More Counterfeit Gold Sovereigns

[GoldDabbler]

15 minutes ago, dicker said:

99.9 percent of the time a solid dealer or the forum is the way to go for me.  I have seen a couple of suspect Sovs and told the seller one removed from sale.

Whatever you chose all the best to you

Dicker

Thanks for the well wishes. I'm probably overly cautious. In a few months I may be buying them from all over the shop  

[LawrenceChard]

9 hours ago, LawrenceChard said:

I forgot to ask Doug to do serration counts, and he must have been busy.

Would you mind counting them, and letting us know the answer?

😎

 

12 hours ago, papi1980 said:

@LawrenceChard appreciate for the great photos. The more I watch fake sovereign the more I start to see the differences

I was wondering if the ‘fake sovereigns’ have the correct serrations?

My hypothesis is that whoever produced these did not bother, or had no technology to count the serrations if they are different from the original (hence the number of serrations could be a quantitative method for distinguishing fakes). Might be entirely wrong here  

By popular demand:

Fake = 108, genuine = 107!

😎

[GoldDiggerDave]

4 hours ago, GoldDabbler said:

I read a few pages. Clear as mud  I'm still none the wiser (I did skim) If a sov is the right size and weight how can it be fake? I thought only tungsten has the right density compared to gold.  Any (simple) info appreciated.

It's impossible to grasp everything all at once,  size, weight, composition are only a fews aspects but no guarantee of a coin being genuine. Some fake sovereigns have more gold content as it's difficult to produce 916 gold alloy within a very narrow tolerance.  

[LawrenceChard]

15 hours ago, papi1980 said:

@LawrenceChard appreciate for the great photos. The more I watch fake sovereign the more I start to see the differences

I was wondering if the ‘fake sovereigns’ have the correct serrations?

My hypothesis is that whoever produced these did not bother, or had no technology to count the serrations if they are different from the original (hence the number of serrations could be a quantitative method for distinguishing fakes). Might be entirely wrong here  

 

11 hours ago, LawrenceChard said:

I forgot to ask Doug to do serration counts, and he must have been busy.

Would you mind counting them, and letting us know the answer?

😎

Non modo ... sed etiam (not only ... but also):

Having done the 1925-L serrations count shot, with a genuine coin side by side, he has also done the same with a 1931-SA:

Bingo, the genuine coin has 110 serrations, while the fake has only 108!

😎

[papi1980]

Much appreciated Lawrence! I’m actually working on a project for AI photo editing where the camera is counting on behalf of the human (various use case, primarily in pharma, precise manufacturing)

I just wanted to see if that would make sense…apparently serrations do matter in ‘sniffing’ fakes:) 

I will keep you posted of that project…might be quite interesting…

 

[papi1980]

So my renewed hypothesis is that whoever made these fakes is / was assuming the serrations to be 108 (same for each sovereign date)
Not sure of the whole process, but I’m doubting he/she has different serration templates to apply.

which comes to the conclusion that 108 serration sovereign might be the most popular ‘serration type’ 

 

[SidS]

I can wait for people to start collecting sovereigns by die number and serration combinations. 1865, die number 32 with 108 serrations, did you know the same coin type with 111 serrations is extremely rare?

😁