Proof Double Sovereign... did I get a fake from a dealer?

[numinautilus]

So I picked up a 1988 proof double sov the other day from a dealer well known and mentioned here on this forum. While inspecting it I noticed that the hair on the horse underneath St George's left hand isn't finished with the gloss section right up to the design. There seems to be a break and a hard line divide before the gloss and the hair, labelled with the green arrow in the photo. Is this normal on double sovereign proof designs from these years or in general? I haven't been able to find another example of this quirk in other photos on the internet. Could this be a dreaded fake? I know it's tiny but I can't unsee it. Will appreciate people's input.

 

Edited April 30, 2021 by numinautilus

[Allgoldcoins]

1 hour ago, numinautilus said:

So I picked up a 1988 proof double sov the other day from a dealer well known and mentioned here on this forum. While inspecting it I noticed that the hair on the horse underneath St George's left hand isn't finished with the gloss section right up to the design. There seems to be a break and a hard line divide before the gloss and the hair, labelled with the green arrow in the photo. Is this normal on double sovereign proof designs from these years or in general? I haven't been able to find another example of this quirk in other photos on the internet. Could this be a dreaded fake? I know it's tiny but I can't unsee it. Will appreciate people's input.

 

Apart from what could be just a striking error the rest of the coin looks right, nothing to say its a obvious fake from what I can see?

I have never come across a fake one of these, so its not like they have been made wholesale, so odds suggest its real.

[richatthecroft]

Agree with @Allgoldcoins.  

Looks to me like the phenomenon you have pointed out is a flaw in the manufacturing process rather than it being a fake.  The remainder of the 2 Sovereign looks absolutely fine in my eyes.

Here's a couple of photos, one of them a close up of that very area.  These photos just happened to be in my photo library, and are of a 1988 Proof 2 Sovereign.

 

[numinautilus]

Thanks for the replies @Allgoldcoins @richatthecroft.

Looks like you've got two different coins in your photo library - the far side pelvis looks different in your two pics. In the first photo we can see the same line break, but the horse's hair overlaps it so it isn't as obvious. It looks like on mine the hair was left short.

So another question if the coin is genuine. Will such a manufacturing error take away from its value, had the error not been present or as obvious?

Edited April 30, 2021 by numinautilus

[richatthecroft]

9 hours ago, numinautilus said:

Looks like you've got two different coins in your photo library - the far side pelvis looks different in your two pics. In the first photo we can see the same line break, but the horse's hair overlaps it so it isn't as obvious. It looks like on mine the hair was left short.

Good observation.  I cannot go back to this/these 1988 Sovereigns as I don't own them anymore to take a decent photo- I do have a 1987 2 Sovereign that I can have a further look at- all my remaining 2 Sovereigns are either Special designs or are much older examples, so not like for like.  

Perhaps @Jaconet or @1817Karl would care to comment as I do know they are 2 Sovereign enthusiasts and will have a lot more experience of them than I.   

[1817Karl]

Hi. Heres a nice image of a 1988 proof double sovereign from my collection. I have had a good look over the images and can't see any obvious issues with yours except the area you point out. I too don't know of fakes in this year proof double. If it is its good... It's really hard to tell from relatively poor images and it seems you have taken them through the capsule which doesn't help. Its a strange one, if it was an issue with the die it would likely appear on lots of examples! And it seems to be a representation of the die rather than some striking error. Perplexed!!!

[Jaconet]

Your message has caught me on the way out. I have attached a pic of my 1988 double. The quality of the picture is not great I’m afraid. 
 

 

I’ll have a look when I’m back

 

regards

jaconet

[1817Karl]

I have a theory... When the mint apply the frosting to the die, they cover the mirrored areas (fields) with a cellophane type material to protect the fields, then sandblast the design area to achieve the frosting. Maybe they weren't as accurate as they should have been covering the field in that area and sand blasted an element of the field that they weren't supposed to. That could explain the sharp line and the frosted field area... Just an educated thought. If this is the case I would still expect to see more examples...

Have a look at the video from the Royal Mint on my site, pay attention from about 2mins 50 seconds in, this will help explain what I mean...

Video is at the bottom of the page, use the link below. 

https://www.1817.co.uk/buy-or-sell-gold-sovereigns-by-type.html#/

Edited May 1, 2021 by 1817Karl

[richatthecroft]

3 minutes ago, 1817Karl said:

I have a theory... When the mint apply the frosting to the die, they cover the mirrored areas (fields) with a cellophane type material to protect the fields, then sandblast the design area to achieve the frosting. Maybe they weren't as accurate as they should have been covering the field in that area and sand blasted an element of the field that they weren't supposed to. That could explain the sharp line and the frosted field area... Just an educated thought. If this is the case I would still expect to see more examples...

Have a look at the video from the Royal Mint on my site, pay attention from about 2mins 50 seconds in, this will help explain what I mean...

https://www.1817.co.uk/buy-or-sell-gold-sovereigns-by-type.html#/

Thanks Karl, it seems like a reasonable and likely theory. 

Like you say however, you would expect the phenomenon to exist more widely.

I wish that this was not pointed out- my eyes will now always gravitate to seeking out this flaw on every Sovereign I look at!

[numinautilus]

In @1817Karl and @Jaconet's pics I can see a clear like break if I look carefully, but the horse hair overlap it. So it seems that it's a manufacturing flaw, and the horse hairs on mine are too short to overlap the glossy divide. The Royal Mint video was very illuminating.

You guys are more experienced than me on this. Does a flaw like this devalue it? I paid 25% over spot for my copy, is it worth bringing it up with the dealer? Part of me says it's the way it's made but the other part of me says it's a huge flaw. It's also not the exact coin they photographed on their site.

I've taken a few more shots. One through a loupe, and another with the capsule lid off.

 

 

Edited May 2, 2021 by numinautilus

[dicker]

My guess is that if you sent this in for grading, it would not be noticed.  
 

I am not sure it would devalue this coin - for me, it is somewhat unique and therefore something I would buy over another couple that did not have this quirk.  But that is just me!

Best

Dicker