Proof Walkers, original vs dipped discussion
veryfine
Posts: 1,763 ✭✭✭
I've always wanted one example of a 1936-1942 proof walking liberty half. They are relatively scarce, yet readily available in most attractive grades.
I see countless examples exhibiting the usual dull haze, typical of an "original" proof from that period. I also see plenty of untoned, fully brilliant coins with deep mirrors. Given the type of mint packaging from that period, an original coin should depict some haze, or if placed in an album, some degree of toning.
I do not like dipped white coins, but in this case, I have two choices; ugly original or gorgeous dipped. Perhaps some light haze with good mirrors is the way to go, but they are spectacular looking coins when fully reflective and white.
Knowing that I do not like dipped mint state coins, should I make an exception when it comes to proof Walking Liberty Halves and Mercury dimes? Yes, I realize that "only I can answer this", but as always, your input is appreciated.
I see countless examples exhibiting the usual dull haze, typical of an "original" proof from that period. I also see plenty of untoned, fully brilliant coins with deep mirrors. Given the type of mint packaging from that period, an original coin should depict some haze, or if placed in an album, some degree of toning.
I do not like dipped white coins, but in this case, I have two choices; ugly original or gorgeous dipped. Perhaps some light haze with good mirrors is the way to go, but they are spectacular looking coins when fully reflective and white.
Knowing that I do not like dipped mint state coins, should I make an exception when it comes to proof Walking Liberty Halves and Mercury dimes? Yes, I realize that "only I can answer this", but as always, your input is appreciated.
0
Comments
-Paul
My vote is original.
100% Positive BST transactions
<< <i>...I do not like dipped white coins, but in this case, I have two choices; ugly original or gorgeous dipped. Perhaps some light haze with good mirrors is the way to go, but they are spectacular looking coins when fully reflective and white..... >>
No, you have three choices. Why not hold out for an attractive (as opposed to ugly) original example? There are a fair number of them available, from time to time.
<< <i>
<< <i>...I do not like dipped white coins, but in this case, I have two choices; ugly original or gorgeous dipped. Perhaps some light haze with good mirrors is the way to go, but they are spectacular looking coins when fully reflective and white..... >>
No, you have three choices. Why not hold out for an attractive (as opposed to ugly) original example? There are a fair number of them available, from time to time. >>
Yes, some are "attractive" originals, but do they even remotely compare to the flash and beauty associated with untoned specimens? After all, they are proofs, not only known for the manufacturing method, but also cherished for their reflective surfaces. Even the slightest haze degrades their eye-appeal.
Still, your point is well taken; a fair balance between originality and eye-appeal.
<< <i>Your assessment is dead on. Original Proof Mercs and Walkers are usually very hazy and unattractive. Dipped white coins are gorgeous and flashy. The market prefers the dipped coins.
-Paul >>
A lot of dipped coins from this era show the little ridges that come from the practice, but not all of them do. If the coin shows no ill effects from the dipping, what difference does it make? The haze comes off quite easily in most cases. And I can tell you as a dealer that the pieces with haze that are in slabs are very hard to sell.
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>...I do not like dipped white coins, but in this case, I have two choices; ugly original or gorgeous dipped. Perhaps some light haze with good mirrors is the way to go, but they are spectacular looking coins when fully reflective and white..... >>
No, you have three choices. Why not hold out for an attractive (as opposed to ugly) original example? There are a fair number of them available, from time to time. >>
Yes, some are "attractive" originals, but do they even remotely compare to the flash and beauty associated with untoned specimens? After all, they are proofs, not only known for the manufacturing method, but also cherished for their reflective surfaces. Even the slightest haze degrades their eye-appeal.
Still, your point is well taken; a fair balance between originality and eye-appeal. >>
Here's a Proof 66 I sold some time ago. From what I recall, the mirrors were quite deep and the eye-appeal, excellent, to my eyes.
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>...I do not like dipped white coins, but in this case, I have two choices; ugly original or gorgeous dipped. Perhaps some light haze with good mirrors is the way to go, but they are spectacular looking coins when fully reflective and white..... >>
No, you have three choices. Why not hold out for an attractive (as opposed to ugly) original example? There are a fair number of them available, from time to time. >>
Yes, some are "attractive" originals, but do they even remotely compare to the flash and beauty associated with untoned specimens? After all, they are proofs, not only known for the manufacturing method, but also cherished for their reflective surfaces. Even the slightest haze degrades their eye-appeal.
Still, your point is well taken; a fair balance between originality and eye-appeal. >>
Here's a Proof 66 I sold some time ago. From what I recall, the mirrors were quite deep and the eye-appeal, excellent, to my eyes.
Very nice!
In honor of the memory of Cpl. Michael E. Thompson