POLL: Is this 1936 proof Walker artificially toned or naturally toned?

Russ · July 16, 2004 8:31AM

Russ, NCNE

K6AZ · July 16, 2004 8:36AM

Either the image or the coin is cooked, and I can't really be sure. I voted for cooked.

Stuart · July 16, 2004 8:39AM

Russ: I voted for artificially toned -- but it's still a beautiful coin!!

SethChandler · July 16, 2004 8:44AM

Russ,

Now THAT is a hydrochlorophilious baked potato in the oven at 375 degrees for 45 minutes special.

Seth

rainbowroosie · July 16, 2004 9:09AM

Scan looks too bright, but the coin looks real toning to me....

eagle7 · July 16, 2004 9:13AM

Who really knows? The graders never know for sure, nor do we. Only the shadow knows, and right now he aint talkin!

BigMoose · July 16, 2004 9:17AM

I vote NT and I suspect it is in a PCGS or NGC holder.

oldcameoproofsguy · July 16, 2004 9:19AM

I'd say it looks AT from the scan. I've just never seen yellows that vivid before on a NT Walker. Usually the yellows are more subdued. If there was some brightness and contrast levels adjusted on the image, then perhaps sight seen the yellows don't look as "radioactive." Either way, if it is NT, then WOW, what a toner!

coinfreak499 · July 16, 2004 9:37AM

If it's AT i have to admit they did a good job. (in a bad way but you know what I mean)

ultradmpldollars · July 16, 2004 9:48AM

NT, probably in a PCGS or NGC holder....

dan1ecu · July 16, 2004 9:49AM

I'll go with NT. Interesting piece!

Russ · July 16, 2004 9:51AM

Ooh, cooked started out way ahead and now it's a dead heat at 11 - 11.

Russ, NCNE

Monstavet · July 16, 2004 9:52AM

I think NT, and image played with to enhance colors.

coinguy1 · July 16, 2004 9:52AM

My guess is that it's naturally toned BUT, that the images are misleading (not true to life) so that it APPEARS to be AT.

If the images are accurate, I vote AT - the colors are wrong for a Proof Walker.

Baley · July 16, 2004 9:53AM

on a scale where a score of 0 (zero) is completely AT and 100 is completely NT, I give the appearance of this coin about 75% (mostly NT but still a little questionable, as in might have been enhanced or accelerated, difficult to tell. I DO think the image has been significantly enhanced)

Cherwood · July 16, 2004 9:53AM

Looking at these answers I'd say it's hard to tell. I mean how can a grader know for SURE if a coin is AT???

stujoe · July 16, 2004 9:54AM

I thought the same thing...the coin looks NT but the picture looks AT.

khayse · July 16, 2004 9:58AM

>I thought the same thing...the coin looks NT but the picture looks AT

Does that mean you've seen the coin in person?

-KHayse

puff · July 16, 2004 9:59AM

I vote that it's NT but the image is misleading...... Sort of has some semblence to my PCGS ms68 from the GBW collection here.

SportsModerator · July 16, 2004 10:05AM

AT

stujoe · July 16, 2004 10:11AM

<< <i>>I thought the same thing...the coin looks NT but the picture looks AT

Does that mean you've seen the coin in person?

-KHayse >>

Nope.

flyingcougar13 · July 16, 2004 10:16AM

Russ, that's more than a great looking coin! I'll take it either way, but I vote NT. If it's AT that's a good doctor!

Keith

coinkat · July 16, 2004 11:18AM

I didn't vote... I need to see it in person.

Russ · July 16, 2004 11:30AM

And, the answer is: It's a PCGS PR67. It's a scan of the dust jacket of the book United States Proof Sets and Mint Sets, (1936-2002) by Bill Gale and Ronald Guth. Just got the book in today.

Russ, NCNE

airplanenut · July 16, 2004 11:38AM

I think the toning is fake, but I think the big dogs would deem it market acceptable.

nankraut · July 16, 2004 1:56PM

I wimped out and read everybody else's opinion because I had no idea about the toning. But...this is a very nice post, Russ.

dragon · July 16, 2004 2:16PM

I think the pic is 'off', but it looks ok to me.

airplanenut, There's no such term as market acceptable.

dragon

zenny · July 16, 2004 2:56PM

<< <i>

airplanenut, There's no such term as market acceptable.

dragon >>

i suggest that there's actually no such term as "no such term."

Myqqy · July 16, 2004 3:21PM

So Russ, is this scan of yours very close to the color of the photo on the dust jacket?? It seems very hard to believe that such radioactive yellows could be NT....

Trime · July 16, 2004 3:35PM

The coin actually meets some of the criteria for NT offered by Bob Campbell at the ANA Summer Seminar. Colors merge from yellow, magenta, blue/green; tone covers the lettering but the third point of sparing the rim in NT is not present in photo.

canadiancoinguy · July 16, 2004 4:19PM

Looks a bit too funky to be NT, so I'll go with AT

ms70 · July 16, 2004 9:11PM

I still say AT. PCGS bags NT's so it's logical that some AT's made it into their slabs.

sinin1 · November 24, 2008 10:57AM

where's the option for juiced picture which does not look like coin?

pennyannie · November 24, 2008 11:21AM

The story has been told, but i was going to vote NT. When i saw manofcoins said NT that sealed the deal for me. I like the coin

Prethen · November 24, 2008 11:39AM

If I was a professional grader, I'd be on the fence but would have to body bag it as AT. I can't believe that some moron would AT a coin like this, though.

BlindedByEgo · November 24, 2008 12:11PM

Wow... Old thread.

options26 · November 24, 2008 12:14PM

Very old, I almost freaked when I saw Mark Feld post until I saw the date.

UtahCoin · November 24, 2008 12:18PM

I think NT, but a juiced pic.

POLL: Is this 1936 proof Walker artificially toned or naturally toned?

Comments

Leave a Comment