Size differences in sovereigns - any cause for concern?

[Melon]

Anyone ever observed slight size differences in sovereigns? 

I've just moved some from generic sized 25mm capsules to 19.5mm direct fit capsules and noticed 2 out of 10 half-sovereigns fit more snugly than the rest. All fit, but 2 fit so perfectly that they have zero movement in the capsule, unlike the others which have just enough movement to fall up and down in the closed capsule. 

The size is identical to my eye even when laying coins on top of each other, so we are talking about fractions of a millimetre here. Weight is good and thickness is the same. All bought from one dealer. 

Anyone else experienced similar? I'd never had noticed except these two don't rattle in the capsule! 🤣 

(I've mixed the capsules around so it's not the capsules giving the difference in result)

Example - below the 1915 is one of two snug fits, whereas the 1911 is one of the eight with slight movement. The 1915 appears more worn in, perhaps that's the cause? 

[Stu]

Yes. I had exactly the same thing. All coins were bought from HGM so I dud not do any further tests. Also have lighthouse caps so possibly could be them that are slightly undersized? 

[richatthecroft]

Likely the capsules are not an even size?

Edited December 26, 2019 by richatthecroft

[Melon]

Just now, Stu said:

Yes. I had exactly the same thing. All coins were bought from HGM so I dud not do any further tests. Also have lighthouse caps so possibly could be them that are slightly undersized? 

That's reassuring! 

In my case I ruled out the capsules being at fault by swapping one of the tight fitting coins and one of the loosing fitting coins into each others capsule. The same coin retained it's tight fit in the opposite capsule, and the loose coin maintained it's loose fit in the previously tight capsule. Which is a really confusing way of saying I don't think the capsules are the cause for the differences on this little experiment. + @richatthecroft

I'm confident in the gold content given the weight and dimensions, but I don't have sufficient knowledge to really authenticate the coin itself. Was relying on the dealer for that part! 😅

On closer inspection though, I wonder if a little nick in the edge like the one shown below on the 1915 coin may be all it takes to make the difference in fit. That nick is invisible to the naked eye but thanks to the power of paint I have made it larger 😄

[AuricGoldfinger]

Yep I’d also put it down to the edges. Coins of that age will display different wear from years of being in circulation, I don’t think you have anything to worry about

[1817Karl]

Looks like one is a Melbourne Mint half, which might explain the minute difference in diameter, I'm guessing the difference is minuscule?

[Booky586]

3 hours ago, Melon said:

That's reassuring! 

In my case I ruled out the capsules being at fault by swapping one of the tight fitting coins and one of the loosing fitting coins into each others capsule. The same coin retained it's tight fit in the opposite capsule, and the loose coin maintained it's loose fit in the previously tight capsule. Which is a really confusing way of saying I don't think the capsules are the cause for the differences on this little experiment. + @richatthecroft

I'm confident in the gold content given the weight and dimensions, but I don't have sufficient knowledge to really authenticate the coin itself. Was relying on the dealer for that part! 😅

On closer inspection though, I wonder if a little nick in the edge like the one shown below on the 1915 coin may be all it takes to make the difference in fit. That nick is invisible to the naked eye but thanks to the power of paint I have made it larger 😄

I would have thought that the more worn coin (1915) would be a loose fit, not the tight one, so the raised nick theory makes sense. You could check this out with a digital caliper measure. If you've got one, that is....

[ilovesilverireallydo]

3 hours ago, 1817Karl said:

Looks like one is a Melbourne Mint half, which might explain the minute difference in diameter, I'm guessing the difference is minuscule?

I am with Karl, the Melbourne mint one is most likely the reason. Also bonus, if I recall it’s the lowest mintage GV half sov.

[Melon]

5 hours ago, 1817Karl said:

Looks like one is a Melbourne Mint half, which might explain the minute difference in diameter, I'm guessing the difference is minuscule?

Ah I didn't know that, thanks. Yes the difference is imperceptible to my eye, or even when the coins are stacked on top of each other. Fraction of a millimetre, but enough to keep it snug rather than loose in capsule. This has been an informative thread! 

4 hours ago, Booky586 said:

I would have thought that the more worn coin (1915) would be a loose fit, not the tight one, so the raised nick theory makes sense. You could check this out with a digital caliper measure. If you've got one, that is....

Yes I'm thinking the nick or the different mint are both viable theories. In any event, the fact nobody is shouting "that looks like Dave stamped a dodgy sovereign in his basement" is reassuring 😄

 

1 hour ago, ilovesilverireallydo said:

I am with Karl, the Melbourne mint one is most likely the reason. Also bonus, if I recall it’s the lowest mintage GV half sov.

I'll call the missus and let her know I've finally struck gold (forgive my pun) 🤑

I'm going to dig out the other one that was tight fitting tomorrow and post a pic - if that's the same mint then mystery solved! Could be... bought the lot together at once. 

[Pipers]

I have only about 15 half sovereigns they are not my thing. But having said that I collect sovereigns, to me the Melbourne sovereign looks not right on the reverse general lack of detail.    I know it's worn, questions like lack of detail in the ground!   Ask Sovsteve to have a look.  

I agree the 3rd side damage would make the coins harder to fit a capsule.  Also there are some very good fakes around that time plus some badly struck correct ones.  

[Melon]

14 hours ago, Pipers said:

I have only about 15 half sovereigns they are not my thing. But having said that I collect sovereigns, to me the Melbourne sovereign looks not right on the reverse general lack of detail.    I know it's worn, questions like lack of detail in the ground!   Ask Sovsteve to have a look.  

I agree the 3rd side damage would make the coins harder to fit a capsule.  Also there are some very good fakes around that time plus some badly struck correct ones.  

Well now you have me worried again 🤣 Although I wonder if this was due to my poor photos - the same 1915 coin is captured better below on the right. 

@sovereignsteve - would appreciate any gems of wisdom on these 😊 It's real gold and my intuition is telling me that counterfeits should get picked up by the dealer, but given the tight capsule fit (context in OP) I thought to ask as better safe than sorry! 

These are better quality images of the two half sovereigns that are tighter fits, although still struggling a little with focus on the phone camera! One is the 1915 from above, other is a 1903; 

 

 

17 hours ago, ilovesilverireallydo said:

I am with Karl, the Melbourne mint one is most likely the reason. Also bonus, if I recall it’s the lowest mintage GV half sov.

 

21 hours ago, 1817Karl said:

Looks like one is a Melbourne Mint half, which might explain the minute difference in diameter, I'm guessing the difference is minuscule?

I have no expertise when it comes to mints and such, but I don't think the other tight fit (1903 above) is a Melborne unfortunately! 

[JunkBond]

12 minutes ago, Melon said:

my intuition is telling me that counterfeits should get picked up by the dealer,

Don't expect a bullion dealer to necessarily be a numismatic expert, someone like HGM or Atkinsons are only going to guarantee its 22ct whereas Chards may be more on the ball.

Unless you paid a premium, don't worry.

[Melon]

28 minutes ago, JunkBond said:

Don't expect a bullion dealer to necessarily be a numismatic expert, someone like HGM or Atkinsons are only going to guarantee its 22ct whereas Chards may be more on the ball.

Unless you paid a premium, don't worry.

1% 👍

 

[ilovesilverireallydo]

2 hours ago, Melon said:

Well now you have me worried again 🤣 Although I wonder if this was due to my poor photos - the same 1915 coin is captured better below on the right. 

@sovereignsteve - would appreciate any gems of wisdom on these 😊 It's real gold and my intuition is telling me that counterfeits should get picked up by the dealer, but given the tight capsule fit (context in OP) I thought to ask as better safe than sorry! 

These are better quality images of the two half sovereigns that are tighter fits, although still struggling a little with focus on the phone camera! One is the 1915 from above, other is a 1903; 

 

 

 

I have no expertise when it comes to mints and such, but I don't think the other tight fit (1903 above) is a Melborne unfortunately! 

Can’t make it out on mobile but looks like the 03 has a mintmark too

[sovereignsteve]

I don't have any experience of keeping half sovs in tight capsules but in general, any size difference doesn't bode well. I would imagine it would show up the slightest of diameter intolerance.

The 1903 looks very suspicious, especially the rim which looks too thick and uneven. It could be the photo but the whole surface of the coin looks grainy and pock-marked, the field at least should have that nice smooth matt appearence.

I can't see anything obvious with the 1915 but again, it does look to have uneven texture in the field. George's chest looks very flat and lacking detail even though the coin as a whole isn't very worn. However, I think I have seen this before with branch mint halves. Having a close look at the tail might reveal something if it was compared against a known good example.

[Melon]

2 hours ago, sovereignsteve said:

I don't have any experience of keeping half sovs in tight capsules but in general, any size difference doesn't bode well. I would imagine it would show up the slightest of diameter intolerance.

The 1903 looks very suspicious, especially the rim which looks too thick and uneven. It could be the photo but the whole surface of the coin looks grainy and pock-marked, the field at least should have that nice smooth matt appearence.

I can't see anything obvious with the 1915 but again, it does look to have uneven texture in the field. George's chest looks very flat and lacking detail even though the coin as a whole isn't very worn. However, I think I have seen this before with branch mint halves. Having a close look at the tail might reveal something if it was compared against a known good example.

Yes exactly that, the diameter difference is so slight that it is literally imperceptible to my eyes (and I'm not blind!) even with the coins on top of each other. Fraction of a millimetre difference. These capsules have a diameter of 19.5mm and Half Soverigns have a diameter of 19.3mm, so given they do fit the maximum difference we're looking at here is 0.2mm. Seems a bit trivial when I say it like that, but then sounds like there may be good reason for concern. 

I don't have the coins with me any more to take further photos unfortunately as they're back in storage, but these older images I posted in the 'today I received' thread may be revealing. It's the top row middle and right side coin that are the two in question. 

[ilovesilverireallydo]

7 hours ago, Melon said:

Yes exactly that, the diameter difference is so slight that it is literally imperceptible to my eyes (and I'm not blind!) even with the coins on top of each other. Fraction of a millimetre difference. These capsules have a diameter of 19.5mm and Half Soverigns have a diameter of 19.3mm, so given they do fit the maximum difference we're looking at here is 0.2mm. Seems a bit trivial when I say it like that, but then sounds like there may be good reason for concern. 

I don't have the coins with me any more to take further photos unfortunately as they're back in storage, but these older images I posted in the 'today I received' thread may be revealing. It's the top row middle and right side coin that are the two in question. 

That’s definitely a different mint not LONDON.  Looks like another M 

[Melon]

4 hours ago, ilovesilverireallydo said:

That’s definitely a different mint not LONDON.  Looks like another M 

I’m going to get hands on it again tomorrow  and try my best with a magnifier to read it! 
 

Got some super sensitive scales and a digital calliper accurate to 0.01mm on the way... I will post the results!! 🤣

[ilovesilverireallydo]

15 minutes ago, Melon said:

I’m going to get hands on it again tomorrow  and try my best with a magnifier to read it! 
 

Got some super sensitive scales and a digital calliper accurate to 0.01mm on the way... I will post the results!! 🤣

Take close ups of surface in a brighter light, that way we could tell if it’s a cast copy. 

[Booky586]

I've spotted some things for you to check:

1. There's no BP initials by the date.
2. The dragons claw below its ear. Looks like it's lost its fingers and the gap between the ear and claw is larger than on the other coins.
3. The gap between the end of the horses tail and the end of the broken lance is bigger than the other coins.
4. Overall lack of detail, even though it's worn, remind me of the modern £1 coin forgeries.

[sovereignsteve]

35 minutes ago, Booky586 said:

I've spotted some things for you to check:

1. There's no BP initials by the date.
2. The dragons claw below its ear. Looks like it's lost its fingers and the gap between the ear and claw is larger than on the other coins.
3. The gap between the end of the horses tail and the end of the broken lance is bigger than the other coins.
4. Overall lack of detail, even though it's worn, remind me of the modern £1 coin forgeries.

It depends if it's a London or branch mint. If London and 1903 it won't have a BP.

If 1903 and branch, it will have to be Sydney but still won't have a BP. Melbourne doesn't exist.

Thus, it will be a Reverse A design, there should be a larger gap around the G&D design than the later years.

[Melon]

10 hours ago, ilovesilverireallydo said:

Take close ups of surface in a brighter light, that way we could tell if it’s a cast copy. 

 

4 hours ago, Booky586 said:

I've spotted some things for you to check:

1. There's no BP initials by the date.
2. The dragons claw below its ear. Looks like it's lost its fingers and the gap between the ear and claw is larger than on the other coins.
3. The gap between the end of the horses tail and the end of the broken lance is bigger than the other coins.
4. Overall lack of detail, even though it's worn, remind me of the modern £1 coin forgeries.

 

3 hours ago, sovereignsteve said:

It depends if it's a London or branch mint. If London and 1903 it won't have a BP.

If 1903 and branch, it will have to be Sydney but still won't have a BP. Melbourne doesn't exist.

Thus, it will be a Reverse A design, there should be a larger gap around the G&D design than the later years.

 

This has turned into a very interesting conversation! This is all new to me, so very interesting to hear from you all. Obviously I'm rooting for them to be genuine, but if not then I'd rather be aware. Then I can decide whether to keep them purely for weight, sell them on (for gold content only with clear disclosure of course), or have a discussion with the dealer I purchased them from although I'm doubtful of a favourable outcome there.  

From what I'm hearing above, it sounds like the details Booky mentioned may actually be a good sign if it is indeed a 'reverse A design 1903 Sydney' coin, as would match the expectation. Sounds like I need to better identify the mint mark and get a better shot of the coin surface to reveal clues as to whether it was struck or cast. 

Tomorrow I will have hands on the two coins in question and intend to try and capture (A) better lit photos, (B) accurate weights and (C) accurate dimensions. Had some new toys arrive in the post to help! 😄 Will post the findings 👍

[Melon]

@sovereignsteve @Booky586 @ilovesilverireallydo @JunkBond @Pipers @1817Karl @richatthecroft @AuricGoldfinger @Stu

You've all responded to the thread, so forgive me for the notification but thought you may be interested in further findings! 😄

Firstly some measurements. I did all 10 half sovereigns (the tight fits being the top 2) and a few other random coins for control purposes. I think it's fair to say I've learned it's quite difficult to measure coin dimensions and particularly with thickness I'd get different readings in different places, so maybe a small pinch of salt with those. I think the weights are good, the scales seemed very consistent and I kept checking the calibration throughout. I've highlighted the standout variances. 

Secondly some pictures as promised. A few duplicate shots in order to capture different lighting as requested, hope I did it right and these are a bit more useful!

1903 

(kind of looks like someone cleaned this with a brillo pad - it wasn't me!)

 

 

1915

 

Very interested in thoughts on authenticity of coins, potential meaning of measurement variances, and recommendations on what you would do with these coins. 

p.s. Before someone says it, yes the time spent on this now exceeds the value at stake but it's interesting -  ESSAY OVER!! 😊

Edited December 30, 2019 by Melon

[ilovesilverireallydo]

I am tempted to say both are cast copies. The 03 has no detail an wearing isn’t consistent 

the 15 has a raised hairline which is either a mint error or a copy mark

[ilovesilverireallydo]

Time to call in the big guns @sg86

Edited December 30, 2019 by ilovesilverireallydo