1915 Walking Liberty

I'm thinking its a 1945 with the 4 altered to look like a 1........ With the coin in hand I could say for sure.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

Thanks for all your responses. I did have a coin weighed on a couple different scales. The weight is just under 12.4. I have a collector/shop in Erie looking at the coin this Friday for his opinion. From all I have gathered the coin is an anomaly as other similar stories are/were non-conclusive. The thing I find puzzling is if it is a fake/altered coin why 1915,,,,,,,,,, if I were going to the trouble why not a 1920 or 1921,,,,,,,,, i.e. something of documented value.
Regards
c

 

not likely, not enough room for the 4

 

Altered 1918? Skirt lines would be stronger on a 1945, even in low grade.

 

Hmm. Let's see. A coin showing a date that didn't exist for the series. Hey, can Daniel Carr account for his whereabouts?

 

Yeah, and have you noticed the resounding chorus of "maybe it's a legitimate WL that the Mint struck with a 1915 date for some reason -- you should buy it, it might be valuable"?

Me neither.

 

Oh no, but it's still silver, right? And therefore useful for the Zombuck Apocalypse, right?

 

My guess: Altered 1918 (hard to diagnose from photos). Position of the numerals 1 and 9 line up. The shape of the lower tail of the "5" does not match the 1935 or 1945. Also, there appears to be evidence of tooling (red circle). Additionally, given the wear pattern on this coin, the lower part of the "5" should have bled into the rim (like the 1 and 9) and not be sharp and crisp.

 

Thanks James
Your observations are the best analysis of this oddity that has been presented to me. Makes sense to me.

regards
c

 

Also, the skirt lines were much weaker during the first few years of the series.

 

Come on now; I thought we were calling these fantasy strikes now. According to some here changing the date makes it okay and you can't counterfeit a non-existent date even though a novice would be fooled and it otherwise might look exactly like the real thing. We all know that situations like this NEVER occur because EVERYONE would know the difference or know enough to spends hundreds of dollars on appraisal or authentication fees to figure it out when this could be avoided if everyone would follow the HPA and stop looking for workarounds.

 

Was not designed in 1915.
In Dec., 1915, Sculptors Adolph Weinman, Hermon MacNeil and Albin Polasek were asked to submit proposals for new coins; Dime, Quarter and Half. The sculptors submitted design sketches in mid-February, 1916. On March 3, 1916 the new coins were publicly announced.

 

I have also come across a 1915 Walker that looks just like the photos on this thread. It even has the exact gap in the line above the numbers 1 & 5. (Circled in red)

 

I have one too...

 

Pretty sure it’s a 1945.

 

1. There does not seem to be enough room between the 9 and 5 for it to be a 1945.

2. The top, vertical (back) portion of the 5 slants way to the left instead of going straight up. That is not how it would wear over time.

3. The divot missing between the 1 and 5 is the result of metal being taken to further modify it.

4. This was therefore very likely a 1918. You can even see evidence of it after I modified the OP's photo.

 

Sorry to confuse the situation, but I was referring to my pic in the post immediately prior. I believe my “supposed” 1915 is most likely a 1945.

 

I am certainly no expert. But the curves on the 5 look very different from the curves on the 8 in the example shown above of 1918. In fact, the 5 looks very much like the 5 in the 1945. Still, there is no way there could be room to have altered the 4 of 45 to a 1. Is it possible someone removed the last digit from a 1917, 1918, or 1919 then lifted the 5 from a 1945 to replace it? The odd angle of the upright on the 5 could have resulted in a slight error in this process. (I know I read in Coin World a few years ago of a 1927-S [MS 66 or 67, as I remember], authenticated by at least one TPG, that was eventually proved to have an S that someone had placed there.) The missing metal above the date could have been used as "glue" to stick the 5 on. It would not have had to have been intended as outright fraud, just some jeweler showing off his or her skill and afterwards placing it back into circulation.