A Fake In The Stack? - Opinions Sought

[Shep]

Today I had the pleasure of that dreaded moment where you discover you’ve been potentially harbouring a stow away in your stack. Mine is an not overly fake looking (to me) 1896 Sov.

The suspected fake is on the right. On the left is an 1896 that I know to be genuine.

My rudimentary authentication methods:

 

It will not fit in the balance which ever way i try to fit it in there. Both coins read exactly 8g on my not so expensive or accurate scales.

In the face of my not so thorough testing methods, my question to the forum is that is there anything about my suspect Sov that jumps out to identify it as a fraud?

 

So is it a fake or am I putting too much faith in my sovereign balance?

Shep

 

 

 

 

Edited October 6, 2022 by Shep

[ant1882]

Do they both have the same ring to them? As in if you flick it up in the air - I would have thought very bad fakes won't have the same ring to them... maybe someone with more knowledge can answer if this is a good test to do?

Edited October 6, 2022 by ant1882

[Shep]

12 minutes ago, ant1882 said:

Do they both have the same ring to them? As in if you flick it up in the air.

Thanks I should have mentioned, yes they do both pass the “ping” test to my ear.

Also to mention that the strike is not misaligned.

Edited October 6, 2022 by Shep

[ant1882]

I have an 1896 and it does look more like the one on the left of your photo, with the same sort of wearing / detail on the Brooch (is it) under the necklass.

I'm no expert at spotting fakes, just an observation.

[modofantasma]

Does it look noticeably different size wise if you place the genuine on top or vice versa? From your balance you're suggesting it is too large in terms of diameter but the thickness is ok?

[Stuntman]

Nothing obviously jumps out as being fake to me.  Other members on here will be more knowledgeable than me, though...

[modofantasma]

The second photo with the balance also looks like it has bottomed out rather than balanced? 🤔 

[Shep]

4 minutes ago, modofantasma said:

Does it look noticeably different size wise if you place the genuine on top or vice versa? From your balance you're suggesting it is too large in terms of diameter but the thickness is ok?

Both too thick and too wide. One on top of the other I can’t notice a difference.

Weight wise it’s fine on the balance, it’s just the angle of the picture.

Edited October 6, 2022 by Shep

[modofantasma]

Just now, Shep said:

Both too thick and too wide.

So to get the weight right it is made with a less dense material. So slightly bigger to get the weight right..?

If it is indeed a fake could be a slightly lower carat then? 🤔

If it were mine I'd definitely take it to be xrf and sigma tested next job

[dicker]

So taking a look, nothing stands out as obviously counterfeit….

What is the colour like?

Best

Dicker

[LawrenceChard]

1 hour ago, Shep said:

Today I had the pleasure of that dreaded moment where you discover you’ve been potentially harbouring a stow away in your stack. Mine is an not overly fake looking (to me) 1896 Sov.

The suspected fake is on the right. On the left is an 1896 that I know to be genuine.

My rudimentary authentication methods:

It will not fit in the balance which ever way i try to fit it in there. Both coins read exactly 8g on my not so expensive or accurate scales.

In the face of my not so thorough testing methods, my question to the forum is that is there anything about my suspect Sov that jumps out to identify it as a fraud?

So is it a fake or am I putting too much faith in my sovereign balance?

Shep

You omitted to mention that one is London Mint, and the other Sydney Mint. It will make it easier to sppecify which you are referring to. Also if there is any difference in the silver content, the "S" is more likely to have the slightly higher content.

You need better scales, at least graduated to 0.1 grams rather than 1 gram, but preferably 0.01 grams. These are not expensive.

Measuring the diameter is easy, but attempting to measure the depth or thickness is almost meaningless, because there are at least 3 different thicknesses you could measure. I probably give this answer about once per week on TSF alone.

Take a look at:

From your photos, I don't see anything wrong with your "S" coin, but better photos would help.

😎

 

[Shep]

24 minutes ago, LawrenceChard said:

You omitted to mention that one is London Mint, and the other Sydney Mint.

Scales are 0.1 graduated but I should have stated they both read 8.0g.

To my embarrassment I suppose it would have helped if I’d actually realised it was a Sydney mint sovereign. Thanks for pointing that out and appreciate the reply.

 

Edited October 6, 2022 by Shep

[Britannia47]

I doubt if a Victorian/Edwardian shop-keeper would accept it, or at the very least arouse his suspicions re. the thickness and diameter test. I have 3 of these old style balances but they are only a guide to authenticity. Perhaps the Sydney mint had slightly different specifications owing to the alloy content?  

[Arganto]

From the photos it looks a like a darn fine example to me. I only measure diameter and thickness with calipers as you get an accurate reading, and even then I don't worry too much if the thickness is slightly 'off' ( as per Lawrence's post). You could always try testing specific gravity, it's non damaging and easy enough to do. 

Is there a chance your sovereign balance has had a chunk chipped out of it at any point? Maybe it's not quite 100% the same as when it was made?

[dicker]

58 minutes ago, Shep said:

Scales are 0.1 graduated but I should have stated they both read 8.0g.

To my embarrassment I suppose it would have helped if I’d actually realised it was a Sydney mint sovereign. Thanks for pointing that out and appreciate the reply.

 

There is no shame here.  We all learn from each other.  Thankfully no one on TSF is rude.  

[Shep]

26 minutes ago, Arganto said:

From the photos it looks a like a darn fine example to me. I only measure diameter and thickness with calipers as you get an accurate reading, and even then I don't worry too much if the thickness is slightly 'off' ( as per Lawrence's post). You could always try testing specific gravity, it's non damaging and easy enough to do. 

Is there a chance your sovereign balance has had a chunk chipped out of it at any point? Maybe it's not quite 100% the same as when it was made?

Yes I think the balance threw me off to be honest.

It’s seen better days and even then it’s not exactly a fool proof method is it. Probably quite unwise to let it cloud my judgment completely. 

As proved here though always good to consult the forum for a sanity check. 

Thanks all for the replies.

Edited October 6, 2022 by Shep

[dicker]

Always welcome and I think the forum would be a worse place if people thought they might be mocked for asking questions.

All the best to you

Dicker

[SidS]

I'd be tempted to get a second sovereign balance and see if that gives the same result. If two sovereign balances give the same result then it's the coin that's causing it (fake or otherwise).

If a second sovereign balance gives a different result, then it's the first balance that is off.

Just a thought?

[Mobius]

Those sov scales must be faulty - it weighs 8 grams and 8 grams is the weight that should tip the scale.

Does the real sov tip the scale?

 

Edited October 7, 2022 by Mobius

[Shep]

4 hours ago, Mobius said:

Those sov scales must be faulty - it weighs 8 grams and 8 grams is the weight that should tip the scale.

No sorry, again should have clarified. My digital scales show 8.0g exactly for each Sov.

[Mobius]

Yes I know they both weigh 8 grams, what I'm saying is the sovereign scale must be broken because it would tip if you put something on it weighing 8 grams.
If the 'fake' sovereign doesn't tip the scale then the real sovereign won't tip the scales either, since they are both the same weight - the fact that an 8 gram weight doesn't tip the scales means the scales dont work.

The problem is probably that the balance bar is lighter than it should be due to wear (it does look a bit worn and non symetrical at the end but that may be the angle of the photo).

Anyway, i reckon it's the sov scale not the sov that's dodgy.

Edit: OK forget all that, I've just looked again at the photo of the sov on the balance it does looks like it's balancing, sorry couldn't tell originally. Either way your sov looks fine.

 

Edited October 8, 2022 by Mobius