I want to buy a 1936 PF 65 Walking Liberty Half Dollar

[MikeKing]

What should I look for, and what should I avoid, considering the amount of money I 'd have to spend?

 

 

[Schatzy]

Good Luck!!

[supertooth]

Mike----- Well, I guess my main concern would be "hairlines". Try to buy something that has the fewest hairlines.

 

Folks sort of think that a 65 coin should NOT have them. But, in reality, until you get to the even higher grades, you DO have them.

 

My next worry would be if the coin has been fooled with in some way?? After all, the 1936 coin is the hardest and most expensive of these proof Walkers. Can you tell if a proof has been altered??

 

In all seriousness, I would buy a nice 67 in one of the later years. And then study that coin with a fine tooth comb----before I ventured out looking for a 1936 coin. Again, there are many more things that I could say here, but I'll leave it at that.

 

Before buying----I'd have a person like Mark Feld check it out for you. And certainly WOULD NOT take any seller's word on the coin without a second or third opinion. Remember, with this coin or the 19D, you will be spending many thousands of bucks. The insert IS NOT to be trusted alone. Use it only as a guideline. Bob

[jesbroken]

Mike,

Collector's Corner has a dealer that lists a 1936 PF64 Walker and also has a PF65, but it is in 1936 proof set all PF65. FYI

Jim

 

Collector's Corne

[Coindude]

Mike, if you can find one that has decent cameo contrast... which I have seen a few listed, that would really be nice. I don't think you'll have too much a problem finding a 65, but of course you know well you'll have to loosen the purse strings. The sun will prevent most of those coins from getting a cameo designation. I'm not even sure if there have been any designated cameo? Any help there? Or maybe I'm thinking of only the later dates that have cameo contrast? Pretty sure I've seen a few 36's.

[MarkFeld]

Mike, if you can find one that has decent cameo contrast... which I have seen a few listed, that would really be nice. I don't think you'll have too much a problem finding a 65, but of course you know well you'll have to loosen the purse strings. The sun will prevent most of those coins from getting a cameo designation. I'm not even sure if there have been any designated cameo? Any help there? Or maybe I'm thinking of only the later dates that have cameo contrast? Pretty sure I've seen a few 36's.

I don't recall seeing any 1936's with any notable cameo contrast.

 

In addition to avoiding examples with easily/quickly discernible hairlines, I'd also suggest avoiding those with splotchy surfaces and/or haze that is uneven and/or obscures the mirror surfaces. The aforementioned characteristics appear on a large number of the existing population.

[EZ_E]

As a type collector, I'd much prefer a cheaper date with a higher grade. I like the date 1936, too, since it's my dad's birthyear and the centennial of the Alamo but I'd still not fork out the extra cash and have to settle on appearance because of a budget. Now if cash were running out of your dresser drawers then I'd say go for it. El dos centavos mios.

[James_OldeTowne]

What should I look for, and what should I avoid, considering the amount of money I 'd have to spend?

Funny you should ask, because I have wanted one forever and have studied this issue intently. In my lifetime, I have seen exactly ONE coin that appeared to me to be fully cameo, though it was not designated as such. It's in an NGC holder, but is off the market, and will probably not be seen for a long time. I have my eye on another that's only PF-64 and very PQ, but I'm not telling where it is .

 

Regarding technical qualifications, hairlines and such take a backseat for me. "So what? A 1936 proof coin has hairlines? Gee, what a shock." I say: live with it. Of more importance to me is a minimum of haze and good reflective quality. And, this is one coin I DO NOT want toned, except maybe minimally.

 

For me, the very first PUP (pickup point) for quality is the designer's monogram. Look for a coin with a sharp "AW", because that will imply a coin struck off of dies that hadn't been too worn down by the polishing cloth. This is the litmus test for the reverse. Second, check the vertical lines in Liberty's sandals. If the are also sharp, and not oblong, then that satisfies the litmus test for the obverse.

 

Given these two characteristics, personally I would ignore the "numeric" grade, but that's just me.

[Coindude]

For me, the very first PUP (pickup point) for quality is the designer's monogram. Look for a coin with a sharp "AW", because that will imply a coin struck off of dies that hadn't been too worn down by the polishing cloth. This is the litmus test for the reverse. Second, check the vertical lines in Liberty's sandals. If the are also sharp, and not oblong, then that satisfies the litmus test for the obverse.

Great insight there James!

[michael]

well most important 8information has alreadyh been said

 

but..............

 

i want a coin that is deeply mirrored and some have slight cameo SLIGHT caMEO CONTRAST NOT necessary to get but it would be a nice bonus

 

i want a coin that is sharply struck and you might see a walker proof 36 in a proof 64 holder that everyone swares that the coin is really proof 65 or 66 well if you look at it and it is a technical 65++ then it might be downgraded marketgraded to proof 64 for this reason and i have seen this many times with proof merc doimes and proof brilliant buffs and of course walkers

 

so get a coin that has a great strike in other words 100% full

 

also get acoin that has not been dipped to death and of copurse non hazy or cloudy mirrors and no spots even ghost spots pass

 

and of course with all the above it should then have above average eye appeal

 

can you find this with a proof 64 36 walker ?? well itwill be really hard

 

good luck but make sure you buy something as per the above and alos it has to knock you out eye appeal wise also

 

if you find it let me know but it will be like looking for a needle in a haystack but they are out there

 

you might be getlucky ND OF COURSE BY REALLY LOOKING YOU MIGHT MAKE YOUR own luck

 

keep me informed

 

 

 

 

[James_OldeTowne]

Here is a perfect example of one that I would not buy!

[jackson64]

I agree with what both Mark and Michael said....for the Walker proofs I own, the hazy/splotchy milky thing ( which is common for these coins-maybe the mint packaging?) is what I avoid first..then I go from there

[Connecticoin]

Here is a perfect example of one that I would not buy!

 

Wow, that coin is indeed hideous. Looks like it re-toned from a bad dip.

[dean1345]

NGC has graded 1247 of the 1936 Proof Walkers with none receiving the Cam designation. There were 2 of the 1938 and 2 of the 1942 Proof Walkers that did receive the Cam designation.

[James_OldeTowne]

NGC has graded 1247 of the 1936 Proof Walkers with none receiving the Cam designation.

The key here is NGC's "star" designation. If memory serves correct, there is at least one 1936 sitting out there with a "star" on the holder, and it's because of a full cameo obverse.

[dean1345]

NGC has graded 1247 of the 1936 Proof Walkers with none receiving the Cam designation.

The key here is NGC's "star" designation. If memory serves correct, there is at least one 1936 sitting out there with a "star" on the holder, and it's because of a full cameo obverse.

 

There are 20 of the 1936 Proof Walkers that have received the star designation.

[MikeKing]

I think I want one of those...

[MikeKing]

I really appreciate all this advice. It's so great to be able to share information like this on the internet.

 

I had an PCGS PF66 1953 Franklin once. It had a small patch of hairlines in the obverse field that likely occured because someone must have rubbed off a spot. I didn't know enough about coins then to reject it. My question is, to anyone who can answer this, in terms of grade, what is the difference technically between a PF66 and PR67 1936 Walker? Is it worth the price increase to buy a 67?

 

 

[MarkFeld]

I really appreciate all this advice. It's so great to be able to share information like this on the internet.

 

I had an PCGS PF66 1953 Franklin once. It had a small patch of hairlines in the obverse field that likely occured because someone must have rubbed off a spot. I didn't know enough about coins then to reject it. My question is, to anyone who can answer this, in terms of grade, what is the difference technically between a PF66 and PR67 1936 Walker? Is it worth the price increase to buy a 67?

 

Mike, your first question above begs for a specific answer that can't be given unless/until a particular coin is being discussed. Generally speaking, however, the differences in various grades for Proof coins of that type (regardless of date), are usually a matter of the degree of hairlines and/or splotches and/or film/haze. A PR67 is quite expensive and I would strongly recommend that you buy a PR65 or a PR66 for a LOT less money, instead.

[James_OldeTowne]

I really appreciate all this advice. It's so great to be able to share information like this on the internet.

 

I had an PCGS PF66 1953 Franklin once. It had a small patch of hairlines in the obverse field that likely occured because someone must have rubbed off a spot. I didn't know enough about coins then to reject it. My question is, to anyone who can answer this, in terms of grade, what is the difference technically between a PF66 and PR67 1936 Walker? Is it worth the price increase to buy a 67?

The problem with proof coins of almost any type above PF-65 is that the grade is most likely determined by a couple hairlines one way or the other (fewer at the higher grades, obviously). But when the coin is slabbed, I have found it about impossible to determine whether the PF-67 truly has fewer hairlines than the PF-65 because the mirrored surfaces reflect and exaggerate every flaw in and on the slab! So for me, I absolutely will not pay a big premium for any proof coin in an ultra-high grade. Until encapsulation technology takes us the point that the slabs are as clear as glass, it is not worth it.

 

Basically, you can't realistically tell the difference between PF-66 and PF-67 in a slab, so why dole out a huge premium? Of course, many issues don't have a huge premium for the extra point (think common proofs), so it's no big deal. But on a 1936 half? I'd estimate PF-65 = $4000, PF-66 = $5000, and PF-67 = $10,000. Doubling the price for surfaces whose pristine quality I can't confirm through the slab is not worth it to me.

 

In those cases where a downgrade (say from 67 to 65) was due to carbon spots, that's something I would jump on, because carbon spots are not a negative to me. Their provide assurance as to some level of original quality. I know proofs are also downgrade for planchet flaws and dings, but these are "character flaws" easily determined through a slab - hairlines are not.

 

As an aside, when I finally do get my 1936 proof - and I expect it to be this year - I won't be able to crack it out fast enough. It'll proudly rest in my Dansco album, and it will not be sold again for a very long time.

[supertooth]

Mike---- I see that we have finally gotten back to the "hairline" issue.

 

Somewhere in the back of my mind----somewhere in one of the books---there is a statement that says that only when you arrive at the proof grade of 67 can you expect NOT to find any hairlines on the proof coin. To me that always meant that you could expect to find them on coins graded either a 65 or a 66. It also begs the issue of whether we can depend on whether the PCGS or NGC graders are adhering to that no hairlines for a 67 coin??

 

To be sure---you simply COULD NOT buy a proof 67 Walker coin from looking at a picture. For sure, as James tells you, spending maybe 10,000 for a 1936 coin---well, it seems quite a bit IMHO. And, I would add this. If indeed you do find a nice looking 1936 coin graded a 67 by either PCGS or NGC, does that 67 grade guarantee that the coin hasn't been fooled with?? In other words, do you believe the insert?? I certainly would want to be certain if my 10 grand were on the line.

 

So, I'll go back to my earlier post comment. Buy a common date in 67---study it with a fine tooth comb. Then, if you want to buy one of the top 10--20 proofs of the 1936 year, you'll have a better feel for your endeavor.

 

But, you will still need an "in hand" inspection of the 1936 coin---with at least two knowledgable "other" opinions----like a Mark Feld---BEFORE you spend the thousands extra for a proof 67---1936 coin. Patience is a virtue when it comes to buying really decent Walkers. Bob [supertooth]

[MarkFeld]

It also begs the issue of whether we can depend on whether the PCGS or NGC graders are adhering to that no hairlines for a 67 coin??

 

I see hairlines on quite a few PR67 type coins (including some Walkers), and occasionally, even on PR68 type coins.

 

Edited to add: By the way, my comments above are nothing new with respect to observing hairlines on high grade Proof type coins. I haven't noticed any recent changes/loosening in grading in that regard.

[James_OldeTowne]

It also begs the issue of whether we can depend on whether the PCGS or NGC graders are adhering to that no hairlines for a 67 coin??

 

I see hairlines on quite a few PR67 type coins (including some Walkers), and occasionally, even on PR68 type coins.

Exactly!!

 

And unfortunately, you often do not see those hairlines while the coin is still in the slab. This is why I took it upon myself a few years ago to buy common slabbed proofs in PF-67, 68 and even 69 (Ikes) to learn about this, and some folks might be quite astonished at the hairlines that appear on coins even in PF-68. I had to crack these coins out to learn the truth about hairlines.

 

(As an aside, I resold all those coins raw on eBay simply described as "gem proof" and lost money on every single one, but that was an education you just can't pay for any other way. It wasn't a big financial loss since I only bought cheap stuff.)

 

This is why I have very mixed emotions about proofs in very high-grade holders. You want that slab because NObody is going to buy your raw proof as PR-68, yet that very same slab prevents you from being able to really "see" the coin to verify the high grade. It's a tough nut to crack.

[supertooth]

Yes, Mark, I'm sure that you have. And, that one "hairline" issue alone is WHY that I "DO NOT" collect higher graded proof Walker coins. For, trying to buy a "PERFECT" coin is pretty tough to do. And, the money is crazy money---as James aptly points out. Years ago, I used to look at such coins. Thank my good sense that I went in another direction. It is really hard to know for certain that you have "REALLY" bought one of the finest in existence.

 

I seem to be running behind both James and Mark. I'd like to add just one thing which a lot of folks just don't seem to know. I found out about hairlines a long time ago now. But, in MOST lighting conditions----like at coin shows---it is hard to pick them up---unless you really know your stuff and you have learned from a lot of experience.

 

I once bought a nice 1879CC Morgan graded out an XF45 for my son. Paid 250 for it. Got it home---there were the hairlines that I DID NOT see at the show. Bought an 1892 CC twenty dollar gold once at a local auction house. I looked that coin over pretty good before the auction. At home, there were those hairlines again. Now, I've done pretty well over the years----But, you better be awful sure for 10,000 bucks. Bob [supertooth]

[MarkFeld]

Yes, Mark, I'm sure that you have. And, that one "hairline" issue alone is WHY that I "DO NOT" collect higher graded proof Walker coins. For, trying to buy a "PERFECT" coin is pretty tough to do. And, the money is crazy money---as James aptly points out. Years ago, I used to look at such coins. Thank my good sense that I went in another direction. It is really hard to know for certain that you have "REALLY" bought one of the finest in existence.

 

I seem to be running behind both James and Mark. I'd like to add just one thing which a lot of folks just don't seem to know. I found out about hairlines a long time ago now. But, in MOST lighting conditions----like at coin shows---it is hard to pick them up---unless you really know your stuff and you have learned from a lot of experience.

 

I once bought a nice 1879CC Morgan graded out an XF45 for my son. Paid 250 for it. Got it home---there were the hairlines that I DID NOT see at the show. Bought an 1892 CC twenty dollar gold once at a local auction house. I looked that coin over pretty good before the auction. At home, there were those hairlines again. Now, I've done pretty well over the years----But, you better be awful sure for 10,000 bucks. Bob [supertooth]

Bob, would you like to share with the forum some information about a particular type of light that can be used to better detect hairlines, as well as cleaning (wheel-marks, etc.)?

[TomB]

In my opinion, hairlines kill the desireability of proof coinage unless they are old and are essentially obscured by original skin. A 1936 WLH is likely to have original skin in the form of light haze, which I do not care for, either, and any hairlines on an otherwise mostly white coin such as that would have me running for the hills.

[supertooth]

Yes, yes, Mark-----I'm glad that I came back to this thread.

 

For years and years, I carried around an old loupe that I bought for just a dollar at a "gun" show. To this day, I use this loupe as a first look at a coin. Very faithfully, I learned about soooooo many things that, as a kid, I knew ABSOLUTELY NOTHING about.

 

I knew, from MUCH reading, that coin folks used a simple "halogen" light. But, after my initial "learning about cleaning problems---and hairlines", I was doing very well. I honestly DID know pretty much what I needed to understand in today's world. So, the halogen lamp wasn't needed---or so I thought.

 

But, then along came those wonderful two sets of Wayte Raymond "original skinned and patina" Walkers that I bought. I knew what they were and bought basically ALL of them from a Carolina seller on Ebay.

 

When I got them all back from NGC, I had one BB out of the whole grouping. It was a 1945 coin in MS65--66. The coin was nicely NT toned---as were many of the others. The BB was marked Wheel mark damage. I had NO idea other than a few reverse marks on the coin.

 

Finally, I sent the coin to Mark. I was happy to say that, at first, he could NOT find them either. But, upon using the "halogen" light, there they were. Now, naturally we were both glad that the problem was solved. The WYNTK thread was a learning experience for a lot of us at that time. In short, thanks to Mark, I now have my "halogen lamp" on my kitchen table. And, I use it quite often. A 25 buck investment that shows up "wheel marks" and "hairlines"----quite well. Stuff that your natural eyesight or a normal loupe----with other lighting---just DOES NOT pick up----even when tilting the coin.

 

So, you guys and gals out there----whenever I talk to folks----and get into explaining my last ten years collecting Walkers---I ALWAYS tell about the "halogen" light. I thanked Mark then and I thank Mark now for his kindness.

 

But, honestly, I found out NOT to collect Walker proofs---40 years ago. I guess that I COULD collect them now----as my educational level is higher on the ladder of knowledge now. But, my interests lie with the MS coinage. Bob [supertooth]

[rons]

Not a 65 but a proof 64 CAC ATS. Perhaps a good starting reference point for you. Good luck

http://forums.collectors.com/messageview.cfm?catid=7&threadid=715155

[Coindude]

I saw that one too Ron, but it's kinda ugly.

[physics-fan3.14]

I saw that one too Ron, but it's kinda ugly.

 

I like the reverse, at least in teh picture. But I agree, the obverse is rather unattractive.