1957 Gold Sovereign - Striking Error or Fake?

[sovereignsteve]

The coin in the top image certainly looks cast. It's difficult to see how all the imperfections on the "denticles" could happen while striking from a genuine die. The lumpiness of the field suggests the same.

[DaKine]

What about Lot 323 the struck in brass 1967 sovereign? I really did not like the looks of it, but there sure was a lot of "sport" going on at the mint in those days.

[jultorsk]

2 hours ago, DaKine said:

What about Lot 323 the struck in brass 1967 sovereign? I really did not like the looks of it, but there sure was a lot of "sport" going on at the mint in those days.

Looking at the entire collection, while it's not on par with Bentley's it's a valiant effort and certainly one of the larger single individual's sovereign collections to be dispersed in a while. Nearly 500 lots and multiple exceeding 10k hammer.

Seems to me they were interested in "the Sovereign" across the board, incl. counterfeit platinum sov and the brass one. For both of these the cataloguer had clearly noted the 'pedigree' (or lack thereof).

@dicker might also be interested in the two '827' sov results in this same sale.

 

[dicker]

Thank you - interesting set of coins especially the Brass Sov and the 827’s. 

31k for the AU58 827 seems “toppy” to me.

[jultorsk]

24 minutes ago, dicker said:

Thank you - interesting set of coins especially the Brass Sov and the 827’s. 

31k for the AU58 827 seems “toppy” to me.

31k + 24% premium... 😅

[dicker]

19 minutes ago, jultorsk said:

31k + 24% premium... 😅

Not a cheap day at all for someone.

[jultorsk]

On 27/02/2022 at 07:30, sovereignsteve said:

The coin in the top image certainly looks cast. It's difficult to see how all the imperfections on the "denticles" could happen while striking from a genuine die. The lumpiness of the field suggests the same.

I agree that the denticles look too wonky and fields look too grainy. No objection.

Just speculating here on the 'cast copy' theory - how easy would it be to create an "off strike" looking cast copy of 1957 sov, with coarser graining? I mean, wouldn't a credible cast copy be rather easier to make from a 'good', correctly struck original; and would the coarser graining be then applied post-casting to the fine grained 1957 copy? Sounds complicated, I hope you catch my drift 😅

That said, my weary eyes count only 106 ridges, so maybe we can put this case to rest just based on that... 🤷‍♂️

 

Edited March 1, 2022 by jultorsk
edited for clarity (hopefully)

[Booky586]

On 27/02/2022 at 03:32, DaKine said:

What about Lot 323 the struck in brass 1967 sovereign? I really did not like the looks of it, but there sure was a lot of "sport" going on at the mint in those days.

It would be interesting to know how much the brass one sold for, others selling elsewhere at less than £5.

There were 2 brass Sovereigns auctioned through eBay very recently, a Gillick and a Machin head. Obvious fakes and stated as such, here's the links:

https://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/GB-BRASS-SOVEREIGN-TOKEN-1958-168G-BY-COINMOUNTAIN/373918454237

https://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/GB-BRASS-CARDS-SOVEREIGN-TOKEN-1974-UNUSUAL-144G-BY-COINMOUNTAIN-/373918411891

[LawrenceChard]

12 hours ago, jultorsk said:

I agree that the denticles look too wonky and fields look too grainy. No objection.

Just speculating here on the 'cast copy' theory - how easy would it be to create an "off strike" looking cast copy of 1957 sov, with coarser graining? I mean, wouldn't a credible cast copy be rather easier to make from a 'good', correctly struck original; and would the coarser graining be then applied post-casting to the fine grained 1957 copy? Sounds complicated, I hope you catch my drift 😅

That said, my weary eyes count only 106 ridges, so maybe we can put this case to rest just based on that... 🤷‍♂️

 

If we get to see the actual coin, and I hope we do, we must do a denticle count image in addition to a serrations image, then obviously compare these with other examples with which we are happy.

We would also take our usual high quality, hi-res photos.

 

[Arganto]

On 26/02/2022 at 10:23, LawrenceChard said:

Once I see a spelling error

Grammatically speaking the 's on St James's bugs me. I know both ways are technically correct/acceptable, but once you're trained a certain way it's hard to see something like that and not suck vinegar...🙃

I hope this coin ends up in Chards' (😝) shop, I am very interested in finding out how the appraisal will turn out.

[jultorsk]

9 hours ago, Booky586 said:

It would be interesting to know how much the brass one sold for, others selling elsewhere at less than £5.

See in my above post (Sunday) - lot 323 went for GBP2900 + premium. Those 5 quid brass coins might be worth a punt 😂

[LawrenceChard]

On 01/03/2022 at 01:44, jultorsk said:

I agree that the denticles look too wonky and fields look too grainy. No objection.

Just speculating here on the 'cast copy' theory - how easy would it be to create an "off strike" looking cast copy of 1957 sov, with coarser graining? I mean, wouldn't a credible cast copy be rather easier to make from a 'good', correctly struck original; and would the coarser graining be then applied post-casting to the fine grained 1957 copy? Sounds complicated, I hope you catch my drift 😅

That said, my weary eyes count only 106 ridges, so maybe we can put this case to rest just based on that... 🤷‍♂️

 

I have only just noticed this post, but that's a good job of showing the serrations count.

We have just done our own:

Based on our own photo of the reverse of your coin.

More photos to follow. I will post them all here, which will probably work better than e-mailing them to you. The photoshoot should prove to be highly educational!

 

[LawrenceChard]

On 25/02/2022 at 19:03, 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 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.

 

On 25/02/2022 at 22:58, 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!"

 

 

On 01/03/2022 at 17:15, Liam84 said:

Grammatically speaking the 's on St James's bugs me. I know both ways are technically correct/acceptable, but once you're trained a certain way it's hard to see something like that and not suck vinegar...🙃

I hope this coin ends up in Chards' (😝) shop, I am very interested in finding out how the appraisal will turn out.

We received the coin on Tuesday 8th, and I got to see it yesterday 9th.

My 99% certainty factor has turned out to be an understatement, but I do prefer not to exaggerate.

Now I have seen the actual coin, I am 100% certain that it is a fake, and a very obvious one at that.

Naturally, I examined the coin before I used our Niton XRF tester on it, but this confirmed my opinion, if any confirmation was needed.

I will start by showing the XRF result:

Just before testing, I weighed the coin on our diamond carat balance, which showed 39.916cts. I forgot to show the conversion to grams before we photographed the result sheet, but the weight in grams is 39.916/5 = 7.9832.

The actual weight should be 7.98805 grams, not the 7.98 which "Sam" (SJA manager) cites, although this is the usual, incorrect figure which the Royal Mint shows on most of its proof sovereign certificates, and on its website. 

The weight is therefore slightly deficient, although many "experts" could be excused for not realising this.

The coin shows no significant signs of circulation, wear or scuffing, so the deficient weight cannot be blamed on wear.

The most obviously, glaring, discrepancy is the gold content:

The obverse tested at 890 ppt +/- 3ppt of gold

The reverse tested at 860 ppt +/- 3ppt of gold

Although there is often a slight differential between obverse and reverse readings, this is usually very low for genuine coins, typically in the range of 0 to 1 or 2 ppt.

With counterfeits, a wide discrepancy, as above, is far more common.

It is surprising to see any iron content in most sovereigns, although I have noticed it occasionally occurs in some older sovereigns, typically pre 1860, and more likely for Australian and other branch mints. When it does occur, it is usually only 1 ppt, so readings of 2 and 3 ppt are notably high.

The silver content, at 1 ppt, is not entirely surprising for this date, or other very early QE2 sovereigns, although my normal expectation would be 0 ppt.

The copper content makes up the difference.

Following our usual practice, we had the machine set to test for 60 seconds, which is much longer than most people test for, as it reduces statistical sampling error rates.

Gold plating was not detected.

Even if the user / tester knew absolutely nothing about coins or numismatics, these test results would be conclusive evidence that this coin was not produced at the Royal Mint.

We took a number of high resolution photos today. These will follow, with annotations.

 

 

[LawrenceChard]

St. James Auctions

Auction No. 57

Lot: 310

DESCRIPTION
Elizabeth II, sovereign, 1957, obverse off strike, fine graining on edge, laur. head r., rev. St. George and the dragon, the off strike affecting the obverse by a couple of millimetres toward the right (S.4124), good extremely fine

The buyer arranged for the coin to be posted to us at @ChardsCoinandBullionDealer in Blackpool, for examination, appraisal, and testing.

It arrived securely packaged and labelled:

We had already removed it from the packaging, but replaced it for this photo.

My early opinion of the coin was formed mainly after seeing the auctioneer's catalogue photo of the reverse, which had a number of suspicious features, the most notable of which was the profusion of what looked like raised pimples. 

Although these could occur on coins struck from rusted and cleaned dies, this is very rare, but is quite common on counterfeit coins. This represents one of the worst examples of raised pimples that I have seen:

Lightly brushing a fingernail across the surface reveals that the pimples are indeed raised.

These can be seen in SJA's photo, but our superior lighting and other techniques show them much more clearly.

Almost every detail on the reverse looks wrong, especially when compared with a genuine example, as here:

Although the counterfeit coin shows very few, if any, signs of circulation or wear, it is lacking in definition particularly on the higher points, giving the appearance of being weakly struck. When a rubber, or other, mould is made from an original, some definition is always lost. When a wax is made from a  mould, further definition and sharpness is lost. When the wax is then used to produce a plaster "investment" or tree, even more definition is lost. The same happens then the "coin" is then cast, and "flash" lines can also occur. The arc to the left of the horse's tail may be a flash mark.

The raised pimples are possibly caused by air bubbles formed during the investment process, burning out the wax, or during casting.

If the fake was die struck rather than cast, the new dies would have been produced by first taking moulds from an original, then casting the new dies in a process similar to that described above.

The date numerals, and the B.P. initials look rather clumsy, soft, and lacking in definition. The denticles are irregular, and their spacing from the rim also looks wrong.

The colour is noticeably yellow compared with the genuine example.

The edge serrations can be seen more clearly on the fake compared with the original. This is mainly because the serrations on a genuine 1957 sovereign are finer than on other Gillick sovereigns (1958 to 1968).

Obverse photos to follow.

Edited April 15 by LawrenceChard
Corrected parpticularly to particularly, and ot to or.

[LawrenceChard]

1957 Gold Sovereign - Striking Error or Fake?

I continue our series of photos with the obverse.

Although there is little or no signs of circulation or wear, there is a distinct lack of detail on the raised parts of the design. While at first glance, and to an untrained eye, this might appear to be caused be wear, it is not the case for this coin. This loss of detail is a very common feature on counterfeit coins.

There are curved lines running through much of the lettering, concentric to the rim. These look rather like flash lines, or flow lines often seen on castings.

There are numerous small indents and other surface irregularities on raised areas and on the field of the coin, which would normally look cleaner, flatter and sharper on genuine coins. While some older sovereigns, including George V, have a orange peel grainy surfaces, these have a completely different texture compared with this example. The most likely explanation for the irregular fields of this coin is that it has been cast.

Comparison:

The suspect (fake) coin is shown on the left, and the genuine coin on the right.

Notice the clearer definition on the genuine coin, particularly noticeable on the hair and laurel wreath. The lettering is also sharper on the genuine coin.

The coarser edge serrations can be seen clearly on the fake.

[jultorsk]

Can I just say these photos are amazing, and the XRF examination result is fascinating. Thank you so much @LawrenceChardfor the detailed study of this forgery.

[LawrenceChard]

St. James Auctions - Auction No. 57 - Lot: 310 

DESCRIPTION
Elizabeth II, sovereign, 1957, obverse off strike, fine graining on edge, laur. head r., rev. St. George and the dragon, the off strike affecting the obverse by a couple of millimetres toward the right (S.4124), good extremely fine.

Continued:

Although the catalogue description states "fine graining on edge", this is not an accurate description of the actual coin, which I have concluded to be an obvious forgery.

This is our photo of the reverse, with the serrations indexed and counted:

This clearly shows 106 coarse edge serrations, which is the normal count on all other Gillick portrait sovereigns (1958 to 1968).

Genuine 1957 sovereigns all have 169 fine serrations. The buyer also manage to produce a similar count based on the catalogue photo, our image shows them more clearly, due to superior lighting and photographic technique.

Here is a side-by-side comparison:

It seems certain that the auction cataloguer has merely quoted the normal specification for 1957 sovereigns, but has failed to observe that the actual coin has 106 coarse serrations.

While nobody would expect most dealers or auction houses to make an exact count of the number of edge serrations, the difference between fine and coarse ones is very obvious, and almost unmissable, even when seen in isolation, without a side by side comparison.

To demonstrate our point, we took this photo:

The fifth coin (fake) from the top looks slightly too yellow, but has the same coarse serrations as the rest of the stack. The arrowed coin near the middle of the stack stands out like the proverbial sore thumb, because it has a greater number of much finer serrations.

When sorting through bulk lots of bullion sovereigns, I often hold a roll of about 50 coins in one hand, and look for any "odd ones out". This includes 1957s, and also unusual coins for more detailed inspection. Often I do this with my naked eye, but sometimes I also use an eyeglass.

 

 

Edited March 10, 2022 by LawrenceChard

[LawrenceChard]

24 minutes ago, jultorsk said:

Can I just say these photos are amazing, and the XRF examination result is fascinating. Thank you so much @LawrenceChardfor the detailed study of this forgery.

Thanks.

I am still working on them, with some pics and notes to follow.

Watch this space!

🙂

[LawrenceChard]

47 minutes ago, jultorsk said:

Can I just say these photos are amazing, and the XRF examination result is fascinating. Thank you so much @LawrenceChardfor the detailed study of this forgery.

Thank you.

I like to think that I am not just a dealer, but a numismatist.

[LawrenceChard]

1957 Counterfeit Gold Sovereign - Continued

Doug, our photographer noticed the suspect coin was an unusually tight fit in its 22mm(?) capsule, so we measured its diameter using a "Leveridge Gauge", basically a micrometer for measuring diamonds other gemstones, and a few other jewellery uses.

Here is a comparison photo:

The specified diameter of gold sovereigns is 22.05 mms. As with most specifications and dimensions, this is subject to a slight tolerance.

As can be seen, our genuine coin is measuring 21.95 mms, which is about normal.

The fake coin is a bit of a porker, measuring 22.31 mms, a remarkably oversized diameter for any gold sovereign (except the original hammered ones).

I should have noticed this, although it is easy to miss some clues until later.

If we get round to measuring its thickness, which we do across the fields and also across the raised relief parts, we may find it to be slightly too thin, and if so, it will almost certainly be slightly low relief. It is not a measurement we carry out very frequently.

[Roy]

In t'old days, the sovereign balance would've picked this up?

Obviously not a '57 but turn of the century.

48 minutes ago, LawrenceChard said:

This clearly shows 106 coarse edge serrations, which is the normal count on all other Gillick portrait sovereigns (1958 to 1968).

@LawrenceChard, I'm impressed with how you catalogue the serrations, is that a piece of software you use?

[LawrenceChard]

1 minute ago, Roy said:

In t'old days, the sovereign balance would've picked this up?

Obviously not a '57 but turn of the century.

@LawrenceChard, I'm impressed with how you catalogue the serrations, is that a piece of software you use?

Probably. A Fisch tester also might. We have still not acquired one though.

No, it's all down to human blood, sweat, and toil (not mine).

😎

[Roy]

We're lucky to have all this specialist equipment to help us determine whether a coin is fake or counterfeited. Sometimes, just a great photo is all you need!

Historically, however, just the eye and hand was all that was needed (and lots of experience of course!).

 

[SemolinaPilchard]

25 minutes ago, Roy said:

@LawrenceChard, I'm impressed with how you catalogue the serrations, is that a piece of software you use?

Yes - CorelDraw

Looks a lot harder to do than it actually is.  

Other graphic programs (Illustrator, Inkscape etc) may have same ability but CD makes things easy to work out how to do things.

If anyone wants a step by step guide - just ask

Doug

Photographer @ Chards 

 

[LawrenceChard]

10 minutes ago, SemolinaPilchard said:

Yes - CorelDraw

Looks a lot harder to do than it actually is.  

Other graphic programs (Illustrator, Inkscape etc) may have same ability but CD makes things easy to work out how to do things.

If anyone wants a step by step guide - just ask

Doug

Photographer @ Chards 

 

It still took your experience and experimentation to work it out, and implement it.

😎