TheGoldSovereign

A fake 1917, sure it was on eBay but I had bid a large amount in the hope it was real, the seller denies it is fake.

The circles are for the benefit of the seller in the eBay case 😂, could have just circled the whole coin...

On 22/03/2019 at 16:07, h103efa said:

That's amazing! 

I'm happy to take that of your hands for 30 + vat, as your photos suggests! 😉😜

Add two zeros then add the VAT

2 minutes ago, sovereignsteve said:

yes me too!😁

What struck me was the hassle we caused for poor Lizzie. I wonder if we had anything to do with her leaving Chards?😉

O, hopefully not! 😲

On 05/03/2019 at 14:10, sovereignsteve said:

No.

Next one after 1887 was 1893

Your bump of this thread made me read it again and spotted my pictures on page 1, that looks like a nicer coin that I've recorded it as, and I have a 3:80 ratio on this coin so it's definitely rarer!

9 minutes ago, Bullionaire said:

Those sovereigns look very cool all stacked up.

Nothing like some stacked sovereigns in the Bokeh 😂

6 minutes ago, augur said:

I really wonder how this strange R punch came about... 

Same, I've spoken to a few leading Numismatics about it and the only explanation was an extra burr of metal on the punch that wasn't filed off before use, and the fact there are a few errors on the coin suggests it could have been an apprentices attempt that made it into production?

I think I have a few other errors with a similar burr on a different letter, when I've finished the bulk of the cataloguing work I'm going to do a few write ups on each error

18 minutes ago, augur said:

I was just thinking that you did have an unusual letter before. Was it the same coin/could you post both next to each other?

Yes another one from the same die which is why I posted, I'm sure you wasn't a non-believer?

You can see all the same traits including the tooling marks under her chin.

I have a number of new varieties that I've confirmed by having multiples of now 😋

I had erroneously recorded this die number twice in my database, I had a separate entry for it as a variety that has been discovered before and thought I didn't have any.

On second look I noticed that in fact I had 5!

I had another look at them this morning and note that one is very very copper coloured. It is suspected that there was a few experimental strikes with different alloys, with the "yellow gold" suspected to be with silver instead of copper.

Is it possible they also tried something else, or would the silver content potentially tone like this? I really tried to capture the difference in photos but in hand it's ridiculously different.

Nice new error, there was an example in the Bentley collection with an A/V and Roman I but this just has the Roman I

Also to note this variety has the number Zero (0) for O in date which is also the scarcer variation in my experience

1860 - Roman I for 1 in date

1 hour ago, sovereignsteve said:

They may not be common but they exist, I've seen most of them.

 

Yes I've got most and 100s of others not recorded but my point was really that it's down to whoever recorded it and what they assumed it was

There has been quite a few examples of errors recorded as something that were later proved to be something else, or recorded as something (like this one) just because there was no other fit for it. I would have to record this as A/V for lack of anything else, but if this isn't the same error as someone else recorded then it gets a bit messy!

This coin is nothing like the A/V that's in the Bentley collection for example. 

8 hours ago, Xander said:

There is a 1853 Shield back recorded with an inverted A for V in Victoria. It looks like your coin is a fudged A. 

The problem with some of the recorded coins is there aren't any examples around so this may well be what Marsh recorded as an A/V but it's an awful correction if so! 

So what about this one?! 🤔

I literally can't even hazard a guess with this, never seen anything like it before. The coin is an 1853 shield.

7 hours ago, sovereignsteve said:

surely the size can't be right at that density?

it shouldn't weigh more than a real one either, i always use proof sovs as a yardstick, an old one should weigh noticeably less, depending on how circulated it looks.

you should be able to tell this even with poor quality scales.

When I said poor scales I meant they must be way out of calibration but seems not too far off. 

Final results are:

Real - 8.01g, 0.47 in water and 17.042 SG

Fake - 8.04g, 0.48 in water and 16.75 SG

I did the test with a. 999 1oz britannia and it came back 19.11 SG

I weighed 20+ sovs on the scales and they ranged from. 7.93 to 8.05, the britannia was also 31.35

End result is that its likely 20ct, so not far off, anyone think this could be majorly wrong or I'm missing something? 

So I need new scales,  they should be arriving today! but current findings are:

Real Sov:

Weight - 8.1g

Weight in water - 0.4g

SG - 20.25

Fake Sov:

Weight - 8.2g

Weight in water - 0.5g

SG - 16.4

Based on the table below and my dodgy scales I'd say it could be 18ct, will only have a much better idea when I can get 0.01 weights and accurate!

20 minutes ago, mr-dead said:

found this but you would need to know what alloy metals are in the coin

Useful thanks, I think it's silver so will do the test tonight and report back

Yea i have no doubt they exist, I've had a few that were 22ct confirmed by HGM some time ago

However the XRF machine he mentioned I got a quote for as i say at 12k so no good, is specific gravity accurate enough in that will it reveal what metal is it? 

Take a look at the pictures of two 1920-P sovereigns, one fake and one genuine, an ok copy.

From what I've read a lot of the better copies actually have a high gold content, almost 22ct. Is there anyway I can test this at home? The dims are fine and the weight 😲

Looking at some of the amazing copies on @drakesterling 's website it makes me want to check more closely in future!

On 07/02/2019 at 10:30, Zhorro said:

I am sorry to hear the news that it is definitely a fake, but as you say it is a good one.

I am still in shock after seeing the £5 Jubilee forgery that Chards showed last week on the Forum.

As to an XRF tester, I do not have one, but I suppose it depends on how many sovereigns you buy a year as to whether it would be worthwhile.

XRF testers are 12k, I was very disappointed but did make a contact who would run a large batch out of hours with me for a small fee. Not worth it for this sovereign though so will just send it back, kind of a shame if its 22ct as I find fakes interesting as well