1957 Gold Sovereign - Striking Error or Fake?

[sovereignsteve]

Thanks Chards guys.

I'm with @Roy on this one. Pretty much every fake sovereign I've had my hands on (that I'm aware of, of course😉) has failed one of the physical tests; weight, diameter, thickness as measured by a modern equivalent to a sovereign balance/template. You can usually then spot some details that don't look right. Some obviously never get as far as the physical, having failed the visual miserably!

[LawrenceChard]

11 minutes ago, sovereignsteve said:

Thanks Chards guys.

I'm with @Roy on this one. Pretty much every fake sovereign I've had my hands on (that I'm aware of, of course😉) has failed one of the physical tests; weight, diameter, thickness as measured by a modern equivalent to a sovereign balance/template. You can usually then spot some details that don't look right. Some obviously never get as far as the physical, having failed the visual miserably!

Yes.

It is much more satisfying to spot them at the visual stage than only detect them at the testing stage.

Then the physical testing makes for a good second opinion, and confirmation.

[LawrenceChard]

41 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 

 

While we are talking about the Counting:

Doug checked the denticles.

Here's a comparison:

Both the fake and the genuine coin have 174 denticles, or border teeth.

Inconclusive, but worth checking.

I just realised, we never checked a later Gillick.

Anyone fancy a challenge, or suffering from insomnia?

😎

[MJCOIN]

I've been following this with interest.  Is the buyer going to ask for a refund from the auction house now the sovereign has been proved to be a fake?

[jultorsk]

2 minutes ago, MJCOIN said:

I've been following this with interest.  Is the buyer going to ask for a refund from the auction house now the sovereign has been proved to be a fake?

@LawrenceChardhas the right of first refusal; failing that I'm happy to entertain offers 😅 

No seriously, yes I'd be requesting a refund for that fake. Let's see how things go, I'll post an update later.

[LawrenceChard]

On 11/03/2022 at 08:34, MJCOIN said:

I've been following this with interest.  Is the buyer going to ask for a refund from the auction house now the sovereign has been proved to be a fake?

 

On 11/03/2022 at 08:40, jultorsk said:

@LawrenceChardhas the right of first refusal; failing that I'm happy to entertain offers 😅 

No seriously, yes I'd be requesting a refund for that fake. Let's see how things go, I'll post an update later.

I think a practical solution would be for SJA to offer to refund the buyer's premium. After all, they have not provided much of a service to the buyer. If anything, their responses to the buyer have been more surprising, and possibly revealing, than the original failure to identify and catalogue the coin correctly in the first place.

If I understand correctly, the buyer raised the doubt about the authenticity at least twice, I think citing my opinion and evidence on both occasions. While Sam may not have heard of my small provincial coin and bullion business, I am sure he could and should have taken the challenge about authenticity more seriously, and checked properly. I believe on the first occasion, he compared the disputed coin with another 1957 from the same auction, although I am unsure whether he physically re-examined the coins, or just the photos. I believe on the second occasion, he asked "two other people", who both agreed with the original calatogue description. We do not know who those other people were, or their numismatic experience and qualifications. We do not know whether Sam relayed my findings and doubts. I know Steve Fenton is a director of SJA. He is a very experienced numismatist. Asking Steve to examine the coin would have been a sensible course of action.

Anyone can make a mistake. I don't know the identity of the seller, but gather that he was a serious numismatist, and would have had knowledge and experience, judging by the rest of his collection. The SJA catalogue does not mention its previous provenance (who the seller bought it from).

I guess that the SJA cataloguer simply relied on the seller's description, without examining the coin, or perhaps with only a cursory examination. The estimate of £300 - £400 is an indicator that it was not considered to be of any great rarity or value, and it would not require the amount of time, attention, or expertise, which might be expected for a higher value piece, such as the 1957 "specimen" version. The original failure to detect this as a counterfeit may have simply been an unfortunate oversight, a simple mistake, but it probably was careless at least, and possibly negligent because the cataloguer surely owes some duty of care to the seller, buyer, and any potential bidders.

The failure to take the authenticity challenge seriously, however, is much more puzzling and worrying, as is the consensus opinion of all three SJA people involved. The whole matter raises considerable doubt over the professionalism of SJA, yet their feeble and self-assured responses do nothing to correct matters at an early stage, and surely poses a serious risk to the reputation of the company. Was this trio trying to protect the original cataloguer, whoever that was, by a cover-up, were they afraid to reveal the error to a director? We do not know the answers to these questions, but would certainly be interested in any answers and explanations.

Once the authenticity had been seriously questioned, then Sam, a manager, should surely have taken the challenge more seriously, and at least got an expert numismatic opinion, possibly from an SJA director, or possibly from an independent third party, such as another London dealer or auction house. This should be much easier in London than in the provinces.

Before I got to see the coin, I did not know whether I was about to see a very unusual and rare coin, more so because of the pimples indicating a rusty die than because of the off-centre striking. I was disappointed not to, but at the same time delighted that my original identification was indeed correct.

I am still unsure whether I would have preferred to be wrong or right. If wrong, I would have had the excuse that I was only working from a photo.

I often say that some fakes are so obvious that a blind person could detect them. While I often make this comment semi-humorously, in this case it is almost certainly true and accurate. Gently drawing a fingernail across the reverse, the raised pimples provide a solid physical barrier to the movement.

I told the seller we would not charge for the Niton test, or our appraisal, and this still stands. However, if St. James Auctions offer to reimburse us, then I would welcome their offer, even if I end up earning less than the legal minimum hourly wage rate. They will, or should have, benefitted from the educational aspect of our photographs, and my observations.

 

Edited April 15 by LawrenceChard
corrected "of" to "should", typos

[MJCOIN]

A comprehensive and well considered response.  

[LawrenceChard]

27 minutes ago, MJCOIN said:

A comprehensive and well considered response.  

Thank you.

🙂

[sovereignsteve]

I believe counterfeit sovereigns in auction catalogues are not uncommon. I have seen several suspect ones just looking at photos, although the quality of these are generally poor. I would say though, the easiest to spot are in the 1887 Jubilee series.

[LawrenceChard]

29 minutes ago, sovereignsteve said:

I believe counterfeit sovereigns in auction catalogues are not uncommon. I have seen several suspect ones just looking at photos, although the quality of these are generally poor. I would say though, the easiest to spot are in the 1887 Jubilee series.

I agree, but mainly on ebay, and in local general auctions, where the auction house has little or no specialist knowledge or expertise, but it is surprising to see it in specialist numismatic auctions.

Did your comment about poor quality refer to the coins, the photos, or both?

I don't see many fake 1887 sovereigns, jubilee or otherwise, but double sovereigns, and quintuple sovereigns, yes. My default attitude to these now is that they are fake until proved otherwise.

Jewellers are also often guilty of ignorant deception on these, and not always innocent, IMO.

[LawrenceChard]

19 hours ago, LawrenceChard said:

1957 Counterfeit Gold Sovereign - Continued

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.

I got the coin back out of our strongroom again today, and measured its thickness:

Field:field 1.21 mms

Highest point:highest point: 1.37 mms

Depth of relief = 1.37-1.21 = 0.16 mms.

Now I need to compare it with a genuine 1957.

[dicker]

This is the best thread I have ever read on the forum.  Thanks all who have contributed.  
 

Best

Dicker

[sovereignsteve]

3 hours ago, LawrenceChard said:

I agree, but mainly on ebay, and in local general auctions, where the auction house has little or no specialist knowledge or expertise, but it is surprising to see it in specialist numismatic auctions.

Did your comment about poor quality refer to the coins, the photos, or both?

I don't see many fake 1887 sovereigns, jubilee or otherwise, but double sovereigns, and quintuple sovereigns, yes. My default attitude to these now is that they are fake until proved otherwise.

I wasn't referring to Ebay, they are a "special" case and don't issue catalogues as such.

The company does not actually take possession and consign the coins in the same way that auction houses do. If the latter are going to auction coins they should at least have the knowledge and diligence to ensure authenticity.

Poor quality photos which obviously makes life difficult for potential bidders and fake spotters😎

You are correct about the sovereigns of course, it is the doubles and quintuples that crop up regularly, sometimes in auctions most people wouldn't expect. I have seen so many fakes of these I feel confident to call many out from photos.

[LawrenceChard]

4 minutes ago, sovereignsteve said:

I wasn't referring to Ebay, they are a "special" case and don't issue catalogues as such.

The company does not actually take possession and consign the coins in the same way that auction houses do. If the latter are going to auction coins they should at least have the knowledge and diligence to ensure authenticity.

Poor quality photos which obviously makes life difficult for potential bidders and fake spotters😎

You are correct about the sovereigns of course, it is the doubles and quintuples that crop up regularly, sometimes in auctions most people wouldn't expect. I have seen so many fakes of these I feel confident to call many out from photos.

Yes, I realised you were not including ebay.

Interestingly, I think St. James Auctions T&Cs might contradict its claims on its "about us" or other pages, and / or the ethical guidelines required for membership of the BNTA and IAPN. I would need to re-read them to check, unless anyone else has got nothing better to do.

😎

[LawrenceChard]

On 10/03/2022 at 17:32, LawrenceChard said:

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!

 

 

On 10/03/2022 at 21:24, LawrenceChard said:

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.

 

 

 

On 10/03/2022 at 23:33, LawrenceChard said:

While we are talking about the Counting:

Doug checked the denticles.

Here's a comparison:

Both the fake and the genuine coin have 174 denticles, or border teeth.

Inconclusive, but worth checking.

I just realised, we never checked a later Gillick.

Anyone fancy a challenge, or suffering from insomnia?

😎

So here is a serration count on a 1958 sovereign which we did previously:

Although I still don't know if we have done a denticle count on a 1958 to 1968 Gillick portrait.

This numismatics stuff is never ending!

🙂

 

[Booky586]

On 11/03/2022 at 21:42, sovereignsteve said:

Poor quality photos which obviously makes life difficult for potential bidders and fake spotters

St James Auctions aren't the only online auction house guilty of producing average to poor quality images, I'd guess the ones producing high quality photos are in the minority. They should be taking photos to a standard where the coin can be judged accurately based on the photo.  I some times wonder if it's done on purpose so you have to rely on the description, which might not be accurate (as above 1957 fake) or coins described with a higher grade to boost profits. And I don't want to start buying slabbed (graded) coins, that's not the way to go.

[sovereignsteve]

I did notice today in TCC auction catalogue they did not bother to describe the condition of some ungraded proof sovereigns. The photos were also totally inadequate to enable a reasonable assessment of the condition. There was one that was clearly impaired but they provided a decent photo, along with the rider "look at the photo and make your own assessment".

[dicker]

9 minutes ago, sovereignsteve said:

I did notice today in TCC auction catalogue they did not bother to describe the condition of some ungraded proof sovereigns. The photos were also totally inadequate to enable a reasonable assessment of the condition. There was one that was clearly impaired but they provided a decent photo, along with the rider "look at the photo and make your own assessment".

The auctioneer clearly thinks that the 20pct + 4pct vat is just for taking a “snap” and then leaving the punter to take the risk on a coin that he has not bothered to describe adequately.  
 

[SilverStorm]

And this is why I don’t have any inclination of buying old bullion coins, because of perfect replicas as mentioned above.  I just don’t have the head knowledge (or time for that matter) to determine if a coin is authentic or not.  Current year bullion coin is good enough for me.  

[Arganto]

You may as well stick a 'sold as seen' sign made from a dirty piece of A4 paper, written in pen from a biro that's nearly run out of ink on the coin and be done with. At least if you buy a shonky Escort (a Ford, not the other kind) you can pair out the parts and make your cash back. A wonky sovereign that seems like a winner in the description is a right liability, a double kick in the family jewels if you bought it from a "reputable" auction house.

Oh dear.

[LawrenceChard]

More on the 1957 Fake Sovereign saga:

The buyer received this e-mail from the BNTA, of which St James’s Auctions is a member:

"On Sun, Apr 10, 2022 at 11:40 PM Christel Swan <secretary@bnta.net> wrote:

Dear xxx,

 We thank you for your correspondence regarding the coin you purchased from St James’s Auctions. We have reviewed the documentation regarding this coin. It is, what is considered a bullion coin and a cursory look at the coin would suggest that it is genuine, although seemingly with much investigation would appear to have some anomalies that suggest it is a forgery. We understand that the auctioneer offered to refund your costs, which is correct for a member and under the sale of goods act. The auctioneer concerned is a full member of the BNTA and has an exemplary record of selling genuine material and this would be considered a genuine error on their part and one that they are prepared to put right for you.

 Kind Regards

Christel Swan

Today, I sent an e-mail to the BNTA secretary, with copies to the coin buyer, and to the Auction Manager at St James’s Auctions.

I strongly suggested that they should investigate this case in more detail, and offered to provide any more assistance they may require.

 

[jultorsk]

On 11/03/2022 at 07:24, LawrenceChard said:

 

This picture intrigued me and I wanted to try replicating it myself. Evenly stacking vertically for a neat photo is harder than I thought, so I took one horizontally instead. All except the left-most one are Gillicks (no 1957).

Enlightening exercise... 😬 🤔

 

Edited April 22, 2022 by jultorsk

[LawrenceChard]

27 minutes ago, jultorsk said:

 

This picture intrigued me and I wanted to try replicating it myself. Evenly stacking vertically for a neat photo is harder than I thought, so I took one horizontally instead. All except the left-most one are Gillicks (no 1957).

Enlightening exercise... 😬 🤔

 

It's surprising how challenging it can be to do something as simple as make a neat stack for a shot like this. The photographer usually has to "invent" a way to do it. I would be looking to use two strips of wood, such as rulers, or a piece of moulded plastic with a suitable curve. For a single shot, it doesn't matter too much, but if we were going to create multiple comparison shots, then finding or making a simple piece of equipment would pay dividends.

We recently came across differing serration counts on some 1911 sovereigns, but have not had time to feature them.

[sovereignsteve]

1 hour ago, jultorsk said:

This picture intrigued me and I wanted to try replicating it myself. Evenly stacking vertically for a neat photo is harder than I thought, so I took one horizontally instead. All except the left-most one are Gillicks (no 1957).

Enlightening exercise... 😬 🤔

Really surprising the differences in diameter. I was always under the impression this aspect of sovereign production was as tightly controlled as weight. One or two of those might well fail the size test.

One assumes they are all genuine?😅

[LawrenceChard]

6 minutes ago, sovereignsteve said:

Really surprising the differences in diameter. I was always under the impression this aspect of sovereign production was as tightly controlled as weight. One or two of those might well fail the size test.

One assumes they are all genuine?😅

Does size matter?

😎