1957 Gold Sovereign - Striking Error or Fake?

[LawrenceChard]

Someone posted photos recently of a mis-struck 1957 sovereign.

I can't remember if he tagged me in, or if I happened to find it, but I commented to say I was 91.66% sure it was fake.

It turns out to have been in sold recently as part of the Royal Berkshire Sovereign collection at St James Auctions.

I found the original, bigger, better, photos on their site:

This was my original comment:

This off-centred mis-strike would be scarce and collectable if it was a genuine sovereign struck by the Royal Mint.

Your photos are quite good, but it we had the coin here in Blackpool, I would want to get bigger, better, photos of it. I would also want to Niton XRF test it.

It looks grainy, the date numeral and exergue look a little strange, but worst of all, the reverse field appears to be strewn with raised pimples. These could be explained if the coin was struck using a rusty die, but the RM do not usually use rusty dies especially for their "flagship" coin.

I am 91.66% sure this is a fake.

Do you have a local coin shop or bullion dealer anywhere near you?

It would also be interesting to know who and where you bought it from, then to hear what they say when you query this with them.

😎

Having now seen the bigger photos, I confirm that I am as certain as I can be, about 99%, without seeing the actual coin, that it is fake.

From memory, this is the first fake 1957 sovereign I have seen.

St. James Auctions are well-known, and well-respected, having been set up by Steve Fenton of Knightsbrige Coins. Anybody can make a mistake, and I guess this was a simple mistake, perhaps by a junior cataloguer, and I am sure the problem will be remedied.

The item was

I do hope I get the chance to examine, and test, it, but it probably will not happen.

It is worth studying the photos.

Edited March 9, 2022 by LawrenceChard

[fiveshotdon]

Have you notified them?

[MJCOIN]

One wonders why anyone would go to the bother of creating a fake 1957 sovereign?  They aren't exactly scarce.

[LawrenceChard]

30 minutes ago, fiveshotdon said:

Have you notified them?

The buyer has contacted them, and is awaiting their response.

[LawrenceChard]

6 minutes ago, MJCOIN said:

One wonders why anyone would go to the bother of creating a fake 1957 sovereign?  They aren't exactly scarce.

In the 1960's, bullion sovereigns were trading at a significant premium, circa 42%, probably also in the 1950s.

If the gold content is too low, this would also create an extra profit and incentive.

 

[MJCOIN]

2 minutes ago, LawrenceChard said:

In the 1960's, bullion sovereigns were trading at a significant premium, circa 42%, probably also in the 1950s.

If the gold content is too low, this would also create an extra profit and incentive.

 

Blimey.  Well worth it then.

What was causing the high premium at that time?

[LawrenceChard]

1 minute ago, MJCOIN said:

Blimey.  Well worth it then.

What was causing the high premium at that time?

The usual supply and demand (I nearly typed damned).

The last "circulation" gold sovereign was issued in 1932.

[MJCOIN]

Just now, LawrenceChard said:

The usual supply and demand (I nearly typed damned).

The last "circulation" gold sovereign was issued in 1932.

Interesting.  I assume there were a significant number of people (in the 50's/60's) who were alive when sovereigns were last in circulation and they were the ones creating the demand?   

[LawrenceChard]

I should have included a link to the auction lot:

https://bsjauctions.auctionmobility.com/lots/view/1-5FZ4EJ/sovereigns

 

[dicker]

Thank you @LawrenceChard The reeding (Americanism?) to me looks wrong.

You have a 1957 which as on your site which has a good magnifier feature that (with permission) I will post a compartive photo on tomorrow.

One of the better counterfeits but as you mention the fields are the dead give away.

Best

Dicker

[LawrenceChard]

On 25/02/2022 at 22:43, dicker said:

Thank you @LawrenceChard The reeding (Americanism?) to me looks wrong.

You have a 1957 which as on your site which has a good magnifier feature that (with permission) I will post a compartive photo on tomorrow.

One of the better counterfeits but as you mention the fields are the dead give away.

Best

Dicker

I'm happy for you to post our photo.

Apparently the auction house insist it is genuine, saying:

"I’ve had a look at it again, and although the reverse does have a grainy surface, I don’t believe it to be a copy. The weight is absolutely perfect at 7.98gms. The ‘7’ in the date on all the 57’s I’ve seen looks like this, the specimen in lot 309 also looks like this."

I say "The correct weight should be 7.98805, which rounds to 7.9881 or 7.99, although the Royal Mint often cite it incorrectly!"

 

Edited April 18, 2022 by LawrenceChard
spacing

[dicker]

1 minute ago, LawrenceChard said:

 

Although I say "The correct wieght should be 7.98805, which rounds to 7.9881 or 7.99, although the Royal Mint often cite it incorrectly!"

 

Ah...the RM!

Certainly not one I would have bought as genine

(And thank you - I will do some reeding counting while not under the influence of a few glasses of wine!)

[Bruce06]

6 hours ago, LawrenceChard said:

Someone posted photos recently of a mis-struck 1957 sovereign.

I can't remember if he tagged me in, or if I happened to find it, but I commented to say I was 91.66% sure it was fake.

It turns out to have been in sold recenlty as part of the Royal Berkshire Sovereign collection at St James Auctions.

I found the original, bigger, better, photos on their site:

This was my original comment:

This off-centred mis-strike would be scarce and collectable if it was a genuine sovereign struck by the Royal Mint.

Your photos are quite good, but it we had the coin here in Blackpool, I would want to get bigger, better, photos of it. I would also want to Niton XRF test it.

It looks grainy, the date numeral and exergue look a little strange, but worst of all, the reverse field appears to be strewn with raised pimples. These could be explained if the coin was struck using a rusty die, but the RM do not usually use rusty dies especially for their "flagship" coin.

I am 91.66% sure this is a fake.

Do you have a local coin shop or bullion dealer anywhere near you?

It would also be interesting to know who and where you bought it from, then to hear what they say when you query this with them.

😎

Having now seen the bigger photos, I confirm that I am as certain as I can be, about 99%, without seeing the actual coin, that it is fake.

From memory, this is the first fake 1957 sovereign I have seen.

St. James Auctions are well-known, and well-respected, having been set up by Steve Fenton of Knightsbrige Coins. Anybody can make a mistake, and I guess this was a simple mistake, perhaps by a junior cataloguer, and I am sure the problem will be remedied.

The item was lot 310, and sold for £300 plus 24% buyer's premium, making £372.

I do hope I get the chance to examine, and test, it, but it probably will not happen.

It is worth studying the photos.

Thanks Lawrence, learn a lesson again.

[LawrenceChard]

11 hours ago, LawrenceChard said:

I'm happy for you to post our photo.

Apparently the auction house insist it is genuine "I’ve had a look at it again, and although the reverse does have a grainy surface, I don’t believe it to be a copy. The weight is absolutely perfect at 7.98gms. The ‘7’ in the date on all the 57’s I’ve seen looks like this, the specimen in lot 309 also looks like this."

I say "The correct weight should be 7.98805, which rounds to 7.9881 or 7.99, although the Royal Mint often cite it incorrectly!"

 

This morning I thought I would take a look at Lot 309.

First problem is that the archive is a PDF, which I always find difficult to work with.

Having scrolled down to Lot 309, the images are very small, and I can zoom the PDF, it looks like there is no easy way to view the actual photos directly, without doing a screenshot then cropping. I decided to try their "Advanced Search", and noticed a separate problem:

Once I see a spelling error on a document or web page, it distracts me, and continues to do so.

I find it difficult to SEPARATE the mis-spelling of the word SEPARATE as SEPERATE, from my thoughts about whatever I was trying to do. I start wondering was this a simple typo, although it is repeated, or does the author not know or care about spelling correctly? In which case, how professional and accurate are they when it comes to their main job, appraising coins, including checking whether they are genuine or fakes.

I make typos, but whenever I spot them, I correct them. In fact I just spotted I had typed wieght instead of weight, in this very thread. Needless to say I have already corrected it, although someone had quoted me, and their quote includes my typo!

Now, after this short digression, I will get back to the actual search, but perhaps after a coffee...

😎

[jultorsk]

https://bsjauctions.auctionmobility.com/lots/view/1-5FZ4EH/sovereigns

 

[LawrenceChard]

Here is a screenshot of Lot 309, 1957 Specimen Sovereign Reverse:

Unfortunately, but not surprisingly, the image is already pixelating at this moderate level of zoom. (Did I mention that I don't like PDFs?).

I cannot see any signs of raised pimples on it, so I don't know what the St. James Auctions manager was talking about. As I don't know his name, I can't check whether he is a numismatist, but this is not resolving my concerns and doubts about their accuracy or professionalism.

Perhaps "Lot 309" was a typo for "Lot 308", which is another ordinary 1957 sovereign. The images for that are so small that even maximum zooming is useless.

Here is a maximum zoomed screenshot of Lot 308:

It is just about possible to discern the date!

I hope there is a non-PDF version of the auction online which might be more useful, or should I say less useless?

😎

 

 

[LawrenceChard]

3 minutes ago, jultorsk said:

https://bsjauctions.auctionmobility.com/lots/view/1-5FZ4EH/sovereigns

 

Thanks, I will take a better look.

🙂

[LawrenceChard]

14 minutes ago, jultorsk said:

https://bsjauctions.auctionmobility.com/lots/view/1-5FZ4EH/sovereigns

 

 

10 minutes ago, LawrenceChard said:

Thanks, I will take a better look.

🙂

So, here is the JPG image of Lot 309:

 

Which is not much better than my earlier screenshot, and I still can't see any raised pimples on it.

Now, how about Lot 308?

😎

[LawrenceChard]

5 minutes ago, LawrenceChard said:

So, here is the JPG image of Lot 309:

Which is not much better than my earlier screenshot, and I still can't see any raised pimples on it.

Now, how about Lot 308?

😎

Lot 308 Images:

Once again, it pixelates when moderately zoomed in, but even so it is good enough to be able to see that there are no obvious raised pimples.

I wonder if the SJA manager had been looking at the Lot 310 images when he said "I’ve had a look at it again, and although the reverse does have a grainy surface, I don’t believe it to be a copy. The weight is absolutely perfect at 7.98gms. The ‘7’ in the date on all the 57’s I’ve seen looks like this, the specimen in lot 309 also looks like this."

After all, there's only a difference of 1 between Lot 309 and Lot 310!

It might also depend whether titles and captions are positioned above or below the main catalogue entries, which can be confusing, unless catalogues are designed with sufficient care and attention to details.

Even if the SJA manager did look at a different image, of a different 1957 sovereign, this does not necessarily follow that they are both genuine, they could both be fakes.

The SJA comment does not fill me with confidence.

My probability level on this coin being fake remains at 99%, and probably will do unless or until I get to see the actual coin.

Part of me hopes I am wrong, but part of me hopes I am right.

Time will (might) tell!

😎

[jultorsk]

Personally (and I'm certainly no numismatist), I read that so that he is referring to the engraving. He does acknowledge there's graininess to surfaces but for some unexplained reason he does not see this as a problem.

https://bsjauctions.auctionmobility.com/lots/view/1-5FZ4EF/sovereigns

Top - the off strike, bottom, the standard 1957 in lot 308

The off strike definitely seems to have coarser graining.

 

[LawrenceChard]

7 minutes ago, jultorsk said:

Personally (and I'm certainly no numismatist), I read that so that he is referring to the engraving. He does acknowledge there's graininess to surfaces but for some unexplained reason he does not see this as a problem.

https://bsjauctions.auctionmobility.com/lots/view/1-5FZ4EF/sovereigns

Top - the off strike, bottom, the standard 1957 in lot 308

The off strike definitely seems to have coarser graining.

 

I completely agree with most of that, except that I think you are more of a numismatist than you think. Don't underestimate yourself. You are studying these coins, or images of coins, because you are interested, which makes you more or a numismatist than the SJA manager who responded to you.

Your comparison images are very helpful, and show a striking difference, pun intended, between the two coins, although perhaps in the case of one of them, it is a casting difference.

😎

[jultorsk]

21 minutes ago, LawrenceChard said:

 

Your comparison images are very helpful, and show a striking difference, pun intended, between the two coins, although perhaps in the case of one of them, it is a casting difference.

😎

Agreed @LawrenceChard, agreed. 😔

[Britannia47]

Here's my 1957 for comparison.....

 

[dicker]

1 minute ago, Britannia47 said:

Here's my 1957 for comparison.....

 

Nice photo

[LawrenceChard]

29 minutes ago, Britannia47 said:

Here's my 1957 for comparison.....

 

Looks good!