1942 walker.....What is your guess?

[KMAG100]

What do you think this one grades in at?

 

 

[wdrob]

 

From the photos the fields look clean as can be. I only see a couple of miniscule marks on the gown and strike looks a bit above average. The reverse does not even matter.

 

I say MS66+

 

 

[KMAG100]

I guess my next question is this enough to be considered DD? The example I saw on Coin explorer did not look that much more exaggerated then this one.

 

[coinman_23885]

67

[wdrob]

 

It certainly looks as though it is a good candidate to me from comparison to the examples in Variety Plus.

 

Would probably need a better close up to know for sure, however there are a few here that can probably tell for certain just from those photos.

 

 

[$ilverHawk]

From the photos the fields look clean as can be. I only see a couple of miniscule marks on the gown and strike looks a bit above average. The reverse does not even matter.

 

I say MS66+

 

 

The Reverse always matters when judging gem + coins. Concerning WLH s the Eagles right leg, breast, left and right wing feather definition is a focal area.

 

I believe PCGS graded this Walker MS67. No DDO.

 

Sweet Walker.

 

Carl

[Tyler N.]

Very clean Walker. I have no doubt it's a 67.

[jpcienkus]

I'll say MS67. Beautiful coin.

[Raisethis2]

One of the prettier coins I've seen in the series. It SHOULD be a 66+. MS 67 is reserved for a near perfect coin. They are incredibly harsh on these IMO.

 

I'm at MS 66+.

[gonnamissme]

66

[AHFreak]

I am surprised so many of you are saying that it is a "for sure or no doubt" MS67... not because I don't think it is, but because I cant see any indication of above average luster, or eye appeal based on those photos.. which is what a legit MS67 is going to have. To get a 67, you are going to be looking at a coin that has a solid strike first of all, virtually total surface preservation, meaning next to no contact marks, scratches, dings, marks, etc... it will also need to have that blinding luster that we all go bonkers over when we see..... Am I missing something by looking at those pics? I wouldn't say that luster isn't there, but I certainly cant see it in the photos.

 

That said, I would agree that it is clean, well preserved, solid strike... I call it a MS66

 

Edited to add: after looking again, it looks like there are as many if not more guesses of 66 or 66+ than 67.. so I take it back.. mostly;)

[Raisethis2]

The photo's appear to have been created using diffused light. The coin I'm sure has enormous "pop" and booming luster but it's softened by the photography used.

 

 

[johnny9434]

ms 66

[Tyler N.]

I am surprised so many of you are saying that it is a "for sure or no doubt" MS67... not because I don't think it is, but because I cant see any indication of above average luster, or eye appeal based on those photos.. which is what a legit MS67 is going to have. To get a 67, you are going to be looking at a coin that has a solid strike first of all, virtually total surface preservation, meaning next to no contact marks, scratches, dings, marks, etc... it will also need to have that blinding luster that we all go bonkers over when we see..... Am I missing something by looking at those pics? I wouldn't say that luster isn't there, but I certainly cant see it in the photos.

 

That said, I would agree that it is clean, well preserved, solid strike... I call it a MS66

 

Edited to add: after looking again, it looks like there are as many if not more guesses of 66 or 66+ than 67.. so I take it back.. mostly;)

 

Looking at the coin again, I will say 66. The first time I looked I was on my iPhone and didn't notice anything wrong with it. The hit on Liberty's leg is pretty significant. Also, there looks to be a small luster break in the obverse field.

 

I apologize for stating "no doubt" or whatever I said. It looked a little bit better on the iPhone.

[brg5658]

I like that coin as an MS66.

[coinman_23885]

The photo's appear to have been created using diffused light. The coin I'm sure has enormous "pop" and booming luster but it's softened by the photography used.

 

 

+1

 

And for whatever it is worth OP, I stick by MS67.

[KMAG100]

I guess my next question is this enough to be considered DD? The example I saw on Coin explorer did not look that much more exaggerated then this one.

 

 

Anybody wanting to comment on the above? Thanks for everyone's participation. Picture's can make it difficult, but I am really happy with the purchase, and I'll show grade a little later. I would really like to get people opinion on the DD.

[physics-fan3.14]

66+

[Raybo55]

66+

 

 

This /\

[Afterword]

MS 66.

[KMAG100]

Thanks to everyone that offered their opinion on the coin. I was mostly interested in knowing what the board thought of the coin with respect to inside its grade(how it compared in class). However, I was not sure if I would have set a bias if I displayed the grade originally. After all the comments I kind of sense the board thinks it is strong representation for it's grade at MS 66, which makes me feel good, and confirms my thoughts of the coin when I first saw it. Funny thing is there was not one comment that I hadn't felt myself about the coin. Anyway thanks for the all your comments I appreciate it.

 

And yes I do love my little foxxy loxxy golden brown Americana Senorita!

 

[KMAG100]

I got to agree with Tyler...when I look at it on my phone it looks like ms 67

[coinman_23885]

Maybe the screen configurations on Apple products make it look differently (e.g. Tyler's iPhone and my Macbook Pro). Regardless, the slab shots make any flaws look even less conspicuous to me. I still wouldn't be surprised to see this in 67 plastic someday.

[KMAG100]

Me either... I agree with you coinman, and I got andriod. ..

[Raisethis2]

I think this coin is an excellent candidate for a CAC sticker.

[MarkFeld]

I think this coin is an excellent candidate for a CAC sticker.

 

At that grade level I don't think it would make much difference.

[Walkerfan]

It's been dipped but reasonably well-struck and remarkably clean. I'd have said 65 or 66.

[coinman_23885]

It's been dipped but reasonably well-struck and remarkably clean. I'd have said 65 or 66.

 

I know that this is your specialty and you have handled more of these than I probably have, but what do you think holds this coin back from a higher grade? The luster is there, the strike is (reasonably/relatively) there, and the surfaces are clean.

[KMAG100]

It's been dipped but reasonably well-struck and remarkably clean. I'd have said 65 or 66.

 

What about it (the clues) leads you to believe its been dipped?

[Walkerfan]

It's been dipped but reasonably well-struck and remarkably clean. I'd have said 65 or 66.

 

What about it (the clues) leads you to believe its been dipped?

 

The luster bands on the obverse, although relatively good, look to be slightly diminished, especially on the left facing side. The luster band on the reverse from the eagle's beak to the E Pluribus Unum is very weak. Still a very nice coin, though.