1916-s Walking Liberty, I have one with s mint mark on reverse, is it legitimate 1 1

[Stephen Andrew]

Thanks for the help in advance, I have a Walking Liberty with the "s" mint mark on the reverse,

Is that valid on this coin?

Thnaks, 

Stephen

Edited July 25 by Stephen Andrew
spelling

[RWB]

All 1916 Walking Liberty halves from Denver and San Francisco Mints had their mintmark on the obverse under the motto.

[Greenstang]

Welcome to the forum

It is customary to post a photo of both sides of the coin when making inquiries.   
It must be something other than a mint mark as it is impossible to have one on the reverse.

[Stephen Andrew]

Thanks, 

 

I think it is a fake, the s is on the back, reverse and looks like it was struck after it was made, I think I have been tricked.

Thanks Greenstang, for confirming the mint mark is only on the front, the obverse under the motto.

 

 

Thanks, 

Steve

Edited July 25 by Stephen Andrew
updat

[Stephen Andrew]

[Greenstang]

From looking at the reverse, I would say it is a counterfeit.   
A photo of the Obverse would also have helped. Always post both sides.

[Stephen Andrew]

Thanks I think you’re correct. Here is the front. I was a little embarrassed for buying it.

[Greenstang]

The date alone tells you that it is counterfeit.   
Is there any way you can get your money back. If you bought it off of eBay, you should be able to make a claim.

[The Neophyte Numismatist]

Oh no.  Sorry @Stephen Andrew, but this one is definitely a counterfeit coin.  I hope you can return it.

[Stephen Andrew]

Thanks, 

 

I picked it up years ago, just never really looked at it, 

 

Thanks again, Greenstang

 

Thanks again, 

Steve

Edited July 25 by Stephen Andrew
update

[Henri Charriere]

I see a few problems, with no easy solution.

1.  If it were advertised as a '16-S, and I were a collector of the series, I would have purchased it the same way I acquired all of my Roosters: solely on the strength of the description. Subjecting a seller from a reputable firm to a cross-examination, I believe, is poor form.  As far as I am concerned, the seller held up his end of the bargain.  If the coin is raw, whether interred in a cardboard or plastic flip, it behooves the potential buyer to do his due diligence.  He bought a coin described as a '16-S Walker in Fine condition -- and appears to have gotten what he wanted.  I do not know if the seller's return policy, or ebay's guarantee applies, but it is clear if this example (which I actually like) no longer applies.  It is too bad @Walkerfan who spent 99 years at hard labor assembling a set of this series is unavailable for comment.

2.  Granted, not everyone has the means to enjoy the lifestyle of our gallivanting aerial ambassador, but barring that, there are only two alternatives:  sticking to certified (encapsulated) examples or familiarizing yourself with the series intimately enough to avoid such mishaps.

3.  @RWB 's bombshell revelation is news to me.  If the price were close enough to the prevailing FMV of the coin when purchased, it is quite possible I myself would have acquired it.  The following would undoubtedly reflect poorly on me, but judging the coin from the pictures provided, I would deem it to be authentic and assign blame for the incorrectly positioned mintmark on the new employee which official records recorded as Q. Arrius, who had a well-documented work history of "failure to follow instructions," and "failure to scrupulously adhere to local branch Mint policy and procedure."

My sincere condolences to the OP.

 

Edited July 25 by Henri Charriere
Die polishing (typos)

[The Neophyte Numismatist]

On 7/25/2024 at 10:10 AM, Stephen Andrew said:

Thanks, 

 

I picked it up years ago, just never really looked at it, 

 

Thanks again, Greenstang

 

Thanks again, 

Steve

Keep it as an example, and a lesson.  Attribution of varieties is your best defense against counterfeiters.  Still, I am sorry this happened to you. 

[Stephen Andrew]

Thanks, appreciate your energy and support
 

Stephen

[RWB]

Walking Liberty half dollar mintmarks were moved to the reverse in about April 1917. This followed a very small number of questions/comments from the public complaining about the "designer's initial" being too prominent. Some of the blame for this confusion might be attributable to an incomplete description of the coin by Treasury Officials.

Edited July 25 by RWB

[powermad5000]

Oh, man. So sorry to see this is what happened and how much you paid for this. I think we all have our "one" that gets us and hopefully this is the one and only for you.

Knowledge is as valuable as money. If you knew then what you know now...I'll raise my glass to a better collecting future for you!

[Stephen Andrew]

Thanks, 

 

To get the value back out of it, silver will have to go to about $415.00 an ounce.

.36169 X Silveroz = 150.00

x = 414.72

I know now to be careful.

 

Thanks Steve

Edited July 25 by Stephen Andrew
update

[Greenstang]

If it is counterfeit, it may not even be solid silver, could be plated or not silver at all.

[Stephen Andrew]

I think the coin is real looks like they marked it up around the S on the back where the other ones are struck for their mint mark or the other coins are struck for their mint mark .

Right now it’s only worth perhaps a third of an ounce of silver if it is real.

Thanks,

 

[Greenstang]

Quote

I think the coin is real

It is not genuine, There are markers including the date that prove it is counterfeit.

[Sandon]

    This item is definitely a counterfeit coin, not a genuine coin with an added mintmark in the wrong place. Compare the details, such as the date numerals and the depth of the stripes on Liberty's skirt, as shown on these images of a genuine 1916-S from the NGC Coin Explorer:

 

 

 

[powermad5000]

Her left foot looks like it decayed from leprosy and her right foot looks like it has a boot on it, not a sandal.

[Halbrook Family]

To my beginner eye the back looks like pewter or something. The front looks like it was cleaned in the area to the right.