thanasis

This is not the worst, i see some MS61 predecimal coins which may only worth VF or gVF grade in my opinion...this often happen.  Buy the coin not the number is always the principle one.  By the way, Rich's Crown is a very nice one.
 

Mmm- it’s a nice Crown but like you, I think it’s been enthusiastically graded.  
 
I have one to sell- my opinion GEF/ Unc condition with lovely eye appeal.
 

It has to be the Marsh/Hill book first. After that if your interest continues you can build up a library……
 

I can remember saying something very similar many times in the past, although under slightly different circumstances!
😎

At a first, and second look, I did not think it was a fake.
Sure, the photos are not great, and the lighting is too directional.
It just seems to have a lot of edge damage, as if it had been rolled under some pressure, in a similar manner to edge lettering being rolled onto coins, before collars came into use. Possibly hammered and knocked rather than rolled (I nearly put trolled).
1923-P is a scarce date / mint combo, but we would probably throw this into our grade "C" bin.
I might come to a different conclusion seeing and handling the actual coin.
Having said that, I took a third look, and noticed a few raised lines and pimples in the exergue, and the "9" of the date.
A Niton test would be interesting, but not necessarily conclusive.
😎

Catawiki is gradually becoming the second eBay, as far as fake coin offers are concerned. They try to create an impression that the listings are checked by the experts, but I have personally reported 4-5 fake coins just in the previous few months and have serious doubts that their experts can really guarantee trouble-free listings. And some lots have not been even withdrawn after my reports!
If anyone was interested I can upload photos of some of the fakes their "experts" approved for sale. Some were absolutely laughable, if you know what to look at.
Regarding this sovereign, it does look a bit weird. The seller however regularly sells a lot of authentic gold coins and bullion so in his case I would say he's no scammer but genuinely someone who just got fooled by this coin, if it's indeed counterfeit. But it looks like that - does it even have reeded edge?
 

Think it's been mounted and cleaned, then hit with a hammer for the craic and possibly cast to begin with.

Was left in the sun and the chocolate inside melted a bit

Hello forum! 🖐️
It's been a long time since my last visit here and I 'm back again posting one more topic on (what else?) sovereigns.
Here is a listing of a sovereign on a well known website called catawiki.
URL: https://www.catawiki.com/en/l/65619887-australia-sovereign-1923-p-georg-v
Seeing St. George reminds me of Robocop...🤣
What do you think?
Cheers!
 

Hello forum! 🖐️
It's been a long time since my last visit here and I 'm back again posting one more topic on (what else?) sovereigns.
Here is a listing of a sovereign on a well known website called catawiki.
URL: https://www.catawiki.com/en/l/65619887-australia-sovereign-1923-p-georg-v
Seeing St. George reminds me of Robocop...🤣
What do you think?
Cheers!
 

@Petra Sure!
1) First of all, the dates 1916 (London mint - no mint mark) and 1911-C are quite scarce, so when you see them come up you should be wary and examine if they are fake. Of course it could be a batch of hoarded sovereigns which are genuine, although there is a very low possibility of that happening.
2) You can notice that some of them have a date of 1919 with no mint mark, therefore London mint. That can't be correct, since London sovereigns weren't minted that year.
3) On some of the coins there seems to be an "B.B.P." instead of "B.P.".
4) Details on the coins. Some examples are:
     a) 1st photo, 1st row, 1st coin from the left: The sword and leg of St. George lack detail and seems to be "integrated" into the body of the horse. There should have been clear lines and details on both the aforementioned parts.
     b) 1st photo, 2nd row, 2nd coin from the right: Details are all wrong, although I would say that the leg and hair streamer of St. George seem to stand out.
     c) 1st photo, 2nd row, 3rd coin from the right: Details are absent and also the date "1916" looks like it was vertically "squeezed".
     d) 1st photo, 3rd row, 3rd coin from the right: Again the details are all wrong, of which the belly of St. George and also the details on the dragon stand out. Plus, under the dragon there is a "canyon", which shouldn't be there.
     These are some of the many wrong things that I can tell you on the spot. Using a photo of an original sovereign will help you greatly in comparing and identifying the wrong thing you see.
     Cheers!
 
 

Here are the photos of the 1916-M fake sovereign I mentioned:

Awful reverse!
The obverse is just as bad:

And for anyone who thinks a Niton or other XRF machine can tell genuine from fake:

The gold content is within normal range, but the silver content is a big clue.
This is an excellent example of human eyes, brains, and experience being better than dumb reliance on technology.
😎

We don't test most of the brand new mint sealed ones, but we do "random" checks on one or two coins. We do weigh all the incoming new monster boxes and tubes, to ensure weights, and quantities are correct.
With secondary market coins, every incoming coin gets a visual check, which usually only needs to be brief. Older coins (pre-QE2) usually get double checked. More "interesting" coins get XRF tested, and sometimes photographed. Most get double checked by a numismatist before being allocated to stock, before we sell them.
An XRF test can detect incorrect metal content, but correct metal content does not guarantee a coin is genuine.
Human eyes, combined with experience, still beat machines, for speed and accuracy.
😎
Just found this YouTube video I was looking for:
 
We may have a better one somewhere.

Flash, also known as flashing, is excess material attached to a molded, forged, or cast product, which must usually be removed. This is typically caused by leakage of the material between the two surfaces of a mold (sic) (beginning along the parting line) or between the base material and the mold in the case of overmolding (sic).
Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flash_(manufacturing)
 
 

@Petra Sure!
1) First of all, the dates 1916 (London mint - no mint mark) and 1911-C are quite scarce, so when you see them come up you should be wary and examine if they are fake. Of course it could be a batch of hoarded sovereigns which are genuine, although there is a very low possibility of that happening.
2) You can notice that some of them have a date of 1919 with no mint mark, therefore London mint. That can't be correct, since London sovereigns weren't minted that year.
3) On some of the coins there seems to be an "B.B.P." instead of "B.P.".
4) Details on the coins. Some examples are:
     a) 1st photo, 1st row, 1st coin from the left: The sword and leg of St. George lack detail and seems to be "integrated" into the body of the horse. There should have been clear lines and details on both the aforementioned parts.
     b) 1st photo, 2nd row, 2nd coin from the right: Details are all wrong, although I would say that the leg and hair streamer of St. George seem to stand out.
     c) 1st photo, 2nd row, 3rd coin from the right: Details are absent and also the date "1916" looks like it was vertically "squeezed".
     d) 1st photo, 3rd row, 3rd coin from the right: Again the details are all wrong, of which the belly of St. George and also the details on the dragon stand out. Plus, under the dragon there is a "canyon", which shouldn't be there.
     These are some of the many wrong things that I can tell you on the spot. Using a photo of an original sovereign will help you greatly in comparing and identifying the wrong thing you see.
     Cheers!
 
 

Hello forum!
Today I would like to share some photos from 2 auction lots I found some time ago. The lots consist only of sovereigns, and in my opinion the vast majority of them (if not all!) are counterfeit. Since most members here on the forum collect/stack them, I would like to add some more pictures on the "fake sovereign" database, so that people may get more information of what's out there.
Enjoy the photos!

@ArgentSmith It was an auction from Europe, I think France, although I didn't keep a record of it. 😞
@LawrenceChard Yes, I noticed these mould "flash lines", too, but I thought that maybe it was caused by the photo angle. Any idea what causes them?
@Petra As @Zhorro said, the book by Mr. Marsh is an excellent addition to the library of any gold sovereign enthusiast. I would also like to add another source that has helped me immensely and gave me a more in-depth knowledge concerning sovereigns:
Look for "The Bentley Collection of British Milled Sovereigns" catalogs (Part 1 ,2 & 3), which can be found on the Baldwin's website for free. 😉
You will get lost in the variety that the sovereign has to offer...😮
@Petra Now, you can thank me for all the info, by providing more photos of the doggo...☺️

@ArgentSmith It was an auction from Europe, I think France, although I didn't keep a record of it. 😞
@LawrenceChard Yes, I noticed these mould "flash lines", too, but I thought that maybe it was caused by the photo angle. Any idea what causes them?
@Petra As @Zhorro said, the book by Mr. Marsh is an excellent addition to the library of any gold sovereign enthusiast. I would also like to add another source that has helped me immensely and gave me a more in-depth knowledge concerning sovereigns:
Look for "The Bentley Collection of British Milled Sovereigns" catalogs (Part 1 ,2 & 3), which can be found on the Baldwin's website for free. 😉
You will get lost in the variety that the sovereign has to offer...😮
@Petra Now, you can thank me for all the info, by providing more photos of the doggo...☺️

Although I get to see quite a few fake sovereigns, I have never before seen what look like 45 fakes in just two photos, and from one auction or other source.
Were these photos from the auction catalogue?
I agree they do all look like fakes.
Bigger, better, hi-res photos would help, as some of the dates or mintmark areas are not clear.
1916-M is a scarce date / mintmark combination, so it would be surprising to see so many in one batch, although by coincidence, last Friday I tested one incoming fake sovereign, which was also a 1916-M.
If one is actually a 1919-L, then that is definitely a fake, as otherwise it is a non-existent date / mintmark combination.
As @ArgentSmith asked "where were they being auctioned?". Do you have a name, lot numbers, links?
I guess this was a Greek auction?
The big variation in colour should alert anyone.
They all / mainly have a weakly struck appearance.
Some have what look like mould "flash lines" on them.
Thanks for posting these photos, it should be a good educational resource.
🙂

The best book is The Gold Sovereign Series  by M.A. Marsh (revised by Steve Hill) 2021:
https://www.tokenpublishing.com/shop/product/8058
At £39.95 it is excellent value - this is about 10% of one sovereign!

Special edition Bullion By Post.......LOL

Thanks @thanasis for posting this 👍 Some closer pictures 
F1 is just weak and the dragons head is all wrong
F2 is the BBP you mentioned
F3 all wrong soft mushy strike and the numerals in the date a wrong
@thanasis  Could you show a spread of genuine sovereigns and put and put a few of these in the photos to see if we can pick them out, would be good to see if theres any noticeable colour difference as some fakes stand out as the colour is well off. 

Hello forum!
Today I would like to share some photos from 2 auction lots I found some time ago. The lots consist only of sovereigns, and in my opinion the vast majority of them (if not all!) are counterfeit. Since most members here on the forum collect/stack them, I would like to add some more pictures on the "fake sovereign" database, so that people may get more information of what's out there.
Enjoy the photos!

@Petra Sure!
1) First of all, the dates 1916 (London mint - no mint mark) and 1911-C are quite scarce, so when you see them come up you should be wary and examine if they are fake. Of course it could be a batch of hoarded sovereigns which are genuine, although there is a very low possibility of that happening.
2) You can notice that some of them have a date of 1919 with no mint mark, therefore London mint. That can't be correct, since London sovereigns weren't minted that year.
3) On some of the coins there seems to be an "B.B.P." instead of "B.P.".
4) Details on the coins. Some examples are:
     a) 1st photo, 1st row, 1st coin from the left: The sword and leg of St. George lack detail and seems to be "integrated" into the body of the horse. There should have been clear lines and details on both the aforementioned parts.
     b) 1st photo, 2nd row, 2nd coin from the right: Details are all wrong, although I would say that the leg and hair streamer of St. George seem to stand out.
     c) 1st photo, 2nd row, 3rd coin from the right: Details are absent and also the date "1916" looks like it was vertically "squeezed".
     d) 1st photo, 3rd row, 3rd coin from the right: Again the details are all wrong, of which the belly of St. George and also the details on the dragon stand out. Plus, under the dragon there is a "canyon", which shouldn't be there.
     These are some of the many wrong things that I can tell you on the spot. Using a photo of an original sovereign will help you greatly in comparing and identifying the wrong thing you see.
     Cheers!
 
 

Hello forum!
Today I would like to share some photos from 2 auction lots I found some time ago. The lots consist only of sovereigns, and in my opinion the vast majority of them (if not all!) are counterfeit. Since most members here on the forum collect/stack them, I would like to add some more pictures on the "fake sovereign" database, so that people may get more information of what's out there.
Enjoy the photos!