• When you click on links to various merchants on this site and make a purchase, this can result in this site earning a commission. Affiliate programs and affiliations include, but are not limited to, the eBay Partner Network.

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Newb,41-S Walker undergraded at 64?

Started by grip,

31 posts in this topic

mumu

mumu

Posted
Posted

Thats a good clean looking coin that should be a 65 IMO only being held back of 66due to strike if the pics are accurate.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
CyberspaceVoid

CyberspaceVoid

Posted
Posted

Nice Walker you have there, grip.

 

Makes me wonder what my MS Walker collection would actually grade. I knew they have weak strikes, but I would have graded that one a lot lower than a 64 in this pic assuming rub on the left arm. Grading in person is always the best to evaluate any coin, but especially Walkers during the war years as they really pushed the dies.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
L1ncolnF4n

L1ncolnF4n

Posted
Posted

I think the weak strike here is going to hold it to a 4+. While I wouldn't cringe at a 5 by any means, I think there's just enough marking on Lady Liberty to warrant a 4. It's a very nice coin though, and would be a CAC lock IMO, shot gold if it stays in a 4.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
MarkFeld

MarkFeld

Posted
Posted
I think the weak strike here is going to hold it to a 4+. While I wouldn't cringe at a 5 by any means, I think there's just enough marking on Lady Liberty to warrant a 4. It's a very nice coin though, and would be a CAC lock IMO, shot gold if it stays in a 4.

 

The strike is not bad for a 41-S and I have seen plenty of MS65's that were no sharper. Additionally, my guess is that some of the "marks" you see on Ms. Liberty are as struck.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
RWB

RWB

Posted
Posted

Very ordinary flat strike...to me, it's over graded and not worth more than an UNC-63 (average Unc) grade.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
grip

grip

Posted
  • Author
Posted
It really looks nice for a 64. Strike is typical for 41-S. Maybe there's too much light chatter that's not showing up in the pic?

 

That chatter is normally down the leg which I don't see..Just have to wait till it arrives,it could well be hidden in the light.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
L1ncolnF4n

L1ncolnF4n

Posted
Posted
I think the weak strike here is going to hold it to a 4+. While I wouldn't cringe at a 5 by any means, I think there's just enough marking on Lady Liberty to warrant a 4. It's a very nice coin though, and would be a CAC lock IMO, shot gold if it stays in a 4.

 

The strike is not bad for a 41-S and I have seen plenty of MS65's that were no sharper. Additionally, my guess is that some of the "marks" you see on Ms. Liberty are as struck.

 

One can hope at least. I generally prefer to lean on the side of lower end until I have a coin in hand.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
MarkFeld

MarkFeld

Posted
Posted
I think the weak strike here is going to hold it to a 4+. While I wouldn't cringe at a 5 by any means, I think there's just enough marking on Lady Liberty to warrant a 4. It's a very nice coin though, and would be a CAC lock IMO, shot gold if it stays in a 4.

 

The strike is not bad for a 41-S and I have seen plenty of MS65's that were no sharper. Additionally, my guess is that some of the "marks" you see on Ms. Liberty are as struck.

 

One can hope at least. I generally prefer to lean on the side of lower end until I have a coin in hand.

 

A lot of other posters do that too. But I don't think it's any better to be conservative than it is to be loose, when providing grading opinions based in images. Other than, it's possible that the coin's owner might get excited, when he shouldn't.

 

Either way, opinions based on images, have their limitations. And in most cases, should be taken with a giant grain of salt.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
L1ncolnF4n

L1ncolnF4n

Posted
Posted
I think the weak strike here is going to hold it to a 4+. While I wouldn't cringe at a 5 by any means, I think there's just enough marking on Lady Liberty to warrant a 4. It's a very nice coin though, and would be a CAC lock IMO, shot gold if it stays in a 4.

 

The strike is not bad for a 41-S and I have seen plenty of MS65's that were no sharper. Additionally, my guess is that some of the "marks" you see on Ms. Liberty are as struck.

 

One can hope at least. I generally prefer to lean on the side of lower end until I have a coin in hand.

 

A lot of other posters do that too. But I don't think it's any better to be conservative than it is to be loose, when providing grading opinions based in images. Other than, it's possible that the coin's owner might get excited, when he shouldn't.

 

Either way, opinions based on images, have their limitations. And in most cases, should be taken with a giant grain of salt.

 

Agreed. Thus why viewing auction lots in hand is crucial.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
James_OldeTowne

James_OldeTowne

Posted
Posted

Quick story on the 1941-S, and the story applies to the other weak S-mint halves: they are being conservatively graded today by comparison to years past. Let's just say that we have recently submitted quite a lot of them in the past few months, and flat coins are NOT getting benefit of the doubt.

 

Personally, I find that very appealing. I believe the subject coin should be only MS-64, and not 65. But that's just not how they used to grade them.

 

By the way, it's the same ATS right now in my opinion. Flat coins are getting appropriately bumped down, which is what should have been happening all along.

 

So in my recent experience, your odds of an upgrade today are very low.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
mumu

mumu

Posted
Posted
Quick story on the 1941-S, and the story applies to the other weak S-mint halves: they are being conservatively graded today by comparison to years past. Let's just say that we have recently submitted quite a lot of them in the past few months, and flat coins are NOT getting benefit of the doubt.

 

Personally, I find that very appealing. I believe the subject coin should be only MS-64, and not 65. But that's just now how they used to grade them.

 

By the way, it's the same ATS right now in my opinion. Flat coins are getting appropriately bumped down, which is what should have been happening all along.

 

So in my recent experience, your odds of an upgrade today are very low.

 

Part of me agrees that coins with better strikes should be rewarded somehow. But if a coin is as struck then why should it be penalized. Weak strike is a result of factors not in the control of anyone. Im not saying I dont agree though it may sounds like it, but I am trying to lead up to how Error coins are graded with high grades often. I never understood that. Surely if a bad strike can deter the grade then an errior coin that say is broadstruck by 50% should have the same penalty.

 

I dont think either is a good solution though. Id love to see a grade breakdown like in the real old days or how Sports cards are graded with breakdowns for Surface Strike and contact marks.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
$ilverHawk

$ilverHawk

Posted
Posted

Here's a 1941-S graded MS65 for comparison.

 

 

WalkerRegistry004.jpg

 

I believe it is a very close call. Based solely on the pics, I would have to say that this Walker has a shot at MS65. Noting that both the OP s coin and my example both show relatively flat strikes as is common with S mint issues of this date.

 

 

Carl

Link to comment
Share on other sites
James_OldeTowne

James_OldeTowne

Posted
Posted
Quick story on the 1941-S, and the story applies to the other weak S-mint halves: they are being conservatively graded today by comparison to years past. Let's just say that we have recently submitted quite a lot of them in the past few months, and flat coins are NOT getting benefit of the doubt.

 

Personally, I find that very appealing. I believe the subject coin should be only MS-64, and not 65. But that's just now how they used to grade them.

 

By the way, it's the same ATS right now in my opinion. Flat coins are getting appropriately bumped down, which is what should have been happening all along.

 

So in my recent experience, your odds of an upgrade today are very low.

 

Part of me agrees that coins with better strikes should be rewarded somehow. But if a coin is as struck then why should it be penalized. Weak strike is a result of factors not in the control of anyone.

The reason I would offer is as follows. Take ten coins completely identical from the standpoint of luster, marks, and color. Now, make one coin much better struck than the other nine, that being the ONLY difference.

 

Which is worth more money? The better struck one, of course. And if only 1 in 10 is well struck, they might be worth MUCH more money.

 

Shouldn't a grade reflect that fact?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Stuartt

Stuartt

Posted
Posted

I'm a junkie for nice even toning, that said I dont think it would be worth the re-grade given the marks on the sun, lady liberty, and the field to the right of liberty. and the weak strike on the one eagle leg. I agree with the 64 but hey what do I know i'm a rookie.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
MarkFeld

MarkFeld

Posted
Posted
Quick story on the 1941-S, and the story applies to the other weak S-mint halves: they are being conservatively graded today by comparison to years past. Let's just say that we have recently submitted quite a lot of them in the past few months, and flat coins are NOT getting benefit of the doubt.

 

Personally, I find that very appealing. I believe the subject coin should be only MS-64, and not 65. But that's just now how they used to grade them.

 

By the way, it's the same ATS right now in my opinion. Flat coins are getting appropriately bumped down, which is what should have been happening all along.

 

So in my recent experience, your odds of an upgrade today are very low.

 

Part of me agrees that coins with better strikes should be rewarded somehow. But if a coin is as struck then why should it be penalized. Weak strike is a result of factors not in the control of anyone.

The reason I would offer is as follows. Take ten coins completely identical from the standpoint of luster, marks, and color. Now, make one coin much better struck than the other nine, that being the ONLY difference.

 

Which is worth more money? The better struck one, of course. And if only 1 in 10 is well struck, they might be worth MUCH more money.

 

Shouldn't a grade reflect that fact?

 

Sure, James. But in your example, why can't/shouldn't the best struck one be a 66 or a 67 and the others 65 or 66?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
James_OldeTowne

James_OldeTowne

Posted
Posted
Quick story on the 1941-S, and the story applies to the other weak S-mint halves: they are being conservatively graded today by comparison to years past. Let's just say that we have recently submitted quite a lot of them in the past few months, and flat coins are NOT getting benefit of the doubt.

 

Personally, I find that very appealing. I believe the subject coin should be only MS-64, and not 65. But that's just now how they used to grade them.

 

By the way, it's the same ATS right now in my opinion. Flat coins are getting appropriately bumped down, which is what should have been happening all along.

 

So in my recent experience, your odds of an upgrade today are very low.

 

Part of me agrees that coins with better strikes should be rewarded somehow. But if a coin is as struck then why should it be penalized. Weak strike is a result of factors not in the control of anyone.

The reason I would offer is as follows. Take ten coins completely identical from the standpoint of luster, marks, and color. Now, make one coin much better struck than the other nine, that being the ONLY difference.

 

Which is worth more money? The better struck one, of course. And if only 1 in 10 is well struck, they might be worth MUCH more money.

 

Shouldn't a grade reflect that fact?

 

Sure, James. But in your example, why can't/shouldn't the best struck one be a 66 or a 67 and the others 65 or 66?

That can definitely be the case in a relative sense. I meant my example to be comparing three coins with identical "MS-65" quality in terms of luster, marks and color. But if the strike is deficient on 9 of the 10 coins, then those 9 should not be MS-65.

 

In general, I believe "GEM" (MS-65 and up) should apply only to coins that exceed average quality for a series all three major areas: strike, luster, surface quality.

 

Of course, some will then argue "but what if all the coins for a certain date are struck poorly". Then we would need to compare coins within the entire series. The 1941 (P) almost always comes nicely struck, and sharp MS-65 examples are common.

 

What I can't stand is putting a 1941 (P) in MS-65 next to a 1941-S in MS-65, and immediately seeing the 1941-S as drastically inferior -- despite the identical grade -- because it got struck with the detail of a VF.

 

The Walker series seems to be the most prone to this problem because of those terrible 1939-S to 1945-S coins. The next series that comes to mind is buffalo nickels, but at least the horrible strikes usually are on the reverse and not quite as blatant.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Go to topic listing