1917 S obverse Walking Liberty half. Question about grade?

[AHFreak]

So, I posted this over in "hey buddy can you spare a grade" but I think it would be appropriate to post it here, as I was actually looking for some insight about the actual grade, and how the characteristics of this particular coin might affect numerical grade... So, it is a 1917 S obverse, Walking Liberty half dollar, NGC problem free holder.... Care to take a stab at the grade??? I'll post the actual grade later on...

 

Notice the coin has the "orange peel effect", I would also describe it "in-hand" as having superior luster, boomluster I call it. The surface preservation is relatively good, meaning it doesn't have marks/dings that are too much of a distraction, nothing that jumps out and grabs attention.

 

 

I am wondering, A-how the orange peel effect will affect the grade, if any?

B- On the "color", I am wondering if any of you feel like having it graded w/the color versus having it conserved first would have made a difference in the grade... Is the color a neutral factor for grading, or is it + or - or what??? Just want to get some insight about grading these pretty ladies, as this is the first one I have ever had any experience with.

 

 

Thank you.

[RWB]

1. Define "orange peel effect."

2. Use the term correctly in a numismatic sentence.

3. What color? It has some tarnish, that's all.

4. Maybe you expect too much from looking at a photo. By these pic, I'd have to guess AU...but that's really meaningless.

 

But...a very nice 1917-S obv. (Made before Dir. Baker had the mint mark moved to the reverse to avid confusion with an artist's initial.)

[AHFreak]

1. Define "orange peel effect."

2. Use the term correctly in a numismatic sentence.

3. What color? It has some tarnish, that's all.

4. Maybe you expect too much from looking at a photo. By these pic, I'd have to guess AU...but that's really meaningless.

 

But...a very nice 1917-S obv. (Made before Dir. Baker had the mint mark moved to the reverse to avid confusion with an artist's initial.)

 

1-Not sure I can define it, I would try to explain it by referring to it as the way the surface of the coin looks. You know how some coins are matte-like? Some are satiny? Well, display a level of "orange peel effect".

2- I am pulling this sentence directly from an ealier post in this forum, regarding a peace dollar that is MS67... (not word for word). The "orange peel affect" is caused by worn dies. Often these coins have dripping luster. I know its not a traditional numismatic sentence, but hopefully it gets the point across...

3-Color... well, what you interpret as tarnish, I interpret as "color"... Does a coin need to have a color other than brown to be called a coin with color or what? If its more appropriate, lets call it toning, tarnish, character... whatever... but the color I was referring too was that absence of overall "white-ness".

4- I do understand that grading by photos, especially low quality photos like this is extremely difficult.... I am curious about what opinions on the grade are... but much more importantly, I am trying to figure out, from someone who knows the "technicalities of coin grading" how the "orange peel effect" and also the color of this coin may or may not affect the grade that gets assigned....

 

This orange peel effect is particularly noticeable right above the sun on the obverse, in the 4th pic. (the last of the obverse photos.).

[Walkerfan]

The coin appears to be MS to me---I might say something else, if I saw it in hand, as grading from images is challenging. But from what I can tell-----I would grade it at least MS 64. It has super detail in the skirts, thumb & branch stems. The reverse looks solid, too. I don't see any rub. Great breast and trailing leg. I would NOT have dipped it and would have just left it alone as you did. It's a GREAT coin!!!

[RWB]

"Orange peel" has a specific, limited definition. You should check that before applying it to a coin to which it is not actually applicable.

 

By tarnish, I mean exactly what your coin has: unattractive discoloration of the original silver. If there's little real color then so be it.

 

Neither of the things you mention should have any effect of the condition, "grade," of the coin.

 

What you are calling "orange peel" is due to die erosion and indicates a well-used die. The tarnish is unpleasant but that should not alter the determination of the amount of wear on the coin.

 

I called it AU because there appears to be a trace of wear on Liberty's left breast and the eagle's chest - those could also be lighting artifacts.

 

Others will argue this differently, so wait around for their opinions too.

 

[MarkFeld]

The coin looks like a 63 to me.

[BillJones]

I would that the coin is an MS-63 and could be in either an MS-63 or 64 holder.

[Coindude]

Either 58, slight rub on the face or an original coin with a slightly mushy strike at ms 63.

[BillJones]

Either 58, slight rub on the face or an original coin with a slightly mushy strike at ms 63.

 

When it comes to San Francisco mint Walkers from the 'teens and 'twenties, you will need to adjust your thinking about "mushy strikes." I think that this piece is better than average. The dark spot on Ms. Liberty's breast could be a rub or a toning spot from envelope storage. You can only decide about that from a personal review.

[Walkerfan]

Either 58, slight rub on the face or an original coin with a slightly mushy strike at ms 63.

 

That strike is far better than most that I've seen for the issue. If anything is holding it back; it would be the luster IMHO.

[AHFreak]

"Orange peel" has a specific, limited definition. You should check that before applying it to a coin to which it is not actually applicable.

 

By tarnish, I mean exactly what your coin has: unattractive discoloration of the original silver. If there's little real color then so be it.

 

Neither of the things you mention should have any effect of the condition, "grade," of the coin.

 

What you are calling "orange peel" is due to die erosion and indicates a well-used die. The tarnish is unpleasant but that should not alter the determination of the amount of wear on the coin.

 

I called it AU because there appears to be a trace of wear on Liberty's left breast and the eagle's chest - those could also be lighting artifacts.

 

Others will argue this differently, so wait around for their opinions too.

 

Maybe you should be teaching me what "orange peel effect" is rather than asking me to try and explain it to you. I had never even heard the term until a couple months ago. It was this exact coin, while raw. I took it to a guy here who is nationally recognized as a leader in this industry... He is very well known/and incredibly knowledgable when it comes to coins. he looked at it and said, It will either grade AU58, or MS63. (either or, not somewhere in between) My response was along the lines of, well, to me it looks MS, so assuming it is, with the relatively good surface preservation, and the super amazing luster, what prevents it from going 64 or maybe even 65? (first thing I learned when I took the grading class was that "eye appeal" is the most important factor when considering grade-this coin has superior luster and boom) He said, well, it has the "orange peel" effect which is very common for these early Walkers... I interpreted that as, because it has this "effect" (-whatever its called) it will only ever be a 63... nothing more.

 

The only other time I have ever heard "orange peel effect" was when reading the thread here about the Peace dollar that is a MS67 and whether or not it should really be a 67? Based on the two times I have heard it being used, I am inclined to believe that the term "orange peel effect" is directly applicable to this specific coin. I would be curious as to what the "specific, limited definition" of orange peel effect is, and where I am confused about my coin having it... if you don't mind sharing that with me...

 

 

As far as your your assessment of it being AU, due to the wear you can see on the left breast and eagles chest... I can totally see why any of you would say high AU... What you are seeing is correct, and it is "in-hand" exactly the way it appears in the pic... But it isn't wear. at least not the way "wear" is traditionally defined. It is just the high points where they came in contact with another coin (most likely), Imagine a coin like this being in a half dollar roll.. those high points are coming in contact with the high points on the other coins). It isn't ware, or rub.. just contact with another object.

 

 

This coin is graded MS. and I have looked at every single photo I can find of every other Mint State 1917S obverse W.L. in the the same grade, and to me, (and my relatively untrained eye), I have only found 1 other coin with same grade that was anywhere near as clean as this one. All the others I have seen had significantly more distractions (marks/scuffs/dings/etc...) Hopefully this doesn't come across as me trying to argue about the grade it was given, not my intentions... I am just trying to figure out, strictly from a grading standpoint, what are the reasons this coin got the grade it did??? I want to learn, moving forward.

[WoodenJefferson]

I just have that gut feeling that the graders were not easy on this coin and gave it a low score, perhaps a MS-62

[RWB]

The only suggestions for the OP at this point are to not be defensive, and to dig deeper. At present your understanding of numismatic terms is superficial, likely guided by Google searches and all the mediocrity it presents.

 

When you understand more PM me and I will help you, if you wish.

 

[AHFreak]

The only suggestions for the OP at this point are to not be defensive, and to dig deeper. At present your understanding of numismatic terms is superficial, likely guided by Google searches and all the mediocrity it presents.

 

When you understand more PM me and I will help you, if you wish.

 

WOW... really? First of all, the reason I am here is to learn, otherwise google search, (and all the mediocrity it represents) would have more than likely been sufficient.

 

I was being honest (not defensive) when I said, I have heard the term "orange peel" twice before is all.. (which isn't much IMO), and I was certain it applied directly to the coin here, because a real life expert who had the coin "in-hand" told me that exactly... So, since you are the expert who pointed out that it doesn't, all I asked is if you wouldn't mind going into a little more depth about what it means and why it doesnt apply to my coin... Seems counter productive for me to go elsewhere to learn, and then once its learned, "PM" you for help.., The sole purpose of coming here was to learn in the first place. What am I missing here RWB?

 

you are the only person who directly said orange peel didn't apply to this coin, great! It makes no difference to me... I just want to know why? Is there anything specific that is holding you back from elaborating on the reasons you say that? What is "orange peel effect" exactly?

[coinman_23885]

63

[coinman_23885]

Either 58, slight rub on the face or an original coin with a slightly mushy strike at ms 63.

 

That strike is far better than most that I've seen for the issue. If anything is holding it back; it would be the luster IMHO.

 

I agree.

[Coindude]

Thanks for the insight about the strike quality of the San Francisco mint of this era. This is not my series although I do enjoy a nicely struck WLH and I feel it is one of the nicer coin designs. I know there is a lot to learn about this series and if I ever do decide to get into it I would definitely by the book before the coin to make sure I don't make too many mistakes!

[AHFreak]

 

Thank you for everyone who shared insight. As you can see in the pic. It graded MS63. Again, I am not saying it should or shouldn't be what it is, I am just curious because I am looking at it and comparing it to pics of other 17-S obverse WL's at MS63 and like I said, I have literally only been able to find one other 63 that looked anywhere near this good. All the MS63's I can find photos of are either all marked up, or they have that "dead" look when all the luster is stripped off from too much dipping or incorrectly dipping or whatever Many 63's are flat AND dinged to hell.... This one here booms with luster, it has minimal contact marks, the strike is anything but "weak" as again, I am able to detect more lines in the dress, definition in the hand/thumb/head/etc... than almost all of the other 63's I looked at. I would confidently say the strike is comparable to the most of the 64/65's I have looked at, and the luster is the boomluster that POP's! I have even seen multiple 64's and even a 65 or two with what seemed like the luster stripped, or that maybe were just flat to begin with, that had surface preservation very very comparable to this one.....

 

So I guess this is just the subjectivity of coin grading, or maybe this one of those examples of a coin being on the nicer/better end of the MS63 grade range??? Or another thought, could this be one of those coins I hear about that deserves another trip or two too the grader??? Seems that it is scarce enough in Mint State that if it has a chance of upgrading, I should at least try...

[mumu]

I can see what could be called an orange peelish effect on the coin. Maybe more accurately a lemon peel effect.

[MarkFeld]

 

Thank you for everyone who shared insight. As you can see in the pic. It graded MS63. Again, I am not saying it should or shouldn't be what it is, I am just curious because I am looking at it and comparing it to pics of other 17-S obverse WL's at MS63 and like I said, I have literally only been able to find one other 63 that looked anywhere near this good. All the MS63's I can find photos of are either all marked up, or they have that "dead" look when all the luster is stripped off from too much dipping or incorrectly dipping or whatever Many 63's are flat AND dinged to hell.... This one here booms with luster, it has minimal contact marks, the strike is anything but "weak" as again, I am able to detect more lines in the dress, definition in the hand/thumb/head/etc... than almost all of the other 63's I looked at. I would confidently say the strike is comparable to the most of the 64/65's I have looked at, and the luster is the boomluster that POP's! I have even seen multiple 64's and even a 65 or two with what seemed like the luster stripped, or that maybe were just flat to begin with, that had surface preservation very very comparable to this one.....

 

So I guess this is just the subjectivity of coin grading, or maybe this one of those examples of a coin being on the nicer/better end of the MS63 grade range??? Or another thought, could this be one of those coins I hear about that deserves another trip or two too the grader??? Seems that it is scarce enough in Mint State that if it has a chance of upgrading, I should at least try...

 

As I mentioned in your other thread on this coin "I would not have it conserved. I suspect that some of the darker toning has etched into the coin's surface. And conservation would result in those areas looking very unnatural."

 

I believe that the grade might have been held back by those darker areas on the reverse.

[RWB]

AH: Read what has already been written on the subject and then ask questions. Your original post assumes understanding that is not accurate - you picked the first item that came up in a google search. Now you should do more digging to learn more. Answers are out there. AFTER you've done that, and discovered more, then come back and ask for help to clarify points of confusion.

 

Your comments suggest that you want immediate gratification, but I am pushing you to reject that approach and go for a deeper self-education method that will give you better long-term results.

 

I'm not going to tell you what "orange peel" means. Researching the term will give you multiple options. Once you have them, then I'll answer your questions.

 

PM me if you want help with how to find the answers.

 

 

[DWLange]

The textured surfaces of this coin is absolutely normal for the silver coins of 1916 and early 1917, as issued. This texture was in the artist's models and transferred to the hubs and dies. It also transferred to the coins when well struck.

 

The same effect is seen in 1913 Type 1 Buffalo Nickels, while the Type 2 coins had their fields polished to a smoother finish more in keeping with conventional thought at the Mint. The roughened texture seen on this 1917-S is indicative of a better than average strike, and the dies are not worn. In fact, they appear to be quite fresh.

 

Sometime in the second quarter of 1917 the Mint eradicated the deep texturing of the master hubs, as it had done earlier with the Buffalo Nickel. This seems to have coincided with transfer of the mintmark to the reverse.

[Afterword]

"The textured surfaces of this coin is absolutely normal for the silver coins of 1916 and early 1917, as issued. This texture was in the artist's models and transferred to the hubs and dies. It also transferred to the coins when well struck.

 

The same effect is seen in 1913 Type 1 Buffalo Nickels, while the Type 2 coins had their fields polished to a smoother finish more in keeping with conventional thought at the Mint. The roughened texture seen on this 1917-S is indicative of a better than average strike, and the dies are not worn. In fact, they appear to be quite fresh.

 

Sometime in the second quarter of 1917 the Mint eradicated the deep texturing of the master hubs, as it had done earlier with the Buffalo Nickel. This seems to have coincided with transfer of the mintmark to the reverse. "

 

It is good to know that you guys are paying attention to what goes on here in the forums.

[AHFreak]

I just want to thank all of you again for the insight about this coin. Please keep it coming!!! -I have gained a more thorough insight about this coin (16, and 17 W.L. halves) than I ever could have imaged figuring out this quickly on my own!

 

So far, what I have taken from all this.. (If I am missing anything that was thrown out there, anything that I may have missed or not realized, Please feel free to mention it)

 

1-the coin has an above average strike, and that the "texture" of the surface would be a positive contributing factor/versus being detrimental to the grade... (if having an effect on grade at all)

 

2-the color is neither + or - but more of a neutral factor as far as grade is concerned.

 

3- The strike is one that might warrant a higher grade, (say 64-65)

 

4- Based on the surface preservation, and the lack of marks/abrasions, (at least as far as can be seen in the pics) this coin has potential at a possible higher grade...

 

5- That the luster is a major factor determining grade, and that if this coin has poor luster it is a possible reason for a 63, but if the "in-hand" luster is superior like I believe it to be, then this coin theoretically has potential for a possible higher grade.

 

6-that another possible reason behind the 63, might very well be the "toning" at obverse 9-12-3 o'clock. I was wondering about what "affect, if any" those areas might have on grade before I sent it in... in fact, I was wondering if it would grade at all, or if those areas would equate to a "details" coin, maybe environmental damage or something.

 

Does anyone have additional insight about #6, and those areas where the toning seems like it could be too far, or considered damage or whatever the accurate terminology would be??? I do not know if I will re-submit it or not, but I am curious if anybody thinks I would be running a risk of a details or bagged coin, due to the toning??

 

Thanks again for all insight. I am excited to apply this new found knowledge when I come across the next treasure... (I bought this coin RAW, from a coinshop here locally... he had it as a high "AU" and was selling it for AU58 money..... it was the first coin I spent any significant money on, and it is a reason I am where I am now, as it changed everything for me... (even though I had an undeveloped/inexperienced eye, I felt strongly that I "knew" it was UNC.). For quite a while after I bought it I actually convinced myself it had been whizzed, or was an otherwise "problem coin" otherwise, why would the dealer have sold it RAW vs. having it graded it himself? As my eye developed and I learned a little about grading, (and once I could view this coin even semi- "objectively"... no easy task there..) I started forming the opinion that unless it has a problem that I was missing or something I was unable to see/detect, I believed It would graded MS64, or possibly even a 65 (I felt it was a solid 64, with a chance at 65)... I based that opinion off of countless hours studying pictures basically, I also took the Intro to grading 101 that PCGS offered at Long Beach last June, which helped a little (but not worth the money spent IMO).... Heritage Auctions has been the greatest resource in me training/developing my eye. I feel I am nearing the point where I can hold my own in terms of grading business strike coins...

 

 

So there you have it. Im feeling extra chatty today I guess...

 

If anyone feels I should send it again, or has any thoughts about what the risk/reward might be there.. Id love to hear them.

 

 

THANK YOU AGAIN SO MUCH FOR ALL THE INSIGHT YOU ALL HAVE SHARED, I AM LOOKING FORWARD TO DOING THIS AGAIN, WITH A TOTALLY DIFFERENT COIN... I FEEL IT WAS EXTREMELY BENEFICIAL!!!

[coinman_23885]

1-the coin has an above average strike, and that the "texture" of the surface would be a positive contributing factor/versus being detrimental to the grade... (if having an effect on grade at all)

 

2-the color is neither + or - but more of a neutral factor as far as grade is concerned.

 

3- The strike is one that might warrant a higher grade, (say 64-65)

 

4- Based on the surface preservation, and the lack of marks/abrasions, (at least as far as can be seen in the pics) this coin has potential at a possible higher grade...

 

5- That the luster is a major factor determining grade, and that if this coin has poor luster it is a possible reason for a 63, but if the "in-hand" luster is superior like I believe it to be, then this coin theoretically has potential for a possible higher grade.

 

6-that another possible reason behind the 63, might very well be the "toning" at obverse 9-12-3 o'clock. I was wondering about what "affect, if any" those areas might have on grade before I sent it in... in fact, I was wondering if it would grade at all, or if those areas would equate to a "details" coin, maybe environmental damage or something. !

 

1- I would call it neutral although a strong strike is a plus.

2- I would call it neutral to potentially negative depending on how thick it is and whether it has etched into the surface.

3 - The strike is above average, but does not warrant a grade boost IMO.

4 - The surfaces are clean, but I have my doubts about an upgrade because of the luster.

5- I think that is a fair summary.

6- Yes thick toning which mutes luster or etches deeply in the surfaces is a negative.

 

I think the coin is properly graded at MS63.

[RWB]

Charles Barber made small changes to the hubs for each year beginning with 1916, but died in Feb 1917. Morgan continued some of this work over the next several years. The purpose was to increase die life - which was reduced by the textured fields and uneven basin (curvature) of the original designs. Changes were gradual, but can be more easily discerned by viewing BU coins from the Philadelphia Mint from 1916-1939 lined up next to each other.

 

Maybe NGC will mount a display of these – much like they did of proof Morgans a couple of years ago.

 

[Walkerfan]

Based on the strike and surface preservation----I still believe that the coin should/could grade MS 64. The slightly muted luster would not keep it from that grade----this issue was not known for having outstanding luster. I have seen FAR worse. On a whole----the luster is good on this one and the strike is GREAT.

[RWB]

Quite a range of strike descriptions....how can they be reconciled – or should they be?

[MarkFeld]

I just want to thank all of you again for the insight about this coin. Please keep it coming!!! -I have gained a more thorough insight about this coin (16, and 17 W.L. halves) than I ever could have imaged figuring out this quickly on my own!

 

So far, what I have taken from all this.. (If I am missing anything that was thrown out there, anything that I may have missed or not realized, Please feel free to mention it)

 

1-the coin has an above average strike, and that the "texture" of the surface would be a positive contributing factor/versus being detrimental to the grade... (if having an effect on grade at all)

 

2-the color is neither + or - but more of a neutral factor as far as grade is concerned.

 

3- The strike is one that might warrant a higher grade, (say 64-65)

 

4- Based on the surface preservation, and the lack of marks/abrasions, (at least as far as can be seen in the pics) this coin has potential at a possible higher grade...

 

5- That the luster is a major factor determining grade, and that if this coin has poor luster it is a possible reason for a 63, but if the "in-hand" luster is superior like I believe it to be, then this coin theoretically has potential for a possible higher grade.

 

6-that another possible reason behind the 63, might very well be the "toning" at obverse 9-12-3 o'clock. I was wondering about what "affect, if any" those areas might have on grade before I sent it in... in fact, I was wondering if it would grade at all, or if those areas would equate to a "details" coin, maybe environmental damage or something.

 

Does anyone have additional insight about #6, and those areas where the toning seems like it could be too far, or considered damage or whatever the accurate terminology would be??? I do not know if I will re-submit it or not, but I am curious if anybody thinks I would be running a risk of a details or bagged coin, due to the toning??

 

Thanks again for all insight. I am excited to apply this new found knowledge when I come across the next treasure... (I bought this coin RAW, from a coinshop here locally... he had it as a high "AU" and was selling it for AU58 money..... it was the first coin I spent any significant money on, and it is a reason I am where I am now, as it changed everything for me... (even though I had an undeveloped/inexperienced eye, I felt strongly that I "knew" it was UNC.). For quite a while after I bought it I actually convinced myself it had been whizzed, or was an otherwise "problem coin" otherwise, why would the dealer have sold it RAW vs. having it graded it himself? As my eye developed and I learned a little about grading, (and once I could view this coin even semi- "objectively"... no easy task there..) I started forming the opinion that unless it has a problem that I was missing or something I was unable to see/detect, I believed It would graded MS64, or possibly even a 65 (I felt it was a solid 64, with a chance at 65)... I based that opinion off of countless hours studying pictures basically, I also took the Intro to grading 101 that PCGS offered at Long Beach last June, which helped a little (but not worth the money spent IMO).... Heritage Auctions has been the greatest resource in me training/developing my eye. I feel I am nearing the point where I can hold my own in terms of grading business strike coins...

 

 

So there you have it. Im feeling extra chatty today I guess...

 

If anyone feels I should send it again, or has any thoughts about what the risk/reward might be there.. Id love to hear them.

 

 

THANK YOU AGAIN SO MUCH FOR ALL THE INSIGHT YOU ALL HAVE SHARED, I AM LOOKING FORWARD TO DOING THIS AGAIN, WITH A TOTALLY DIFFERENT COIN... I FEEL IT WAS EXTREMELY BENEFICIAL!!!

 

A few comments regarding some of your points above:

 

2) The toning at the reverse periphery looks to be a negative and not "neutral".

 

3) The strike will/should not affect the grade at this grade level.

 

4) Surface marks are just one consideration with respect to grade and should not be looked at in a vacuum.

 

5) As in #4 above, only this time with respect to luster - you can't look at just one aspect of coin grading in isolation. Any onemajor negative aspect to a coin can counterbalance one, more or all positives.

 

6) At a certain point, deep, dark toning that has etched into the surface of a coin can end up being labeled "environmental damage". Such determinations can be subjective and applied inconsistently, just like with numerical grading, itself.

[Raisethis2]

I like the coin a lot and think that it's a survivor and as such might do well with CAC.

 

A gold bean isn't out of reach here.