1914S half sovereign - genuine or fake

[Booky586]

Can you please help with a recently purchased 1914 Sydney mint half sovereign?

When it arrived it looked like a very nice purchase but a closer inspection raised my doubts. Firstly, the diameter measures at 19.7mm compared to the specification of 19.3mm, 0.4mm oversize. I've taken a photo of the coin so you can have a good look at it. There's a bit of detail missing from the reverse. Take a look at the ground where the dragons forearms and claws disappearing into the field, no dots in the initials B.P. etc.

So what do you think? A weakly struck oversize coin or is it a very good fake?

[Booky586]

Here's a similar 1914 London mint half sovereign photo for comparison. It's a little more worn but all the specs match on this one.

[Zhorro]

7 minutes ago, Booky586 said:

Can you please help with a recently purchased 1914 Sydney mint half sovereign?

When it arrived it looked like a very nice purchase but a closer inspection raised my doubts. Firstly, the diameter measures at 19.7mm compared to the specification of 19.3mm, 0.4mm oversize. I've taken a photo of the coin so you can have a good look at it. There's a bit of detail missing from the reverse. Take a look at the ground where the dragons forearms and claws disappearing into the field, no dots in the initials B.P. etc.

So what do you think? A weakly struck oversize coin or is it a very good fake?

 

Is the weight correct?

[Booky586]

Yes, the weight is correct, it's 3.99/4.00g. Thickness across the edge is 1.2mm. I've tested the specific gravity and it's came out at 17.28, which equates to about 21-21.5ct.

[Zhorro]

6 minutes ago, Booky586 said:

Yes, the weight is correct, it's 3.99/4.00g. Thickness across the edge is 1.2mm. I've tested the specific gravity and it's came out at 17.28, which equates to about 21-21.5ct.

Your "discrepancy" is less than half a millimetre - I think very few people would / could measure to this accuracy.

[GoldDiggerDave]

@Booky586 weaker strike on Australian sovereigns is common.

 

[Booky586]

And does the 19.7mm diameter not bother you? I've never had one that large 😀

[James32]

The whole right hand side looks weak in general, no dots by initials BP ,but P is nearly non existent also ( without wear to the edge)

Focus on the fields, are these not almost always blotchy on fakes?( yours appears smooth) not to mention St george usually has organs missing on the fakes😃

The dates seem pretty identical also.

How accurate were they on size over a hundred years ago 🤔 

[dicker]

Agree with @GoldDiggerDave on the weak strikes.

The diameter is a bit odd along with...

- The striations around the rim - not sure what has gone on here

- The odd cracks - one through the ear of King George

- The other more prominent one through St Georges cape

 

Best

Dicker

[LawrenceChard]

16 minutes ago, Booky586 said:

I've never had one that large 😀

Where have I heard that before?

😎

[LawrenceChard]

On 30/06/2022 at 15:58, Booky586 said:

Can you please help with a recently purchased 1914 Sydney mint half sovereign?

When it arrived it looked like a very nice purchase but a closer inspection raised my doubts. Firstly, the diameter measures at 19.7mm compared to the specification of 19.3mm, 0.4mm oversize. I've taken a photo of the coin so you can have a good look at it. There's a bit of detail missing from the reverse. Take a look at the ground where the dragons forearms and claws disappearing into the field, no dots in the initials B.P. etc.

So what do you think? A weakly struck oversize coin or is it a very good fake?

Those are better photos.

I previously said:

"I think you mean 1914-S!

Looks OK to me, but would be easier with a better photo.

I suggest put it on a public forum, but other people might also be able to help, or learn.

😎

So, with the better photos, it still looks OK.

I have never done any rigorous comparison of diameters.

You may be worried about the "orange peel" or radiating flow lines near the edges, but I see this on many bullion sovereigns. It does make me take a closer look, but I still think your coin is alright.

The weak B.P. or B P is interesting, but probably not sinister.

 

Edited July 13, 2022 by LawrenceChard

[Pete]

I can understand your concern as diameter is generally very tightly specified and oversize would point to a fake usually to make the correct weight.
However your specific gravity measurement, a trickier measurement to make at home, does suggest 22ct or very close to 22ct gold.
Your SG is about 3% low but within home experimental tolerances I reckon.
Rim thickness is not a good indication as rims can be extruded; average centre thickness needs to be around 0.99mm.

This would trade as a half sovereign to any dealer so its value is not in question but if it was mine I would replace unless there is some specific reason to hold onto this coin. It is a common coin with no special value so get it swapped and sleep at night but don't sell it on the S.F.

[Booky586]

1 minute ago, Pete said:

but don't sell it on the S.F.

Haha, good advise!

[dicker]

The cracks make it interesting!

[LawrenceChard]

1 hour ago, Booky586 said:

Can you please help with a recently purchased 1914 Sydney mint half sovereign?

When it arrived it looked like a very nice purchase but a closer inspection raised my doubts. Firstly, the diameter measures at 19.7mm compared to the specification of 19.3mm, 0.4mm oversize. I've taken a photo of the coin so you can have a good look at it. There's a bit of detail missing from the reverse. Take a look at the ground where the dragons forearms and claws disappearing into the field, no dots in the initials B.P. etc.

So what do you think? A weakly struck oversize coin or is it a very good fake?

If you want to see an obvious fake (sovereign), take a look at this:

😎

[James32]

1 minute ago, LawrenceChard said:

If you want to see an obvious fake (sovereign), take a look at this:

😎

Even the horse is thinking "oh come on"

[LawrenceChard]

8 minutes ago, Pete said:

I can understand your concern as diameter is generally very tightly specified and oversize would point to a fake usually to make the correct weight.
However your specific gravity measurement, a trickier measurement to make at home, does suggest 22ct or very close to 22ct gold.
Your SG is about 3% low but within home experimental tolerances I reckon.
Rim thickness is not a good indication as rims can be extruded; average centre thickness needs to be around 0.99mm.

This would trade as a half sovereign to any dealer so its value is not in question but if it was mine I would replace unless there is some specific reason to hold onto this coin. It is a common coin with no special value so get it swapped and sleep at night but don't sell it on the S.F.

I think it is worth keeping, as almost all mintmarked half sovereigns are scarce, and particularly so in higher grades.

😎

[LawrenceChard]

1 minute ago, James32 said:

Even the horse is thinking "oh come on"

Yes, I suspect most horses think "Oh come off"

😎

[Orpster]

If it is a fake its very good, none of the 'bubbling', the 1917 fakes tend to have and nothing jumps out in any of the details, the hand a bit maybe but not enough to be really concerning

I have seen a lot of sovereigns where the dots in the B.P. and the details around the broken lance look to have worn.  Don't think I would be concerned and Aussie half's from that era are quite sought after.

The crack gives it character, well for me lol

[SidS]

You need to do a serration count.

[Roy]

I thought I'd written about the very same problem I had once, but I can't find it so will continue....

I had issues with two 1912 George V 'S' half sovereigns, the coins looked fine until I tried to put them into capsules- they were too big in diameter and wouldn't fit.

I can't recall the measurements now, but I think I'd got the same figures as you. I put them in the 'fakes' box.

Later, I was in London and popped into HGM to sell some scrap jewellery. I took my 'fakes' with me and, with full disclosure, asked the chap to kindly test them for me. He wandered off into the backroom and, when he returned, declared them genuine and offered to buy them.

If they're genuine, I thought, I may as well keep them, so I did/have.

Even if they are fakes, they are still worth their weight so I've nothing to lose but I won't be selling them privately.

 

Edited June 30, 2022 by Roy
added some low res pics!

[drakesterling]

This half is genuine. As for the weaker strike, possibly they saw the cracked reverse tooling, and decided to keep using it anyway, just at a lower strike pressure so that it wouldn't crack some more!

Edited July 3, 2022 by drakesterling

[Booky586]

No one is of the opinion it's fake, which I'm really pleased with. It's a keeper as it's a nice coin with some character (oversized, die cracks, etc.). To be honest I've seen die cracks in Victorian sovereigns but never one this new.

I've been searching the internet looking for other 1914-S halves with no dots in B.P. and this appeared, with thanks to @drakesterling for the use of his very good photo (source: https://www.drakesterling.com/sold-coins/half-sovereigns/1914-sydney-half-sovereign-2-3-4-5-6). Coincidently it has a weak strike, no dots in B.P. and a die crack in it's early stages on the cloak in the same position. This looks like a die match to me and again backs up the coins authenticity:

Here's a close up on the cloak die crack, side by side:

 

[GoldDiggerDave]

@Booky586 That die crack is truly spectacular.  

[Booky586]

The oversize diameter of 19.7mm is still bothering me. So much so that I've done a serration count as a reference check only to discover I don't have a reference to check against!

Does anyone know if there is a standard number of serrations on a half sovereign of this type? I get 100 serrations:

Edited July 5, 2022 by Booky586