I am looking at a 1941 "No AW" Proof Walker in NGC PF-66...

[James_OldeTowne]

... and am wondering what it's worth. Thanks in advance.

[ibyandsellsmith]

Not in the cherrypicker's guide.

But the Red book states there were proofs struck with and without the designers initials. They are worth equal money.

[ibyandsellsmith]

Pr 65 is at $700 66 would be about $900

[EZ_E]

Bob, Supertooth, PM'd me this this morning:

 

Victor-----You asked about Proof Walkers having poor strikes last week. I had meant to reply but then got sidetracked.

 

Don't collect the proof Walkers---but do know this. ALL the proof years from 1936 to 1942 are listed in Bruce Fox's Walker book as having some coins that are missing the "AW" on the reverse. Not all coins but apparently at least some of each year's dies had been sooooo polished that it removed the "AW". This is especially true for the 1941 coin.

 

One would think then---that a lot of the proofs could be slightly weak in strike---due to the fact that the dies were in use long enough that the mint figured that they needed to be polished---enough to remove the "AW".

 

It would seem logical that any proof with a weak "AW" or with no "AW" could be a potentially weakly struck coin. If I were buying a proof Walker, it would be one with a strong "AW" for sure. Course there are many other signs to look for too---the same as for any weakly struck Walker coin.

 

Naturally the striking pressure would determine whether the coin was weakly struck---OR NOT. But a worn die, with no "AW" showing up on the coin, would surely be suspicious to me.

 

You take care now. Hope this helps a bit. Bob

[James_OldeTowne]

Thanks very much, guys. Actualy, this coin is exceedingly well struck, yet there is evidence of die polish across the entire coin. Liberty has a thumbnail on this one! Plus, it has a lot of cameo.

[Conder101]

It would seem logical that any proof with a weak "AW" or with no "AW" could be a potentially weakly struck coin.

If the AW is missing because of a weak strike, then what you have is a blank planchet. The AW is the highest point on the die and is what makes contact with the planchet first.

 

I'm surprised that aren't a lot more proof walkers with missing initials. After hardening the dies had to be polished to give them the mirror finish. Polishing the devices is dfficult because they are below the field, so often on new dies they are not mirrors but lightly cameo and the striking of the coins polishes the devices removing the cameo nd making them more mirrorlike. The fileds are easy to polish EXCEPT for the area around the initials which stick UP from the field. Since they are the highest part of the die, trying to polish the field in that area often results in the abraiding away of the initials as well. If the dies have to be repolished it is even more likely that the initials would be removed.

[supertooth]

If the "AW" has been polished off of the die, it doesn't matter if the coin was struck with a lot or a little striking pressure---the "AW" will still not be on the coin after striking.

 

My thinking went that if the mint was polishing the dies to conserve them and make them last longer----then they might also reduce the striking pressure to conserve the die---thereby leading to a weaker struck coin.

 

This would seem to be most logical with coins that were missing the "AW"----because we would already know that, in these instances, the dies had already been used a lot----and likely probably a bit worn. Just my theory. Bob [supertooth]

[kryptonitecomics]

I love your theory's Bob....I have no idea if they are correct but they make sense to me and they cause me to have to think through the minting process in much more detail than I normally would