Grade me 1920-S WLH

View attachment 1008003 View attachment 1008004

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

Ah ha!!!
Links that don't work.

 

AU 53. Dipped.

 

Definitely a weak strike (weak left hand; gown lines missing).
Focus not good enough to be definitive but low AU seems reasonable.

 

It looks to me like those gown lines are remarkably strong for a pre-1921 example...?

 

AU details, the surfaces of that coin look hinky.

 

I agree, AU, dipped.

 

Cleaned xf 45

 

I can't disagree with you since I don't collect WLH's.
But "remarkably strong for" is a relative thing.
It's still weak compared to the intended look.

 

AU Details-Cleaned
50/55

 

Agree XF45 cleaned...too shiny with scratches from a harsh cleaning.

 

I can't see this one at XF. I'm going for 53, + or - . It might have been dipped, but it would look good in my old Library of Coins Walker album.

Steve

 

It amazes me, even after reading your book, how such grading can be done from a photo of questionable origin. Why dipped but not cleaned or polished? The coin has been modified, that's certain, but perhaps, even after my recent cataract removals, I can expect to be clueless on how this is done.

 

It looks whizzed.

 

xf-details. I'm pretty sure that is a cyberspace coins (or dude's other ebay account- arlington coins) picture. His coins tend to be a bit overpriced and very rarely take cleaning and stuffs into consideration when pricing.

 

I'm not seeing any evidence of whizzing.

Steve

 

Also at 45/details. With an attempt to make it look like an AU/MS coin.

 

I say dipped precisely because it does not appear to be cleaned or polished. I don't see hairlines, I don't see whizzing, I don't see the abnormal shiny surfaces of something like baking soda.

However, that coin shouldn't be so bright white. So, I go with dipped. Now, other pictures might show evidence of harsh cleaning, I can't completely rule that out. I just don' see evidence of it in these pictures.

 

AU Details - cleaned