1915-L London Mint Gold Sovereign with Extreme Orange Peel / Flow Lines - Genuine or Fake?

[LawrenceChard]

1915-L London Mint Gold Sovereign with Extreme Orange Peel / Flow Lines - Genuine or Fake?

Whenever I am looking through gold sovereigns, there are always some features which prompt me to take a second, longer look. One of these features is irregularity or lack of smoothness which primarily occurs or exhibits itself on the fields.

This can take several forms, graininess, orange peel, or flow lines, although the distinction between these is somewhat arbitrary, and in practice many coins exhibit a mixture or these textures.

My main target when checking gold coins is to detect fakes, and most fakes display signs of poor production quality and irregularities. Because circulation coins such as gold sovereigns, at least those before George VI, were mass produced, and done so on very tight budgets, some variations in production quality is only to be expected.

Irregular surfaces and fields are not necessarily a production fault or defect, and some variation is almost inevitable.

Let's look at today's example:

Usually, I tend to show the reverse first, but the obverse has more obvious (worse) flow lines / orange peel than the reverse.

In fact, the reverse looks very good, with no notable irregularity.

This big difference between the two sides creates a slight puzzle in itself. How and why do the features occur on one side, but not the other?

I don't know the answer to the question, which is frustrating because I can usually work out a reasonable explanation using a little imagination combined with a fair knowledge of coin production.

Although I was satisfied that this coin was genuine, I nevertheless did a Niton XRF test on it:

This was on an old version of our testing form, so it must have been hanging around for some time waiting for photos or further attention.

The results are almost perfectly normal, and as expected. 0.3% silver is what I would expect. The only notable thing is the Iron content, but at only 0.1%, and only on the reverse, we can afford to ignore it. Some small impurities are quite normal, and all testing methods do have some levels of error or tolerance.

We have started to do serration counts on most sovereigns:

This shows 108 serrations, which I think is normal for 1915-L

I think that many investors, stackers, and even seasoned numismatists might query the authenticity of this sovereign, so it is worth studying as an example of a genuine coin with unusual surface features, easy to mistake or at least suspect of being counterfeit.

😎

 

Edited July 30, 2022 by LawrenceChard