Roy

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.

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
The buyer arranged for the coin to be posted to us at @ChardsCoinandBullionDealer in Blackpool, for examination, appraisal, and testing.
It arrived securely packaged and labelled:

We had already removed it from the packaging, but replaced it for this photo.
My early opinion of the coin was formed mainly after seeing the auctioneer's catalogue photo of the reverse, which had a number of suspicious features, the most notable of which was the profusion of what looked like raised pimples. 
Although these could occur on coins struck from rusted and cleaned dies, this is very rare, but is quite common on counterfeit coins. This represents one of the worst examples of raised pimples that I have seen:

Lightly brushing a fingernail across the surface reveals that the pimples are indeed raised.
These can be seen in SJA's photo, but our superior lighting and other techniques show them much more clearly.
Almost every detail on the reverse looks wrong, especially when compared with a genuine example, as here:

Although the counterfeit coin shows very few, if any, signs of circulation or wear, it is lacking in definition particularly on the higher points, giving the appearance of being weakly struck. When a rubber, or other, mould is made from an original, some definition is always lost. When a wax is made from a  mould, further definition and sharpness is lost. When the wax is then used to produce a plaster "investment" or tree, even more definition is lost. The same happens then the "coin" is then cast, and "flash" lines can also occur. The arc to the left of the horse's tail may be a flash mark.
The raised pimples are possibly caused by air bubbles formed during the investment process, burning out the wax, or during casting.
If the fake was die struck rather than cast, the new dies would have been produced by first taking moulds from an original, then casting the new dies in a process similar to that described above.
The date numerals, and the B.P. initials look rather clumsy, soft, and lacking in definition. The denticles are irregular, and their spacing from the rim also looks wrong.
The colour is noticeably yellow compared with the genuine example.
The edge serrations can be seen more clearly on the fake compared with the original. This is mainly because the serrations on a genuine 1957 sovereign are finer than on other Gillick sovereigns (1958 to 1968).
Obverse photos to follow.

We received the coin on Tuesday 8th, and I got to see it yesterday 9th.
My 99% certainty factor has turned out to be an understatement, but I do prefer not to exaggerate.
Now I have seen the actual coin, I am 100% certain that it is a fake, and a very obvious one at that.
Naturally, I examined the coin before I used our Niton XRF tester on it, but this confirmed my opinion, if any confirmation was needed.
I will start by showing the XRF result:

Just before testing, I weighed the coin on our diamond carat balance, which showed 39.916cts. I forgot to show the conversion to grams before we photographed the result sheet, but the weight in grams is 39.916/5 = 7.9832.
The actual weight should be 7.98805 grams, not the 7.98 which "Sam" (SJA manager) cites, although this is the usual, incorrect figure which the Royal Mint shows on most of its proof sovereign certificates, and on its website. 
The weight is therefore slightly deficient, although many "experts" could be excused for not realising this.
The coin shows no significant signs of circulation, wear or scuffing, so the deficient weight cannot be blamed on wear.
The most obviously, glaring, discrepancy is the gold content:
The obverse tested at 890 ppt +/- 3ppt of gold
The reverse tested at 860 ppt +/- 3ppt of gold
Although there is often a slight differential between obverse and reverse readings, this is usually very low for genuine coins, typically in the range of 0 to 1 or 2 ppt.
With counterfeits, a wide discrepancy, as above, is far more common.
It is surprising to see any iron content in most sovereigns, although I have noticed it occasionally occurs in some older sovereigns, typically pre 1860, and more likely for Australian and other branch mints. When it does occur, it is usually only 1 ppt, so readings of 2 and 3 ppt are notably high.
The silver content, at 1 ppt, is not entirely surprising for this date, or other very early QE2 sovereigns, although my normal expectation would be 0 ppt.
The copper content makes up the difference.
Following our usual practice, we had the machine set to test for 60 seconds, which is much longer than most people test for, as it reduces statistical sampling error rates.
Gold plating was not detected.
Even if the user / tester knew absolutely nothing about coins or numismatics, these test results would be conclusive evidence that this coin was not produced at the Royal Mint.
We took a number of high resolution photos today. These will follow, with annotations.
 
 

I dream of:
Guinness (lots of)
Chicken Madras, Lamb Bhuna
Fish and Chips
A good kebab with chilli and garlic sauce
English breakfasts
A mixed grill.
Simple lad, me.

I understand this now, as our @Paul said, he sold gold and bought another income producing asset 👍

Personally, I think it's too early to sell.
I know folk have a plethora of reasons for listing coins for sale, and none of them are my business, but I think gold has a longer run to go yet.
When you look around at the *prices of everything and the fact your cash is losing its value rapidly, it surely makes sense to preserve your wealth, what little or lot you have.
I like to talk about retirement a lot (it's me age, lad) but you really need to think about it. Sucks to be a poor old man.
Does anyone agree with me? As I said, I understand people sometimes need to cash out, but taking cash profits in this economic climate seems foolish? Keep stacking.
 
* gas is $4 a gal in socal! 😲
 

I dream of:
Guinness (lots of)
Chicken Madras, Lamb Bhuna
Fish and Chips
A good kebab with chilli and garlic sauce
English breakfasts
A mixed grill.
Simple lad, me.

Personally, I think it's too early to sell.
I know folk have a plethora of reasons for listing coins for sale, and none of them are my business, but I think gold has a longer run to go yet.
When you look around at the *prices of everything and the fact your cash is losing its value rapidly, it surely makes sense to preserve your wealth, what little or lot you have.
I like to talk about retirement a lot (it's me age, lad) but you really need to think about it. Sucks to be a poor old man.
Does anyone agree with me? As I said, I understand people sometimes need to cash out, but taking cash profits in this economic climate seems foolish? Keep stacking.
 
* gas is $4 a gal in socal! 😲
 

Personally, I think it's too early to sell.
I know folk have a plethora of reasons for listing coins for sale, and none of them are my business, but I think gold has a longer run to go yet.
When you look around at the *prices of everything and the fact your cash is losing its value rapidly, it surely makes sense to preserve your wealth, what little or lot you have.
I like to talk about retirement a lot (it's me age, lad) but you really need to think about it. Sucks to be a poor old man.
Does anyone agree with me? As I said, I understand people sometimes need to cash out, but taking cash profits in this economic climate seems foolish? Keep stacking.
 
* gas is $4 a gal in socal! 😲
 

Can I call you Tim?

Can I call you Tim?

I worked in Arbroath for 12 months as opened as i open my southern west country gob - I got the look as if the music stopped in bar like scratched record in a wild west film.  Used to go to Dundee, that wasnt too bad to be fair, taxi was fortune mind to go on the sauce. The driver used to charge me extra because i was English and the extra baggage of carry my body amour and helmet going into the night clubs! Use to pull all the birds mind, because that's all used I wear - like a rutting stag on Viagra! I used to get in free, I was the cabaret!

I’m working class not rich lol
New build as well in Scotland.

It’s not worth it, it really isn’t.
Some places, I’m talking Cheshire, Lancashire or Yorkshire as an example. If you want to live in a nice area it’s £180k+ for a two bed terraced house with no driveway and a small yard with no room to swing a cat in. (I don’t advise anyone try that).
That amount of money would get you a 3/4 bed semi detached in some areas of Scotland or Wales for example.