Size differences in sovereigns - any cause for concern?

[Melon]

Took a bit longer to get this done than expected, but I've done the Specific Gravity test (to the best of my humble ability!) per suggestions from @Notafront4adragon and @Booky586. 

First thing to note - it's damn hard to get those little bitty coins balanced on a string!! 🤣

Results look a bit inconclusive to me. 1903 tested with the lowest score, but still well within range.

However my two control coins (a 1982 half sovereign and a 1/4 oz Maple) both tested too high, suggesting my results were coming back overly generous. This may be silly, but when measuring coins that weight 4 grams I wonder how much a wet string can impact the readings - perhaps that's pushed all the 'in water' readings north a little. 

Note - the Maple is 24ct which is why it reads much higher. 

 

Edited January 3, 2020 by Melon

[Booky586]

Really interesting info and the 1903 coin stands out form the norm again. I was watching this recently, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U5aKYCKrUG4 , (How to Identifiy a fake sovereign - Chards). Seems like there a fakes out there at 21ct, which could explain the relative difference on the 1903.

 

[silenceissilver]

15 hours ago, Melon said:

This may be silly, but when measuring coins that weight 4 grams I wonder how much a wet string can impact the readings - perhaps that's pushed all the 'in water' readings north a little.

From my experience, not that much, I too thought maybe the accuracy goes down with half sovereigns (at at time when I only had one half sovereign, the rest of what I had was all full sovereigns). I turned out it was not the string but it was fake indeed, 18K Gold, as mentioned in other threads, before.

I have used dental flosses and thought, maybe that's too big threads but I don't think it is, even for half sovereigns. If you used normal sewing threads, it will impact the accuracy even less.

Having said that, you must have made something wrong, your control object, the quarter maple, is way off which makes all the other results questionable, in my opinion.

What was your exact set-up?

Edited January 3, 2020 by silenceissilver

[Melon]

46 minutes ago, silenceissilver said:

From my experience, not that much, I too thought maybe the accuracy goes down with half sovereigns (at at time when I only had one half sovereign, the rest of what I had was all full sovereigns). I turned out it was not the string but it was fake indeed, 18K Gold, as mentioned in other threads, before.

I have used dental flosses and thought, maybe that's too big threads but I don't think it is, even for half sovereigns. If you used normal sewing threads, it will impact the accuracy even less.

Having said that, you must have made something wrong, your control object, the quarter maple, is way off which makes all the other results questionable, in my opinion.

What was your exact set-up?

My setup was pretty rough to be honest. The scales I have that are accurate to 3 places but only weigh up to 50 grams max (pocket sized), so the water container has to be very small. Other than that it's just dipping in water. I was careful to not touch the sides and be completely submerged when taking the reading, although movement in the water does cause a fair bit of variation but I tried to get the weight at rest. 

I've seen handing water baskets on YouTube that I think would be a good investment, but can't find them online anywhere. I think I'd like to get a half decent setup that doesn't take forever to use, as this seems like a very useful test going forward. 

One thing I looked at was extrapolating the result of the Maple onto the others - so to get the Maple down to the expected result of 19.32 I would need to divide by 1.047. If I apply that same metric to the other readings (essentially assuming a consistent level of inaccuracy) then the sovereigns would score as follows; 

1982: 17.66 (good)

1903: 17.05 (low) 

1915: 17.45 (good) 

That would suggest 20 carat gold for the 1903. But clearly that's not a very accurate approach! 😂

5 hours ago, Booky586 said:

Really interesting info and the 1903 coin stands out form the norm again. I was watching this recently, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U5aKYCKrUG4 , (How to Identifiy a fake sovereign - Chards). Seems like there a fakes out there at 21ct, which could explain the relative difference on the 1903.

 

A very worthwhile watch, thanks. I think this one is going to go back next week when they reopen, will be interesting to see if they're cool about it. 

[silenceissilver]

9 minutes ago, Melon said:

My setup was pretty rough to be honest. The scales I have that are accurate to 3 places but only weigh up to 50 grams max (pocket sized), so the water container has to be very small.

My sacle with the same accuracy weighs up to 200 g and even with that the water container needs to rather small. I'm only guessing but I think this very small water container might be the cause for the inacurracy.

12 minutes ago, Melon said:

I've seen handing water baskets on YouTube that I think would be a good investment, but can't find them online anywhere. I think I'd like to get a half decent setup that doesn't take forever to use, as this seems like a very useful test going forward.

I have tried this threadless method too but without any specific water basked, basically just a random can, hanging under the sacle, inside the water. That was a friend's scale though, mine would have been unsuitable for this method.

[Notafront4adragon]

30 minutes ago, Melon said:

My setup was pretty rough to be honest. The scales I have that are accurate to 3 places but only weigh up to 50 grams max (pocket sized), so the water container has to be very small. Other than that it's just dipping in water. I was careful to not touch the sides and be completely submerged when taking the reading, although movement in the water does cause a fair bit of variation but I tried to get the weight at rest. 

I've seen handing water baskets on YouTube that I think would be a good investment, but can't find them online anywhere. I think I'd like to get a half decent setup that doesn't take forever to use, as this seems like a very useful test going forward. 

One thing I looked at was extrapolating the result of the Maple onto the others - so to get the Maple down to the expected result of 19.32 I would need to divide by 1.047. If I apply that same metric to the other readings (essentially assuming a consistent level of inaccuracy) then the sovereigns would score as follows; 

1982: 17.66 (good)

1903: 17.05 (low) 

1915: 17.45 (good) 

That would suggest 20 carat gold for the 1903. But clearly that's not a very accurate approach! 😂

A very worthwhile watch, thanks. I think this one is going to go back next week when they reopen, will be interesting to see if they're cool about it. 

I really like your approach of extrapolating the maple data, it does seem the 1903 is too suspect.

Given all the other observations I would hope HGM replace it for you. 

[sovereignsteve]

5 hours ago, Melon said:

One thing I looked at was extrapolating the result of the Maple onto the others

Not really a valid "calibration" as the maple weighs twice as much as the half sovs. The standard deviation for the sov measurements is likely to be substantially higher than the maple.

[Melon]

7 minutes ago, sovereignsteve said:

Not really a valid "calibration" as the maple weighs twice as much as the half sovs. The standard deviation for the sov measurements is likely to be substantially higher than the maple.

Yea clearly not accurate, but best I can do really with the current equipment at my disposal. On the look out for one of these water baskets as that would make things super easy. 

[Melon]

@sovereignsteve @Booky586 @ilovesilverireallydo @JunkBond @Pipers @1817Karl @richatthecroft @AuricGoldfinger @Stu @Notafront4adragon @Martlet @Seasider @1817Karl @dicker @silenceissilver

We have a conclusion!

First off, thank you all for your contributions. It's super helpful having a community like this to share knowledge. Sorry if I missed anyone! 

I took the coins back to the dealer today who was actually very good about it. Conclusion was; 

1915 - good! It's tests as 22ct, which is consistent with the suggested findings from the specific gravity test. It's weight is also good. Per the consensus on this thread, it appears it may have a mint error mark. The dealer had no concerns with it. 

1903 - not good! The chap barely had it in his hand a few seconds before scowling, apologising and saying it shouldn't have been sold. He didn't give much more information than that, but it's going for melt and I took another half home as a replacement (which weighs and measures good). 

p.s. If anyone tells me the below is a fake I may have a heart attack 😨😂

Edited January 6, 2020 by Melon

[LawrenceChard]

On 30/12/2019 at 04:53, Melon said:

@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! 😄

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!

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!! 😊

The weak striking on the reverse is typical for some of the branch mints, and also for halves in general.

The ragged raised line looks like a die crack, which I consider to be a good sign.

Time spent discussing differences and anomalies is rarely wasted, it's an investment in education knowledge, and experience.

Edited July 4, 2021 by LawrenceChard
typo