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

[Walkerfan]

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.

 

I guess that I tend to be conservative in my grading, so I could see this coin as a 65 or 66 gem. But, personally, my reasoning was that this issue should have a slightly bolder strike to be a superb gem, as they come extremely sharp. Also, despite the fact that I have seen many superb gems that are dipped out far worse these days; I myself prefer just a bit more luster. It is extremely smooth, which is a big plus, although I do see one small hit on the central obverse but the rest is very clean. This is why grading can be subjective. It's still a great coin and I am NOT trying to knock it.

[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?

 

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.

 

Thanks that was very helpful for me. I appreciate the comments.

[grip]

Gorgeous coin. A few try's and a 7 may arise.

[physics-fan3.14]

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.

 

While I will normally defer to your experience with Walkers, I don't necessarily see signs that this coin was dipped. The weak luster bands I attribute to the diffuse lighting that this picture was taken with.

 

Counterpoint to your argument - the overall tan color of the coin looks to be a nice original skin to me, as opposed to the blast white I'd expect from a dipped coin. I'd like to see this coin with better lighting before trying to determine if it has been dipped from a picture.

[AHFreak]

What I get a kick out of... is all this, it's been dipped, it hasn't been dipped nonsense....

 

I think that unless you have physically possessed a coin from the second it was minted, determining whether or not it has been dipped is an opinionated guess...

 

Now, I am not talking about coins that are "over-dipped' as those have clearly been dipped... many times over obviously. So I am just talking about every other coin out there.