Spotting Counterfeit Silver Coins

[Junior]

Spotting Counterfeit Silver Coins

By: Jordan Graveline

 

When I first got into coin collecting, I was nervous about whether I would have trouble spotting genuine silver coins from fake coins. Of course everyone tells you to buy from a reputable seller such as a certified dealer, but what if a particular coin you require for the completion of a set is for sale by someone unknown to you? Your options are either buy it or do not buy it. If you decide to risk dealing with someone unknown, it pays to have a little knowledge on how to spot a fake so you don’t get taken advantage of.

For this post, I will be using the Morgan silver dollar as this is one of my favourite coins. If you are collecting a different silver coin however, these tests are still useful for them as well. The major difference is you will have to know the specific specifications of whichever silver coin you are dealing with in order to assist you in determining the genuine coins from the fakes.

The following tests can be used in a wide variety of scenarios to help determine a genuine silver coin from a fake. In any case, it is recommended to use multiple tests because many test results can point to a coin being legit, but it only takes one test to prove a fake.

1). The magnet test - Silver is not magnetic and therefore will not stick to a magnet. The composition of the Morgan dollar is 90% silver and 10% copper. A genuine Morgan will not stick to a magnet.

2). The dimensions test - This is coin specific. The specifications for a Morgan dollar are:

• Diameter: 38.1 mm

• Thickness: 2.4 mm

3). The weight test - This is coin specific. The Morgan dollar weighs 26.73 grams (Uncirculated).

*** Note *** 

With both the dimensions and weight tests, coins will have slight variance depending on the amount of wear (circulation). Certain tolerances are allowed and should be individually referenced depending on the coin.

4). The ping test - Silver has a very distinct and consistent sound when lightly struck and allowed to ring. Some people flip the coin as if to do a coin toss and listen closely to the sound of the ringing it makes. Others may softly balance the coin on their finger and tap the side of the coin lightly using another coin. Be careful not to scratch a coin that might be a collectible. Some people might opt out from doing this test until they have trained their ear to recognize the sound of silver ringing.

5). Discrepancies and/or surface remarks - Here you are scrutinizing any irregularities that seem out of place or consistencies that seem legit. You may want to note the circulated or uncirculated condition of the coin. This can assist you in explaining variances in the dimensions and/or weight of the coin.

6). Precious Metals Analyzer - There are several devices that coin dealers will use to assist in determining whether a coin/bar contains the correct amount of precious metal content and consistency all the way through the coin/bar. One such device is a Sigma Metalytics Verifier and another is an XRF (X-ray fluorescence) Analyzer. I am not too familiar with how these two devices differ (other than price), but essentially both are able to deduce the metal content (purity) of a coin or bar. Usually these devices are too expensive for the common person, but coin dealers invest in them so they do not lose money when buying coins/bullion from customers.

7). The acid test - When nitric acid is applied to genuine silver, the resulting chemical reaction will change the acid solution to red or brown reddish. When applied to a fake silver coin, the acid solution typically turns blue since there is very little silver content in the coin. This test is done on silver bullion as bullion is priced using the spot price of silver and does not typically carry any collector’s value. A silver coin that may have collector’s value can be damaged by this test and is not typically done.

There are other tests that can assist in determining genuine silver coins. This was just a sample of what is at your disposal as a silver coin collector or silver stacker.

Below I have composed a table containing data from an experiment. Many of the tests mentioned above were used on several coins.
 

	1878-CC	1887-O	1893-CC	1894-S	1895	1896	1899-S	1900-O
Magnetic Test (Does it stick)	No	No	No	No	No	No	No	No
Dimensions Genuine Morgan Diameter = 38.1 mm Thickness = 2.4 mm	38.0 mm 2.7 mm	37.9 mm 2.2 mm	38.0 mm 2.5 mm	38.1 mm 3.0 mm	37.9 mm 2.4 mm	37.9 mm 2.4 mm	38.0 mm 2.4 mm	37.9 mm 2.4 mm
Weight Genuine Morgan = 26.73 grams	25.4 grams	24.8 grams	23.8 grams	26.2 grams	22.3 grams	26.6 grams	23.4 grams	26.7 grams
The Ping Test	High pitch with weak/dull resonance. Short vibration.	High pitch with strong/clear resonance. Long vibration.	High pitch with weak/dull resonance. Short vibration.	High pitch with weak/dull resonance. Short vibration.	High pitch with weak/dull resonance. Short vibration.	High pitch with strong/clear resonance. Long vibration.	High pitch with weak/dull resonance. Short vibration.	High pitch with strong/clear resonance. Long vibration.
Discrepancies Or Surface Remarks	1) Wider than normal spacing in the reeding. 2) Spatter on five stars near the chin.	1) Heavily circulated.  2) Surface very smooth. 3) Details consistent with FR02 Grade (Fair).	1) Wider than normal spacing in the reeding. 2) Mid-upper section of the right wing is incomplete. 3) Feels very light weight.	1) Wider than normal spacing in the reeding. 2) The ‘1’ in 1894 looks exceptionally wide. 3) Looks noticeably thicker than most Morgan dollars.	1) Wider than normal spacing in the reeding. 2) Slight copper hue near the date. 3) Double headed (Not a known mint error). 4) The font size on the date is smaller than normal. 5) Feels very light weight.	1) AU Details 2) Even wear	1) Wider than normal spacing on the reeding. 2) Green copper corrosion on the reeding. 3) Spatter near ‘U’ & ‘I’ in ‘UNITED’ 4) Feels very light weight.	1) XF/AU details 2) The coin is nearly the original weight despite obvious wear. 3) At 31.5x magnification, a double linear depression can be seen ahead of the ‘D’ in ‘DOLLAR’.
XRF Analyzer	Ag = 6.72%	Ag = 90.11%	Ag = 6.16%	Ag = 5.89%	Ag = 4.32%	Ag = 89.97%	Ag = 5.22%	Ag = 90.36%
Conclusions	Fake	Genuine	Fake	Fake	Fake	Genuine	Fake	Vintage Counterfeit?

 

Using the data from the chart above, discrepancies can be found among the fake Morgan Dollars that make them stand out from the genuine Morgan Dollars. One such discrepancy is the weight of the coin vs. the dimensions of the coin. As seen with the 1895 and the 1899-S fakes, when the dimensions are within specification, the weight of the coin comes in underweight. On the other hand, looking at the 1878-CC and the 1894-S fakes, the weight of the coins are almost on spec (given the circulation). However, the dimensions of these two fakes, specifically their thicknesses, are grossly over what a genuine Morgan Dollar measures.

The last remark I want to make is on the final coin in the chart; the 1900-O. This coin showed wear equivalent to the higher end of extremely fine (XF) or possibly the lower end of almost uncirculated (AU). With this type of wear in mind, the coin still weighed a miraculous 26.7 grams. This is only 0.03 grams away from the weight of a newly minted Morgan Dollar. While I am not an expert on the subject, there is an explanation for a coin such as this. I believe this coin could be a Vintage Counterfeit dating back to between the early 1900s and World War I. It is around this time that the free-market cost of the silver content in a Morgan Dollar was around 45 cents. In theory, one could have spent a dollar and purchased enough silver to create two dollars. With the low cost of silver during that time period, it would have been possible to mint a Morgan Dollar containing the correct amount of silver without losing money. This would have been accomplished through a counterfeit die which would have been cast using a genuine Morgan Dollar. The now counterfeit die can be used to make very close replica Morgan Dollars, which can be passed along through circulation and no one is the wiser. The very last picture posted shows a double linear depression on the 1900-O just before the ‘D’ in ‘DOLLAR’. Depressions such as these are the result of raised lumps on the die and not from circulation or from contacting other coins.

Pictures: 

 

Edited December 3, 2021 by Junior

[SilverStorm]

Another testing equipment that can added to the list is the GVS Bullion Tester.   I did a review on this equipment recently.  A metal’s magnetism cannot be manipulated.  Every metal will react differently to magnetism.  Therefore it is one of the better tests to detect counterfeits.  

[paulmerton]

5 hours ago, Junior said:

One such device is a Sigma Metalytics Verifier and another is an XRF (X-ray fluorescence) Analyzer. I am not too familiar with how these two devices differ (other than price), but essentially both are able to deduce the metal content (purity) of a coin or bar.

Close, but there's an important distinction between the two:

The Sigma PMV can't actually deduce the purity of a sample, or even tell you what metal is in the sample. All it tells you is whether the sample you're analysing has the same resistivity as the real thing. That's quite an important limitation, but they are relatively cheap and will quickly identify many fakes that look real to the eye. It's possible to create cheap alloys that match the resistivity of a precious metal (and will therefore appear to be genuine on a Sigma PMV original), but the more expensive models also take into account the density of the sample, which would make it harder to fool. Even the cheapest model is still a useful tool when used in conjunction with your other methods.

An XRF is the bomb if you want to know exactly what's in your lumps of metal, but they are ridiculously expensive!

 

[Junior]

48 minutes ago, paulmerton said:

An XRF is the bomb if you want to know exactly what's in your lumps of metal, but they are ridiculously expensive!

This is very true! An XRF is out the window expensive! That’s why I’m a really good customer of my local bullion dealer. 😆 

[SilverStorm]

The only problem with XRF is that it only scans the surface.  If you have a fake insert inside the bar, the XRF will not catch it.   

Almost every testing equipment has a drawback, which is why one must always use multiple (and different) testing methodologies to confirm authenticity.   You cannot rely solely on one testing method.  Once a suspect PM has passed a battery of tests can you be confident that the PM in your hands is genuine.  

[Junior]

1 hour ago, SilverStorm said:

The only problem with XRF is that it only scans the surface.  If you have a fake insert inside the bar, the XRF will not catch it.   

Almost every testing equipment has a drawback, which is why one must always use multiple (and different) testing methodologies to confirm authenticity.   You cannot rely solely on one testing method.  Once a suspect PM has passed a battery of tests can you be confident that the PM in your hands is genuine.  

You are absolutely right. Something like a large bar could have a fake centre to it and the XRF will only do the surface. Multiple tests are required to determine authenticity of different sized products. On large bars specifically, some dealers will drill into the them in multiple spots and check the core. Obviously not something to do on a kilo coin, but other tests can be done for collector products.

[SilverStorm]

Below is the link to two YouTube videos that helped me a lot in understanding the different testing methodologies and why it's important to use different methods.  SWP's video on testing equipment was what made me decide to get the Sigma PMV Pro Mini and the GVS Bullion Tester.   Both are excellent testing equipment.  If these equipment is good enough for a bullion vault, it certainly is good enough for me!  😜

SB Bullion's explanation for the reason of doing multiple testing is clear and concise.   To paraphrase the reason again (at 9:21 mark of the video) for those who are too lazy to watch the video...it is impossible to create fake silver or gold of high purity with 2 or more similar properties such as density, celerity, conductivity, and magnetic susceptibility.   By using different testing methodologies, you will weed out a testing method that passed a PM as authentic.

I highly encourage everyone who wants to know more about testing equipment and testing methodologies to watch both videos.  

 

 

[LawrenceChard]

9 hours ago, paulmerton said:

Close, but there's an important distinction between the two:

The Sigma PMV can't actually deduce the purity of a sample, or even tell you what metal is in the sample. All it tells you is whether the sample you're analysing has the same resistivity as the real thing. That's quite an important limitation, but they are relatively cheap and will quickly identify many fakes that look real to the eye. It's possible to create cheap alloys that match the resistivity of a precious metal (and will therefore appear to be genuine on a Sigma PMV original), but the more expensive models also take into account the density of the sample, which would make it harder to fool. Even the cheapest model is still a useful tool when used in conjunction with your other methods.

An XRF is the bomb if you want to know exactly what's in your lumps of metal, but they are ridiculously expensive!

 

 

8 hours ago, Junior said:

This is very true! An XRF is out the window expensive! That’s why I’m a really good customer of my local bullion dealer. 😆 

 

5 hours ago, SilverStorm said:

The only problem with XRF is that it only scans the surface.  If you have a fake insert inside the bar, the XRF will not catch it.   

Almost every testing equipment has a drawback, which is why one must always use multiple (and different) testing methodologies to confirm authenticity.   You cannot rely solely on one testing method.  Once a suspect PM has passed a battery of tests can you be confident that the PM in your hands is genuine.  

An XRF machine is not perfect.

It will not tell you "exactly what's in your lumps of metal".

It should normally get within 1.5 to 2% accuracy, which is quite good for a quick test.

See: https://www.chards.co.uk/blog/krugerrand-gold-content/507

I have linked it on TSF before now, but it is instructive.

The most accurate testing method remains cupellation aka fire assay, which has been used for aabout 5,000 years.

Wikipedia: "The most exact method of assay is known as fire assay or cupellation. This method is better suited for the assay of bullion and gold stocks rather than works of art or jewelry because it is a completely destructive method."

Using more than one test makes sense.

Experience can replace or suppllement multiple tests.

XRF machines cannot tell you if a coin is genuine (although I know of at least one dealer who believes otherwise).

It cannot always tell you a coin is fake.

The same applies to most if not all other tests.

Knowledge, experience, study, and the application of the human brain, in combination can get close.

[Junior]

1 hour ago, LawrenceChard said:

Using more than one test makes sense.

Experience can replace or suppllement multiple tests.

XRF machines cannot tell you if a coin is genuine (although I know of at least one dealer who believes otherwise).

It cannot always tell you a coin is fake.

The same applies to most if not all other tests.

Knowledge, experience, study, and the application of the human brain, in combination can get close.

Quick question for you Lawrence, have you ever come across a coin (collectors or bullion) that turned out to be fake, but it was such a good fake that it passed multiple tests with ease?

[SilverStorm]

50 minutes ago, Junior said:

Quick question for you Lawrence, have you ever come across a coin (collectors or bullion) that turned out to be fake, but it was such a good fake that it passed multiple tests with ease?

It’s not possible for a bullion to pass multiple different tests, assuming each testing methodology checks for different aspects of a metal’s innate quality.  As the SB Bullion video points out, it is impossible for a fake to pass all of density, celerity, conductivity and magnetic susceptibility.   A fake can pass one of the four, but cannot pass two or three of them.  Such a metallic compound does not exist (yet).  

[Junior]

1 hour ago, SilverStorm said:

Such a metallic compound does not exist (yet).

(Yet) 😆 

[LawrenceChard]

21 hours ago, Junior said:

Quick question for you Lawrence, have you ever come across a coin (collectors or bullion) that turned out to be fake, but it was such a good fake that it passed multiple tests with ease?

Short, quick questions often require long answers.

Quick answer: Yes.

Quite often.

British gold £5 and £2 coins of 1887 Victoria, are good examples.

My default position before I see them is that they will be fake. Many of these fakes are obvious, either (1) to the naked eye, (2) a better visual inspection, or (3) an XRF test.

(1) can take under 1 second on some coins, we usually perform (3) next, and (4) weight, so far, under 5 minutes. (2) can take from a few minutes upwards.

(5) take high quality macro photos, and (6) study them.

By this stage, it is probably a waste of time trying any of the other popular or common testing methods, but my assumption is that they may be high quality fakes rather than genuine. At this stage, we might buy them, but would not take therisk of selling them until we had done more comparison work on them, possibly getting a second opinion, which might include a third party grading service.

I did once let a fake 1887 gold £5 go out as genuine, without having checked it sufficiently thoroughly, which is a source of great personal frustration. I could and should have detected it. We retain the coin in our "Black Museum".

I frequently see fakes of these 2 coins which have been sold by other coin dealers, or jewellers, which are ovvious fakes, and also some which are not what I would call obvious, but these terms are relative.

Back in the 1970s, someone in Lebanon started producing high quality counterfeits of the above 2 coins, but also many other world rarities. These were distributed around the world mainly by an American airline employee called Harry Stock. We menion him in a blog: 

https://www.chards.co.uk/blog/fakes-forgeries-and-counterfeit-gold-coins-and-sovereigns/167

n the 1970's, forgeries of a number of rare and very rare, valuable coins were produced. These were apparently made in the Lebanon by a Mr. Chaloub, and inspired or financed by an American called Harry Stock. The workmanship of this series of fakes was excellent. They were so good that a large number of highly priced coins found their way onto the market, having been bought by experienced dealers, and handled by famous auction houses. Some of the sovereign dates which appear in high quality fakes include 1822, 1827, 1832, 1887, 1916-C (Ottawa Mint, Canada), and 1917. These are all London mint coins (no mintmark), except where specified. Most of these dates are scarce or rare. The 1917 London, for example, catalogues at £2750 in EF condition, and the 1916-C at £7000.

Another mention here:

https://24carat.co.uk/frame.php?url=reprocoinsproliferate.html

In the 1970's a significant number of superb quality fakes came onto the world numismatic market. We understand that these were produce in the Lebanon, an marketed by an American called Harry Stock. Most of these fakes were of rare coins such as the 1839 Una £5, but also included moderately common coins such as the 1887 British Golden Jubilee £5 piece. One day we were offered one of these, in superb mint condition, by some northern dealers, at a too-good-to-be-true price. While we were examining the coin, to spot the "catch", they produced a whole tubeful of identical coins, saying they had more, and falling about laughing. We were pleased that they had not attempted to deceive us. Some time later they and others were prosecuted and convicted of possessing and selling forgeries. Part of their defence was that they had never deceived, or attempted to deceive, anybody, and we quite believe this, however it remained likely that intermediate dealers may have not been as scrupulous, and the judgement indicated that the lack of deception did not constitute an effective defence. I can remember that we were shocked at the time by the conviction, but accept that it was probably just.
Over the years, we have noticed that most major dealers are very honest and ethical in such matters, but that there will always be a number of small part-time dealers who have few ethical standards to maintain. in addition, it is our experience that members of the public seem substantially unethical and dishonest when it comes to describing goods accurately. Only experience has taught us not to be shocked by this sad revelation.

This page is interesting, and contains along list:

http://coins.lakdiva.org/notes/iapn_ibscc.html

The above is not a complete answer, but to conclude for now, I will add:

Most major international numismatic dealers and auction houses will have seen convincing fakes. Many may have been fooled by them. I am thinking about the Harry Stock affair when I say this. Most of these will have learnt from the experience. In my opinion, based on experience, there are many smaller dealers, some well known, who will have been fooled by fake coins, and will have sold fake coins. Many of these are not as professsional, expert, or knowledgeable as they think they are, or would have you believe.

I hope this helps.

What did I say about quick questions?

😎

P.S. After I wrote the above, I noticed it was inthe topic "Spotting Counterfeit Silver Coins", and most of my answer was about gold coins, but the same principles apply.  

Edited December 4, 2021 by LawrenceChard
added P.S.

[scotwasp]

As always, hugely informative, this forum provides an exceptional resource to the new guys of the coin world.  
ps 

reading your posts on here contributed to me using Chards for my most recent purchase, thanks for the input. 
👍

[LawrenceChard]

On 04/12/2021 at 01:55, SilverStorm said:

It’s not possible for a bullion to pass multiple different tests, assuming each testing methodology checks for different aspects of a metal’s innate quality.  As the SB Bullion video points out, it is impossible for a fake to pass all of density, celerity, conductivity and magnetic susceptibility.   A fake can pass one of the four, but cannot pass two or three of them.  Such a metallic compound does not exist (yet).  

I disagree with you.

First, being pedantic, bullion is an adjective, not a noun, so "a bullion" is meaningless and ungrammatical, but "a bullion coin" or "a bullion bar", would be correct.

(End of pedantic English lesson).

A fake coin could pass any test which exists. It is illogical to assume or state otherwise. Of course, it may not be commercially viable to make fake bullion coins with specifications identical to the original, but that does not make it impossible. I have not watched the SB bullion video .

1780 Maria Theresa Thaler - Genuine, Original, Restrike or Fake?

As a quick demonstration of my main point, it is worth studying  1780 Maria Theresa Thalers.

I wrote this page many years ago:

https://24carat.co.uk/frame.php?url=mariatheresathaler.php

Although genuine originals do exist, most are restrikes, eight official by the Austrian Mint in Vienna, or by other mints, with or without the permission of the Austrian Mint or Government. Any produced without this permission are technically counterfeits, yet all of them are almost certainly undetectable by any of the methods being referred to.

Fortunately for numismatists, many of the mints used privy or other mintmarks, or subtle design detail changes, that they can be attributed. 

There is an expert paper about them, and also an excellent book on the subject.

Edited December 5, 2021 by LawrenceChard
typos

[paulmerton]

7 minutes ago, LawrenceChard said:

First, being pedantic, bullion is an adjective, not a noun, so "a bullion" is meaningless and ungrammatical, but "a bullion coin" or "a bullion bar", would be correct.

Being pedantic, bullion is a noun.

It's an uncountable noun.

😎

[LawrenceChard]

10 minutes ago, paulmerton said:

Being pedantic, bullion is a noun.

It's an uncountable noun.

😎

Yes, you are correct. I have stated as much previously, but I am WFH (Working From Hotel), tringto get an early night, and give brief (for me) answers.

I could argue that an uncountable noun doesn't count as a noun.  

😎

[paulmerton]

14 minutes ago, LawrenceChard said:

I could argue that an uncountable noun doesn't count as a noun.  

A countable noun and an uncountable noun walk into a bar.

"What kind of crazy pun setup is this?!" demands the bartender.

Both nouns shrug and proceed to ask the bartender for a drink and some drink.

[sixgun]

You cannot say 5 bullion or even 1 bullion - it makes no sense whilst 5 cars and 1 car does. It is uncountable.
However you can say 5 pieces of bullion - here we have defined the number through a countable noun - piece.

It strikes me that bullion is also an adjective in that it can be used to describe a noun. Such as a bullion coin. If describes the coin as being bullion in quality. 
i see the online dictionaries don't agree with this and bullion is only listed as a noun.

If you said a proof coin, here proof is acting as an adjective - so why isn't bullion?

[SilverStorm]

1 hour ago, LawrenceChard said:

A fake coin could pass any test which exists. It is illogical to assume or state otherwise. Of course, it may not be commercially viable to make fake bullion coins with specifications identical to the original, but that does not make it impossible. I have not watched the SB bullion video .

1780 Maria Theresa Thaler - Genuine, Original, Restrike or Fake?

As a quick demonstration of my main point, it is worth studying  1780 Maria Theresa Thalers.

I wrote this page many years ago:

https://24carat.co.uk/frame.php?url=mariatheresathaler.php

Although genuine originals do exist, most are restrikes, eight official by the Austrian Mint in Vienna, or by othe mints, with or without the permission of the Austrian Mint or Goverment. Any produced without this permission are technically counterfeits, yet all of them are almost certainly undetectable by any of the methods being referred to.

Fortunately for numismatists, many of the mints used privy or other mintmarks, or subtle design detail changes, that they can be attributed. 

There is an expert paper about them, and also an excellent book on the subject.

A fake coin can definitely pass any test that exists.  I believe what I posted agrees with what you've said. 

Re-reading your comment, I believe you are misunderstanding (or misconstruing) my comments regarding testing equipment and fakes.  The fakes I'm referring to are ones that are made to resemble and deceive the buyer by substituting an inferior metal and thereby passing off as an original.  So fake gold with tungsten inserts, that kind of thing.  That is what equipment testing does best, to detect fakes that don't pass a metal's innate qualities. 

What you are referring to is the deliberate copy of the original to the exact same standards as the original.  The copy is the same as the original in all aspects (metal composition, purity, weight, etc).   To capture this type of counterfeit, a different kind of testing (i.e. human intuition, knowledge, etc.) is needed.  This is not the kind of testing I'm referring to in the above, and it is obviously out of scope for equipment testing.  Equipment testing will never pick out these types of counterfeits because they will test like the original.  Because the fakes were made like the original.   More is needed that just equipment testing.  

But as long as a fake coin or bar is  made inferior to the original,  equipment testing will catch it as long as you use multiple methodologies to detect anomalies.  

And for the record, you have two typos in your paragraph (bolded for you).  For being a stickler of my incorrect use of nouns, I would have expected better grammatical accuracy from you.  😜

 

 

 

[LawrenceChard]

15 hours ago, SilverStorm said:

A fake coin can definitely pass any test that exists.  I believe what I posted agrees with what you've said. 

Re-reading your comment, I believe you are misunderstanding (or misconstruing) my comments regarding testing equipment and fakes.  The fakes I'm referring to are ones that are made to resemble and deceive the buyer by substituting an inferior metal and thereby passing off as an original.  So fake gold with tungsten inserts, that kind of thing.  That is what equipment testing does best, to detect fakes that don't pass a metal's innate qualities. 

What you are referring to is the deliberate copy of the original to the exact same standards as the original.  The copy is the same as the original in all aspects (metal composition, purity, weight, etc).   To capture this type of counterfeit, a different kind of testing (i.e. human intuition, knowledge, etc.) is needed.  This is not the kind of testing I'm referring to in the above, and it is obviously out of scope for equipment testing.  Equipment testing will never pick out these types of counterfeits because they will test like the original.  Because the fakes were made like the original.   More is needed that just equipment testing.  

But as long as a fake coin or bar is  made inferior to the original,  equipment testing will catch it as long as you use multiple methodologies to detect anomalies.  

And for the record, you have two typos in your paragraph (bolded for you).  For being a stickler of my incorrect use of nouns, I would have expected better grammatical accuracy from you.  😜

 

I had not read previous posts in the thread, so probably took your comments out of context.

We are in broad agreement.

Thanks for pointing out the typos, they seem to be part of my ID these days. I often spot them in later quotes.

One interesting exception I could cite would be platinum fakes of gold sovereigns, which may be able to scrape past some tests. I / we have yet to own one.  

[ArgentSmith]

1 hour ago, LawrenceChard said:

One interesting exception I could cite would be platinum fakes of gold sovereigns, which may be able to scrape past some tests. I / we have yet to own one.  

Isn't platinum the densest element? miles away from gold in terms of SG.

 

[scotwasp]

For those of us relatively new to collecting the fear of being scammed is a huge disincentive to buying from anyone other than recognised dealers. I know that this site seems to be a safer place to trade but for the likes of me it is a big consideration at the moment.  I am sure this will diminish as us newbies get a bit more experienced, but I kind of wish there was an “idiots guide to spotting fake coins” manual!
Perhaps there is? 

[SilverStorm]

2 hours ago, scotwasp said:

For those of us relatively new to collecting the fear of being scammed is a huge disincentive to buying from anyone other than recognised dealers. I know that this site seems to be a safer place to trade but for the likes of me it is a big consideration at the moment.  I am sure this will diminish as us newbies get a bit more experienced, but I kind of wish there was an “idiots guide to spotting fake coins” manual!
Perhaps there is? 

I recommend looking at a member's trading feedback to gauge whether it is safe to conduct business with them.  If there's a lot of positive feedback, the likelihood of getting scammed is minimal.  If the person has minimal or no feedback, or is a new member with minimal posts, then he may be a person you want to avoid doing business with.   Just like buying stocks, a member's past performance is no guarantee of his future performance.  There are inherent risks when you trade with anonymous people on the Internet.  Everything depends on your comfort level and your level of trust for the other person.

[ArgentSmith]

2 hours ago, scotwasp said:

For those of us relatively new to collecting the fear of being scammed is a huge disincentive to buying from anyone other than recognised dealers. I know that this site seems to be a safer place to trade but for the likes of me it is a big consideration at the moment.  I am sure this will diminish as us newbies get a bit more experienced, but I kind of wish there was an “idiots guide to spotting fake coins” manual!
Perhaps there is? 

It's not as difficult as some people try and make out. Are you collecting or stacking? As @SilverStorm says you should conduct more than one test if possible @LawrenceChardadvised use common sense. Is the item the sort of item likely to be faked? For Gold bullion you are probably better off with a competitive dealer, for Silver bullion you should avoid commonly faked coins at least until you know the look and feel of the coins you're stacking.

Tests you can do, magnet for the ali baba stuff. weigh the coin on a set of cheap scales measuring in 0.01g, then measure with callipers, weight coupled with dimensions effectively gives you the SG. Or do an SG test with some dental floss. No one here seems to rate the ping test ap except me, the resonance of a coin  is VERY specific and is effected by not only the purity of the metal or alloy but by the exact width depth and contours of a coin, also completely non destructive if done properly.

This forum has to be far safer than ebay for private sales, if someone was passing fakes here I pretty sure they would be rumbled PDQ.

Good luck on your journey.

 

[scotwasp]

Thanks guys, I’m mainly stacking, as I don’t yet have the experience for collecting ( although I have made 5 or 6 auction purchases of collectibles) , but will take your opinions on board.  
can I ask, what is an SG dental floss test? I have downloaded the ping test app after reading some earlier stuff and am practicing a bit with that.