Size differences in sovereigns - any cause for concern?

[TheGoldSovereign]

29 minutes ago, ilovesilverireallydo said:

Time to call in the big guns @sg86

Thanks for the highlight but I think im a bit late to the party to add anything to be quite honest!

Also after the previous thread i was called into i would need to read everything thoroughly before giving any reply 😅

[Notafront4adragon]

@Melon have you carried out a SG test on them? With your accurate scales you should get an idea if they are gold. Measuring the dimensions can be tricky, the SG test is super easy.

[JunkBond]

The legends on both do not look sharp which makes me think cast copies.

I would get down the local jewelers and ask them to xrf, if they come up 22ct you can sell and move on or hold. Either way you will sleep easy.

[Booky586]

1 hour ago, Notafront4adragon said:

@Melon have you carried out a SG test on them? With your accurate scales you should get an idea if they are gold. Measuring the dimensions can be tricky, the SG test is super easy.

Wow, your spreadsheet shows a lot of variation from the norm, and not just on the 2 suspects. It just goes to show that the manufacturing of soverigns is not an exact art.

For what my opinion is worth, I think there's enough doubt, especially on the 1903, to rightly suspect them of forgery. Can they be returned to the seller and you present your doubts with the evidence you've presented here?

He may refund or exchange them, but ask him to test them at least. I guess he should have specific gravity testing equipment to at least prove they are 22k.

[Martlet]

Great data bomb, though looks like it doesnt solve the matter.  The extra thickness of the 1915 would indicate ~10% extra material, but weight is on spec. This, along with other outliers, leads me to conclude the measurement is suspect (and it is difficult with coins).  If they are fake they are not the usual obvious ones, except that odd "scratch" on the 1915.  Assuming the dealer checks stuff coming in, i'd reckon they contain the expected amount of gold, even if they are copies.

[sovereignsteve]

The 1.9% that the 1903 is above standard diameter equates to almost 3% in area, and therefore would be expected to weigh almost 3% more (or 4.1g) than standard assuming 22ct. Its true weight of 3.926g is actually higher than I would expect given the amount of wear on the coin. Although this is actually contradictory evidence and may well support it being 22ct or pretty close, the discrepancy between size and actual weight strongly suggests it being a forgery. Add in the poor quality of the details, it’s pretty conclusive.

I’m leaning toward the 1915 being genuine. It is slightly too big but not much, could be due to prominent edge milling. The weight is consistent with a coin in very good condition with little wear. The only thing that worries me is the flatness of the chest which is out of keeping with the wear on the rest of the reverse. As I have said before, I have seen this before on other branch mint halves. Maybe they had a problem with weak striking, the gold from the chest detail could have gone into that deep die crack? The fact there is a die with such a deep crack suggests it was a well used and worn die.

One thing I have found is that measured thickness is a poor indicator. It’s very difficult to measure accurately and I don’t think it correlates very well with published data. As the OP has found, The measured variance is simply too great.

[Melon]

12 hours ago, ilovesilverireallydo said:

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

Mint error and rare Melbourne year? Who cares if it's real gold, it's going to Numi for grading! 😂

Seems opinions are pretty much aligned on the 03 not being legit unfortunately. Now my concern is the gold content, given it's got the widest diameter and the lowest weight of the 10 tested - not a good combo! Although it was also one of the thinnest, so perhaps it will be 22ct. 

[Melon]

11 hours ago, sg86 said:

Thanks for the highlight but I think im a bit late to the party to add anything to be quite honest!

Also after the previous thread i was called into i would need to read everything thoroughly before giving any reply 😅

Haha, well if you do decide to chip in I promise I won't be a 👺about it unlike certain other thread posters 😄👍

 

Edited December 30, 2019 by Melon

[Melon]

9 hours ago, JunkBond said:

The legends on both do not look sharp which makes me think cast copies.

I would get down the local jewelers and ask them to xrf, if they come up 22ct you can sell and move on or hold. Either way you will sleep easy.

It's times like these that make me wish I knew a jeweller. I was half contemplating buying a machine to test, but after looking around they really are quiet expensive! I wonder if anyone on the forum has one and could recommend a budget friendly option. 

---

Added 0 minutes later...

11 hours ago, Notafront4adragon said:

@Melon have you carried out a SG test on them? With your accurate scales you should get an idea if they are gold. Measuring the dimensions can be tricky, the SG test is super easy.

I have never done one of those, but I am loading up a YouTube video as we speak inspired by your suggestion. I'll either let you know the result, or more likely let you know how I messed it up 😄

[Melon]

9 hours ago, Booky586 said:

Wow, your spreadsheet shows a lot of variation from the norm, and not just on the 2 suspects. It just goes to show that the manufacturing of soverigns is not an exact art.

For what my opinion is worth, I think there's enough doubt, especially on the 1903, to rightly suspect them of forgery. Can they be returned to the seller and you present your doubts with the evidence you've presented here?

He may refund or exchange them, but ask him to test them at least. I guess he should have specific gravity testing equipment to at least prove they are 22k.

Yes it makes me wonder if I'll stick with modern 999 bullion going forward to be honest. I like the history of the sovereigns, but the level of variation and lack of certainty is somewhat off-putting. 

All of my sovereigns came from the same dealer and were purchased 26/11, so going back there may be an option with this one, although they may be somewhat cynical understandably given over a month has passed before I got the tight fit capsules and noticed there may be an issue.

To be honest given the premium paid (1% on Black Friday) I think so long as the gold content is good I won't complain. I'm imagining a somewhat awkward encounter over the counter if I walk in saying I don't think their gold is legit though, so I'd much rather go in knowing for sure - maybe the SG test @Notafront4adragon suggested will help me with that

[Seasider]

1 minute ago, Melon said:

It's times like these that make me wish I knew a jeweller. I was half contemplating buying a machine to test, but after looking around they really are quiet expensive! I wonder if anyone on the forum has one and could recommend a budget friendly option. 

If you are near Hatton Garden pop into HGM - I think they have a machine which will test whether the coin is 22 ct.

[ilovesilverireallydo]

Just now, Seasider said:

If you are near Hatton Garden pop into HGM - I think they have a machine which will test whether the coin is 22 ct.

I believe he bought them from HGM lol 😂 

[Seasider]

1 minute ago, ilovesilverireallydo said:

I believe he bought them from HGM lol 😂 

Ooops

[Melon]

4 hours ago, sovereignsteve said:

The 1.9% that the 1903 is above standard diameter equates to almost 3% in area, and therefore would be expected to weigh almost 3% more (or 4.1g) than standard assuming 22ct. Its true weight of 3.926g is actually higher than I would expect given the amount of wear on the coin. Although this is actually contradictory evidence and may well support it being 22ct or pretty close, the discrepancy between size and actual weight strongly suggests it being a forgery. Add in the poor quality of the details, it’s pretty conclusive.

I’m leaning toward the 1915 being genuine. It is slightly too big but not much, could be due to prominent edge milling. The weight is consistent with a coin in very good condition with little wear. The only thing that worries me is the flatness of the chest which is out of keeping with the wear on the rest of the reverse. As I have said before, I have seen this before on other branch mint halves. Maybe they had a problem with weak striking, the gold from the chest detail could have gone into that deep die crack? The fact there is a die with such a deep crack suggests it was a well used and worn die.

One thing I have found is that measured thickness is a poor indicator. It’s very difficult to measure accurately and I don’t think it correlates very well with published data. As the OP has found, The measured variance is simply too great.

I'm out of 'reactions', so here's an old fashioned one: "Thanks 😊" 

Yea seems like the 1903 is a dud then which is a shame. I'm hoping it's 22ct and the extra diameter is a combination of the worn features and it having one of the lowest thickness measurements. Further testing to do! 

Good news on the 1915 as it sounds like the minor size difference is explainable. I like that coin 👍

Totally agree on the thickness measurements being borderline useless. I was surprised how difficult it was. On many coins I could get different readings just by measuring in different places, which I suspect is as much to do with technique and tooling as anything - but in any event makes it difficult to rely on the measurement. However I suspect there genuinely is quite a bit of variance in thickness between these coins, although when we're talking about fractions of a millimetre it is invisible to the eye. Width was a lot easier to measure.   

[1817Karl]

7 minutes ago, Melon said:

Yes it makes me wonder if I'll stick with modern 999 bullion going forward to be honest. I like the history of the sovereigns, but the level of variation and lack of certainty is somewhat off-putting. 

All of my sovereigns came from the same dealer and were purchased 26/11, so going back there may be an option with this one, although they may be somewhat cynical understandably given over a month has passed before I got the tight fit capsules and noticed there may be an issue.

To be honest given the premium paid (1% on Black Friday) I think so long as the gold content is good I won't complain. I'm imagining a somewhat awkward encounter over the counter if I walk in saying I don't think their gold is legit though, so I'd much rather go in knowing for sure - maybe the SG test @Notafront4adragon suggested will help me with that

If you do decide to sell these to any of the main dealers as gold, a spot of advice, did you see what I did there... Make sure you state that the coins are not genuine, if you don't they may not honour the price they quoted you. I have had this issue, they quote one price and then when they receive them give you another as they aren't genuine... Its just a scam really, lots of the coins they take in as bullion get sold for a premium, and its nothing to do with the gold content! if not clear let me know and I'll elaborate. 

[dicker]

The odd mark on the top of the 1915 is intriguing....would be interested if this turns out to be a genuine coin it’s a mint error or a cast counterfeit if you have it graded. 
 

best

Dicker

[Melon]

8 hours ago, Martlet said:

Great data bomb, though looks like it doesnt solve the matter.  The extra thickness of the 1915 would indicate ~10% extra material, but weight is on spec. This, along with other outliers, leads me to conclude the measurement is suspect (and it is difficult with coins).  If they are fake they are not the usual obvious ones, except that odd "scratch" on the 1915.  Assuming the dealer checks stuff coming in, i'd reckon they contain the expected amount of gold, even if they are copies.

I do love a bit of data, so was fun pulling it together 🕵️‍♂️😁

My honest option - I think the weights are reliable, the diameters are relatively good, and the thickness is borderline useless. 

For weight, outside of the suspect underweight 1903, we averaged 0.013 of a gram difference from the expected weight. That's pretty darn close and I think wear and tear would more than account for that. 

For diameter, outside of the two coins we knew were overly wide due to the capsule fit, the other 8 averaged 0.05 of a millimetre difference from the expected diameter. Again pretty darn close, happy with that. I kept the coin flat on the table and let the calipers do all the work for those readings, so it's easy enough to do. 

For thickness I also averaged 0.05 of a millimetre difference from expected thickness, but when you consider the expected thickness is roughly 19x less than the expected diameter, it's actually a 19x worse measurement performance. Not very useful! 

[Melon]

14 minutes ago, Seasider said:

If you are near Hatton Garden pop into HGM - I think they have a machine which will test whether the coin is 22 ct.

 

14 minutes ago, ilovesilverireallydo said:

I believe he bought them from HGM lol 😂 

Bingo 🤣

I suspect they would test for me, they re-open next week so I can always fall back to that awkward counter conversation if needed. It's a little bit like asking them to mark their own homework though! 

[Melon]

6 minutes ago, 1817Karl said:

If you do decide to sell these to any of the main dealers as gold, a spot of advice, did you see what I did there... Make sure you state that the coins are not genuine, if you don't they may not honour the price they quoted you. I have had this issue, they quote one price and then when they receive them give you another as they aren't genuine... Its just a scam really, lots of the coins they take in as bullion get sold for a premium, and its nothing to do with the gold content! if not clear let me know and I'll elaborate. 

Good advise. I would hope if they are paying a lower price it's because they intend to melt them, but who knows. The dealer I purchased it from is currently buying half sovs for a couple of quid less then I paid them in November, so worst case I assume they'll buy the 1903 back. 

4 minutes ago, dicker said:

The odd mark on the top of the 1915 is intriguing....would be interested if this turns out to be a genuine coin it’s a mint error or a cast counterfeit if you have it graded. 
 

best

Dicker

I know next-to-nothing about grading, but I'm guessing given the condition it wouldn't be a good idea for this coin? If a mint error is desirable (/adds some value) then I'm not adverse to taking a gamble on getting it graded and see what happens! 😄

[Seasider]

4 minutes ago, Melon said:

 

Bingo 🤣

I suspect they would test for me, they re-open next week so I can always fall back to that awkward counter conversation if needed. It's a little bit like asking them to mark their own homework though! 

Yes quite.  But I thought they tested coins they bought in and so if you buy from them that ought to mean the gold content is OK.

One thought on the 1903 - do you think it might have come out of a ring and been polished a lot?  Could that explain the wear?

[Melon]

13 minutes ago, Seasider said:

Yes quite.  But I thought they tested coins they bought in and so if you buy from them that ought to mean the gold content is OK.

One thought on the 1903 - do you think it might have come out of a ring and been polished a lot?  Could that explain the wear?

Yea I think they know what they're doing so I remain hopeful that it is 22ct, and then I'm reasonably happy given the low premium.

That said, I don't think they will necessarily test every coin that comes in. I may be wrong, but it's time consuming and I'm guessing a lot of it is done by eye and experience. Just a guess.  

Edited December 30, 2019 by Melon

[ilovesilverireallydo]

14 minutes ago, Seasider said:

Yes quite.  But I thought they tested coins they bought in and so if you buy from them that ought to mean the gold content is OK.

One thought on the 1903 - do you think it might have come out of a ring and been polished a lot?  Could that explain the wear?

No it’s just too odd looking I think. 

[Booky586]

57 minutes ago, Melon said:

Yes it makes me wonder if I'll stick with modern 999 bullion going forward to be honest.

Don't be put off by a minor set back, put it down as a minor set back, good learning experience and carry on enjoying collecting sovereigns.

[sovereignsteve]

If you got it from HGM you can be sure it's pretty close to 22ct so you have approx the right amount of gold and if you only paid 1% you aren't really out of pocket.

I would take it back to them and explain the situation, they will probably take it back and melt it, after testing.

[sovereignsteve]

3 hours ago, dicker said:

The odd mark on the top of the 1915 is intriguing....would be interested if this turns out to be a genuine coin it’s a mint error or a cast counterfeit if you have it graded.

It's caused by a crack in the die, thus gold is forced into the crack producing a raised line on the coin. It could simply be there as a direct copy of a genuine coin.

They are very common on older sovereigns but I  don't think I've ever seen one appear on a half struck so recently.