When was this coin minted?

MrEureka · August 9, 2008 7:29AM

LindeDad · August 9, 2008 7:36AM

Tampered date?
That would be fraud wouldn't?

coindeuce · August 9, 2008 7:36AM

WAG - just before it was put into the holder?

drwstr123 · August 9, 2008 7:37AM

Trick question???
LINKY

Rampage · August 9, 2008 7:38AM

1946?

MrEureka · August 9, 2008 8:12AM

1946?

I think that's a good guess.

21Walker · August 9, 2008 8:34AM

Just compared it to my PCGS AU 58 1916 and this one looks ok. The serifs on the 'ones' match. However this coin would be a 55/58 at most..........Rick

Edited to add a photo of a real 16 (with S) for comparison...........

braddick · August 9, 2008 8:40AM

The rim doesn't appear thick enough (1916's have much more thicker rims) and the 6 is more 'curved' than the real 1916's. That could be the way the photo was shot (coin at an angle), but with I believe it is a fake/altered coin.

CertifiedGoldCoins · August 9, 2008 8:52AM

WL's aren't my specialty, but I don't see enough room there for the rest of a "4." However, I think the date on this one (same seller and same self-slabber) looks odd. ???

LINK

MrEureka · August 9, 2008 10:38AM

Anyone have some good pictures of 1916 and 1946 Walkers for comparison?

LindeDad · August 9, 2008 11:09AM

Ok here is a compared dates from PCGS graded coins.

I will add that I think the orginial is just over graded and not tooled the right side of the four is too far to the right in the 1946 coin.

MrHalfDime · August 9, 2008 11:17AM

"I don't see enough room there for the rest of a "4.""

This is certainly not my series, but I agree with CertifiedGoldCoin's comment.

garsmith · August 9, 2008 11:44AM

looks like a 46 to me; who the hecc is NNC?

Broadstruck · August 9, 2008 12:16PM

I love the MS64 Grade on the Circ'D WLH... is this Third World Grading Service still in business and do they have a buyback guaranty

coindeuce · August 9, 2008 12:33PM

On the 1916 WLH, the bottom serif of the 2nd 1 is above the horizontal plane that passes under the bottom of the loop of the 6. On the 1946 WLH, the bottom serif of the 4 touches the border of the rim , and is below the horizontal plane which passes under the bottom of the loop of the 6. Just my observation.

drwstr123 · August 9, 2008 12:37PM

<< <i>On the 1916 WLH, the bottom serif of the 2nd 1 is above the horizontal plane that passes under the bottom of the loop of the 6. On the 1946 WLH, the bottom serif of the 4 touches the border of the rim , and is below the horizontal plane which passes under the bottom of the loop of the 6. Just my observation. >>

BINGO!

MrHalfDime · August 9, 2008 12:46PM

If someone merely shaved off the diagonal and crossbar of the 4 of a 1946, trying to make it look like a 1916, there would be enough room to drive a truck between the 9 and the second 1 of the altered date coin. I do not see that on this NNC piece.

CaptHenway · August 9, 2008 12:49PM

The third digit was removed and completely replaced with a false 1, midway bwetween the 9 and the 6.

rec78 · August 9, 2008 2:38PM

WL's aren't my specialty, but I don't see enough room there for the rest of a "4." However, I think the date on this one (same seller and same self-slabber) looks odd. ???

LINK
The seller has apparently pulled the pictures from this auction but did not cancel the auction. All i see is a red x

CertifiedGoldCoins · August 9, 2008 5:34PM

<< <i>LINK
The seller has apparently pulled the pictures from this auction but did not cancel the auction. All i see is a red x >>

Here's the reason none of his images is showing:

Bandwidth Limit Exceeded
The server is temporarily unable to service your request due to the site owner reaching his/her bandwidth limit. Please try again later.
Apache/1.3.37 Server at forevercoins.com Port 80

pb2y · August 9, 2008 8:25PM

1945 - 1916

MrHalfDime · August 9, 2008 10:58PM

"The third digit was removed and completely replaced with a false 1, midway bwetween the 9 and the 6."

Now that makes sense to me.

rec78 · August 16, 2008 5:11PM

Bump.
The pics are back and it is currently at $408 with about 17 hours to go. This is the type of coin that a buyer may just salt away without knowing the truth,thinking that they got a good buy. The buyer may not find out for years until he tries to sell it. However, it probably appears to be a genuine 1916 to a novice and may even fool a few experienced dealers at first glance. This coin is dangerous. JMO. Bob

Batman23 · August 16, 2008 6:17PM

<< <i>Ok here is a compared dates from PCGS graded coins.

I will add that I think the orginial is just over graded and not tooled the right side of the four is too far to the right in the 1946 coin. >>

I would agree with this statement. Here is the suspect NNC for comparison.

The first one starts at the toe. The nine ends about center of the toe. The second 1 on the 1916 is well inside the heel where as the 4 lines up with the edge of the heel. The left edge of the 1916's 6 is almost even with the edge of the heel. The left edge of the 1946's 6 is well to the right of the heel. The 6 of the 1916 is rounder like the suspect NNC. The 6 of the 1946 is a little more squat.

I just do not see what you are seeing. I know very little about this series and although it is obviously not a 64 it would obviously fool me

I would like to know what is telling you this is a fake.

Coxe · August 16, 2008 7:23PM

Looks genuine to me, though these are not my specialty.

Also, were the last two date digits independently punched into the working dies and, if so, how many such obverse dies were used n 1916? Have they been catalogued?

TwoSides2aCoin · August 16, 2008 7:38PM

NNC
Numbers Now Changed ?

From the looks of that 6, it was minted in 1916, btw. (my opinion).

When was this coin minted?

Comments

Leave a Comment