AU58 or 58+ and four posters mentioned possible cleaning, altered surfaces or tooling.

    Only one poster even mentioned an unc. grade, as follows:
    “If no clear luster breaks then MS63.”

    Yes, I appreciate the shout out, but many of us were in the ballpark.
    And I still think it looks to be AU58, with high point rub and luster breaks. But the pros saw it in hand and deemed it Unc.

    The coin looks that way to me, also. But perhaps if we were to see it in hand, we’d think it was obviously cleaned.

    Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.

  • Walkerguy21DWalkerguy21D Posts: 11,715 ✭✭✭✭✭

    @MFeld said:

    @Walkerguy21D said:

    @MFeld said:

    @seatedlib3991 said:
    @jgivigl . Looks like Walkerguy21D really knows his Walkers. If this series is something you intend to pursue in the future I would seek his imput in the future. Still a very nice coin and well worth owning. James

    With no disrespect, whatsoever, to @Walkerguy#1D, his reply was:
    “Possibly cleaned but probably market acceptable, likely AU 58.”

    The majority of the guesses were AU58 or 58+ and four posters mentioned possible cleaning, altered surfaces or tooling.

    Only one poster even mentioned an unc. grade, as follows:
    “If no clear luster breaks then MS63.”

    Yes, I appreciate the shout out, but many of us were in the ballpark.
    And I still think it looks to be AU58, with high point rub and luster breaks. But the pros saw it in hand and deemed it Unc.

    The coin looks that way to me, also. But perhaps if we were to see it in hand, we’d think it was obviously cleaned.

    Yes, sorry, I believe it’s cleaned also, though not sure how severe; my argument with PCGS is with their MS call.

    Successful BST transactions with 171 members. Ebeneezer, Tonedeaf, Shane6596, Piano1, Ikenefic, RG, PCGSPhoto, stman, Don'tTelltheWife, Boosibri, Ron1968, snowequities, VTchaser, jrt103, SurfinxHI, 78saen, bp777, FHC, RYK, JTHawaii, Opportunity, Kliao, bigtime36, skanderbeg, split37, thebigeng, acloco, Toninginthblood, OKCC, braddick, Coinflip, robcool, fastfreddie, tightbudget, DBSTrader2, nickelsciolist, relaxn, Eagle eye, soldi, silverman68, ElKevvo, sawyerjosh, Schmitz7, talkingwalnut2, konsole, sharkman987, sniocsu, comma, jesbroken, David1234, biosolar, Sullykerry, Moldnut, erwindoc, MichaelDixon, GotTheBug
  • MFeldMFeld Posts: 14,884 ✭✭✭✭✭

    @Walkerguy21D said:

    @MFeld said:

    @Walkerguy21D said:

    @MFeld said:

    @seatedlib3991 said:
    @jgivigl . Looks like Walkerguy21D really knows his Walkers. If this series is something you intend to pursue in the future I would seek his imput in the future. Still a very nice coin and well worth owning. James

    With no disrespect, whatsoever, to @Walkerguy#1D, his reply was:
    “Possibly cleaned but probably market acceptable, likely AU 58.”

    The majority of the guesses were AU58 or 58+ and four posters mentioned possible cleaning, altered surfaces or tooling.

    Only one poster even mentioned an unc. grade, as follows:
    “If no clear luster breaks then MS63.”

    Yes, I appreciate the shout out, but many of us were in the ballpark.
    And I still think it looks to be AU58, with high point rub and luster breaks. But the pros saw it in hand and deemed it Unc.

    The coin looks that way to me, also. But perhaps if we were to see it in hand, we’d think it was obviously cleaned.

    Yes, sorry, I believe it’s cleaned also, though not sure how severe; my argument with PCGS is with their MS call.

    Thanks.

    Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.

Leave a Comment

BoldItalicStrikethroughOrdered listUnordered list
Format
SpoilerCodeQuote
Heading 2Heading 1
Emoji
:):D:(;):/:o:s:p:'(:|B):#:*<3o:)>:)
Url
Image
Align leftAlign centerAlign rightToggle HTML viewToggle full pageToggle lights
Drop image/file
Home • U.S. Coin ForumComment As ...