1902 Edward VII Gold Fake £5 Quintuple Sovereign

[LawrenceChard]

Another counterfeit I saw recently:

and the obverse:

I thought I had done a Niton XRF test on this, but can't find it. I will add it later.

Here they are:

So gold content about 89.3% instead of 91.66%.

Even some of our competitors would get this right! 😎

Edited October 7, 2021 by LawrenceChard

[AgAuEire]

Was KEVII a boxer?  Look at that nose

[dicker]

@LawrenceChard Many thanks for the high resolution photo.

I hope you don't mind but I clipped the date from your photo to compare against one from a genuine example below. 

As is frequently the case the counterfeiter doesn't quite get the numerals right. They are too rounded in relief as far as I can tell.

Parts of the numerals are too thick and ill defined - the serif's on the  '1' & '2' are most obvious and seem to have a slant to them.

It might be my confirmation bias but the spacing between the 9 and the 0 looks a little wide?

Of course this is not the only give away but is interesting to see.

Do you think this coin was struck or cast?

All the best

Dicker

 

Genuine Article

 

Counterfeit

 

[LawrenceChard]

38 minutes ago, dicker said:

@LawrenceChard Many thanks for the high resolution photo.

I hope you don't mind but I clipped the date from your photo to compare against one from a genuine example below. 

As is frequently the case the counterfeiter doesn't quite get the numerals right. They are too rounded in relief as far as I can tell.

Parts of the numerals are too thick and ill defined - the serif's on the  '1' & '2' are most obvious and seem to have a slant to them.

It might be my confirmation bias but the spacing between the 9 and the 0 looks a little wide?

Of course this is not the only give away but is interesting to see.

Do you think this coin was struck or cast?

All the best

Dicker

 

Genuine Article

 

Counterfeit

 

I certainly don't mind, and would positively encourage "fair use" copying, with a credit.

Very interesting comparison. The fake looks better than the genuine article!

I agree with all, and don't think that is confirmation bias.

My guess would be struck, but unless there is evidence, it is hard to tell.

Doug just sent me an image on the XRF results, which I will add to the OP.

[dicker]

4 minutes ago, LawrenceChard said:

I certainly don't mind, and would positively encourage "fair use" copying, with a credit.

Very interesting comparison. The fake looks better than the genuine article!

I agree with all, and don't think that is confirmation bias.

My guess would be struck, but unless there is evidence, it is hard to tell.

Doug just sent me an image on the XRF results, which I will add to the OP.

Many thanks!

[LawrenceChard]

16 minutes ago, dicker said:

Many thanks!

Not at all, it was a good joint effort.

[sovereignsteve]

The feature that screams out ot me is the date, as @dicker has highlighted.

It just looks wrong. The general appearance of the reverse is a poorly defined/struck coin with a lot of wear on the detail. The date stands out as not fitting this appearance. Although some of it's deficiencies could be explained by wear, it doesn't look worn enough and the anomalies are almost certainly down to the usual inability of the counterfeiter to perfect this feature.
I would imagine the genuine coin imaged will be of a much higher grade with far less wear. It would be interesting to compare with one of a similar grade.

The B.P. looks a fail as well.

[Bruce06]

5 hours ago, dicker said:

@LawrenceChard Many thanks for the high resolution photo.

I hope you don't mind but I clipped the date from your photo to compare against one from a genuine example below. 

As is frequently the case the counterfeiter doesn't quite get the numerals right. They are too rounded in relief as far as I can tell.

Parts of the numerals are too thick and ill defined - the serif's on the  '1' & '2' are most obvious and seem to have a slant to them.

It might be my confirmation bias but the spacing between the 9 and the 0 looks a little wide?

Of course this is not the only give away but is interesting to see.

Do you think this coin was struck or cast?

All the best

Dicker

 

Genuine Article

 

Counterfeit

 

@dickerThank you for your comparison, it's very useful.  Learning never ends.

By the way, upper serif of right leg of N on obverse are not sharp in the fake one as well.

[Booky586]

I've cropped and blown up part of the obverse photo (by @LawrenceChard) and highlighted the back of St Georges neck. It looks a little like casting marks, although the rest of the coin looks struck. Not sure what's going on, any ideas?

 

[LawrenceChard]

1 hour ago, Booky586 said:

I've cropped and blown up part of the obverse photo (by @LawrenceChard) and highlighted the back of St Georges neck. It looks a little like casting marks, although the rest of the coin looks struck. Not sure what's going on, any ideas?

 

That's the reverse!

Looks like his clippers had broken.

There is also a scratch-like line across the reverse which I need to take another look at.

 

[Booky586]

27 minutes ago, LawrenceChard said:

That's the reverse!

Good spot, senior moment! 

 

28 minutes ago, LawrenceChard said:

Looks like his clippers had broken.

May be his heckles were up for the fight.