Roy

@CANV

Can I call you Tim?

Oh no, there are several varieties, as you will now realise.
The 1887 M with the second legend is the rarer one I think. I'm not sure about that J though, I certainly don't regard myself as in any way expert in Jub heads. I must have a look at that download linked above.🙂

Inspired by the 1957 thread, I thought I'd put this coin up for appraisal/discussion
I haven't actually seen the coin or had it in hand, but I have these pics to look at 😄
I bought it a while ago.
 
m  

 
 

I guess you're seeing the difference between first legend and second legend jubilee heads. There's a very good reference catalogue put together by sovereign rarities (David Iverson and Steve Hill) that lists the different jubilee head varieties attached.
The jubilee head Sovereigns are one of my favourites to collect and there plenty of different varieties like yours to be found.
 
The Jubilee Head Gold Sovereign 1887-1893 Iverson.pdf

This is the best thread I have ever read on the forum.  Thanks all who have contributed.  
 
Best
Dicker

We're lucky to have all this specialist equipment to help us determine whether a coin is fake or counterfeited. Sometimes, just a great photo is all you need!
Historically, however, just the eye and hand was all that was needed (and lots of experience of course!).
 

It appears to be a London Mint sovereign, although it does not look as yellow as I would expect, but this could be due to the lighting or photography.
I took a closer look at the mintmark area, and cannot be certain whether there is a rather mushy mintmark or not. In the latter case, it would be London Mint.

It looks to be the common London type with right angled J
The height of the crown is standard.
Nothing immediately jumps out except perhaps the rear of the helmet plume lacks definition and the dragon wing over the foot perhaps doesn't protrude as much as it should. Could be photography artefacts.
Probably one to look closely at and compare with an original, if the physical checks aroused suspicion.

I think a practical solution would be for SJA to offer to refund the buyer's premium. After all, they have not provided much of a service to the buyer. If anything, their responses to the buyer have been more surprising, and possibly revealing, than the original failure to identify and catalogue the coin correctly in the first place.
If I understand correctly, the buyer raised the doubt about the authenticity at least twice, I think citing my opinion and evidence on both occasions. While Sam may not have heard of my small provincial coin and bullion business, I am sure he could and should have taken the challenge about authenticity more seriously, and checked properly. I believe on the first occasion, he compared the disputed coin with another 1957 from the same auction, although I am unsure whether he physically re-examined the coins, or just the photos. I believe on the second occasion, he asked "two other people", who both agreed with the original calatogue description. We do not know who those other people were, or their numismatic experience and qualifications. We do not know whether Sam relayed my findings and doubts. I know Steve Fenton is a director of SJA. He is a very experienced numismatist. Asking Steve to examine the coin would have been a sensible course of action.
Anyone can make a mistake. I don't know the identity of the seller, but gather that he was a serious numismatist, and would have had knowledge and experience, judging by the rest of his collection. The SJA catalogue does not mention its previous provenance (who the seller bought it from).
I guess that the SJA cataloguer simply relied on the seller's description, without examining the coin, or perhaps with only a cursory examination. The estimate of £300 - £400 is an indicator that it was not considered to be of any great rarity or value, and it would not require the amount of time, attention, or expertise, which might be expected for a higher value piece, such as the 1957 "specimen" version. The original failure to detect this as a counterfeit may have simply been an unfortunate oversight, a simple mistake, but it probably was careless at least, and possibly negligent because the cataloguer surely owes some duty of care to the seller, buyer, and any potential bidders.
The failure to take the authenticity challenge seriously, however, is much more puzzling and worrying, as is the consensus opinion of all three SJA people involved. The whole matter raises considerable doubt over the professionalism of SJA, yet their feeble and self-assured responses do nothing to correct matters at an early stage, and surely poses a serious risk to the reputation of the company. Was this trio trying to protect the original cataloguer, whoever that was, by a cover-up, were they afraid to reveal the error to a director? We do not know the answers to these questions, but would certainly be interested in any answers and explanations.
Once the authenticity had been seriously questioned, then Sam, a manager, should surely have taken the challenge more seriously, and at least got an expert numismatic opinion, possibly from an SJA director, or possibly from an independent third party, such as another London dealer or auction house. This should be much easier in London than in the provinces.
Before I got to see the coin, I did not know whether I was about to see a very unusual and rare coin, more so because of the pimples indicating a rusty die than because of the off-centre striking. I was disappointed not to, but at the same time delighted that my original identification was indeed correct.
I am still unsure whether I would have preferred to be wrong or right. If wrong, I would have had the excuse that I was only working from a photo.
I often say that some fakes are so obvious that a blind person could detect them. While I often make this comment semi-humorously, in this case it is almost certainly true and accurate. Gently drawing a fingernail across the reverse, the raised pimples provide a solid physical barrier to the movement.
I told the seller we would not charge for the Niton test, or our appraisal, and this still stands. However, if St. James Auctions offer to reimburse us, then I would welcome their offer, even if I end up earning less than the legal minimum hourly wage rate. They will, or should have, benefitted from the educational aspect of our photographs, and my observations.
 

Inspired by the 1957 thread, I thought I'd put this coin up for appraisal/discussion
I haven't actually seen the coin or had it in hand, but I have these pics to look at 😄
I bought it a while ago.
 
m  

 
 

We're lucky to have all this specialist equipment to help us determine whether a coin is fake or counterfeited. Sometimes, just a great photo is all you need!
Historically, however, just the eye and hand was all that was needed (and lots of experience of course!).
 

1. 1st & 2nd place medals would swap
2. Any Silver Membership would now be elevated status compared to a Gold Membership
3. Your "golden years" would now be called your "silver years" (which makes more sense with the greying of one's hair)
4. The Golden Globes awards would be renamed to the Silver Stars awards (keeping with the concept of alliteration)
5. The "cash man" would stop bugging you to sell your gold for cash and would instead target your silver
6. Sayings like, "Handed life on a silver platter" or "Born with a silver spoon in your mouth" would still apply (no change)
7. Betraying Jesus for 30 pieces of silver now looks like a planned move by the aristocracy
8. The U.S. President, along with The Federal Reserve, will revise Executive Order 6102 to confiscate your silver
9. Bankers would push paper silver assets over the physical (no change)
10. Thousands of Silver Forum members would instantly get calls from that girl in high school who thought she was too good for you. But now that you're loaded, she thinks you're the most attractive thing since Sam Heughan. Then you break her heart by calling her a tramp and a gold digger silver digger and you place a restraining order on her because broke b**ches be crazy.
** A bit more thought had to go into #10 for the grand finale **

Yes.
It is much more satisfying to spot them at the visual stage than only detect them at the testing stage.
Then the physical testing makes for a good second opinion, and confirmation.

Thanks Chards guys.
I'm with @Roy on this one. Pretty much every fake sovereign I've had my hands on (that I'm aware of, of course😉) has failed one of the physical tests; weight, diameter, thickness as measured by a modern equivalent to a sovereign balance/template. You can usually then spot some details that don't look right. Some obviously never get as far as the physical, having failed the visual miserably!

Inspired by the 1957 thread, I thought I'd put this coin up for appraisal/discussion
I haven't actually seen the coin or had it in hand, but I have these pics to look at 😄
I bought it a while ago.
 
m  

 
 

Yes - CorelDraw
Looks a lot harder to do than it actually is.  
Other graphic programs (Illustrator, Inkscape etc) may have same ability but CD makes things easy to work out how to do things.
If anyone wants a step by step guide - just ask
Doug
Photographer @ Chards 
 

We're lucky to have all this specialist equipment to help us determine whether a coin is fake or counterfeited. Sometimes, just a great photo is all you need!
Historically, however, just the eye and hand was all that was needed (and lots of experience of course!).
 

We're lucky to have all this specialist equipment to help us determine whether a coin is fake or counterfeited. Sometimes, just a great photo is all you need!
Historically, however, just the eye and hand was all that was needed (and lots of experience of course!).
 

In t'old days, the sovereign balance would've picked this up?
Obviously not a '57 but turn of the century.
@LawrenceChard, I'm impressed with how you catalogue the serrations, is that a piece of software you use?

Probably. A Fisch tester also might. We have still not acquired one though.
No, it's all down to human blood, sweat, and toil (not mine).
😎

St. James Auctions - Auction No. 57 - Lot: 310 
DESCRIPTION
Elizabeth II, sovereign, 1957, obverse off strike, fine graining on edge, laur. head r., rev. St. George and the dragon, the off strike affecting the obverse by a couple of millimetres toward the right (S.4124), good extremely fine.
Continued:
Although the catalogue description states "fine graining on edge", this is not an accurate description of the actual coin, which I have concluded to be an obvious forgery.
This is our photo of the reverse, with the serrations indexed and counted:

This clearly shows 106 coarse edge serrations, which is the normal count on all other Gillick portrait sovereigns (1958 to 1968).
Genuine 1957 sovereigns all have 169 fine serrations. The buyer also manage to produce a similar count based on the catalogue photo, our image shows them more clearly, due to superior lighting and photographic technique.
Here is a side-by-side comparison:

It seems certain that the auction cataloguer has merely quoted the normal specification for 1957 sovereigns, but has failed to observe that the actual coin has 106 coarse serrations.
While nobody would expect most dealers or auction houses to make an exact count of the number of edge serrations, the difference between fine and coarse ones is very obvious, and almost unmissable, even when seen in isolation, without a side by side comparison.
To demonstrate our point, we took this photo:

The fifth coin (fake) from the top looks slightly too yellow, but has the same coarse serrations as the rest of the stack. The arrowed coin near the middle of the stack stands out like the proverbial sore thumb, because it has a greater number of much finer serrations.
When sorting through bulk lots of bullion sovereigns, I often hold a roll of about 50 coins in one hand, and look for any "odd ones out". This includes 1957s, and also unusual coins for more detailed inspection. Often I do this with my naked eye, but sometimes I also use an eyeglass.
 
 

In t'old days, the sovereign balance would've picked this up?
Obviously not a '57 but turn of the century.
@LawrenceChard, I'm impressed with how you catalogue the serrations, is that a piece of software you use?

1957 Gold Sovereign - Striking Error or Fake?
I continue our series of photos with the obverse.

Although there is little or no signs of circulation or wear, there is a distinct lack of detail on the raised parts of the design. While at first glance, and to an untrained eye, this might appear to be caused be wear, it is not the case for this coin. This loss of detail is a very common feature on counterfeit coins.
There are curved lines running through much of the lettering, concentric to the rim. These look rather like flash lines, or flow lines often seen on castings.
There are numerous small indents and other surface irregularities on raised areas and on the field of the coin, which would normally look cleaner, flatter and sharper on genuine coins. While some older sovereigns, including George V, have a orange peel grainy surfaces, these have a completely different texture compared with this example. The most likely explanation for the irregular fields of this coin is that it has been cast.
Comparison:

The suspect (fake) coin is shown on the left, and the genuine coin on the right.
Notice the clearer definition on the genuine coin, particularly noticeable on the hair and laurel wreath. The lettering is also sharper on the genuine coin.
The coarser edge serrations can be seen clearly on the fake.