1966 South Africa Gold 2 Rand Coins - Genuine or Fake?

[MonkeysUncle]

5 hours ago, Anteater said:

(Comment deleted. Attempted joke didn't make sense.)

aka The British Government!

Meow...

[LawrenceChard]

19 hours ago, James32 said:

Both look dodgy but coin (1) specifically 😎 

Maybe in those days the springbok was naturally smooth though 🤔 

Bin them anyway to be safe 😆 

19 hours ago, Solachesis said:

1 is real, 2 is not.

Or both are real, or both are fake, I don't know 😆

18 hours ago, Roy said:

 

17 hours ago, ShineyMagpie said:

My guess (and it is just that) coin 1 is fake, coin 2 is real.

1) has clear definitions around edges of image but details lost especially in the face and the background behind the springbok 

2) looks to have coin ware as apposed to just pour definitions on the front foot of the springbok. And still more definitions and detail on the rest of the coin.

Happy to be wrong, all part of learning.

17 hours ago, MonkeysUncle said:

My untrained eye thinks that coin 1 is iffy. The eyes on the obverse are, well, hideous.

Coin 2 looks like it could be the real deal.

But I wouldn't buy either unless a kosher bullion dealer were the vendor.

17 hours ago, Anteater said:

(Comment deleted. Attempted joke didn't make sense.)

17 hours ago, Petra said:

Coin one fake, lack of detail on both sides

coin two, possible fake as the collar appears to have a lack of detail on the left, however, this could be wear. Not a lot were minted, would it have enough circulation to wear it down?

🤔🤔

16 hours ago, CollectForFun said:

I think they are both of the same - either both fake, or both genuine. I'm leaning towards fake. Both are covered by unusual small "craters" - could be bag marks, but I would expect standard bag marks look differently. Then there is that strange discoloration - not only "coppery spots" or patina that does not look quite right but also some greyish spots and especially whatever is going on with the eyebrow on #1?

The sharpness of the strike may also look wrong in some areas but because my 5 minutes of looking at these coins was about by 4 minutes 55 seconds longer than my time looking at any rand coin ever before, I will rather stop my dubious analysis now and wait for the official results!

Our Niton XRF test results are interesting:

The above is for coin #2

While the result below is for coin #1, which has some gouges under the portrait:

Does this change or influence anyone's opinions?

😎

Edited January 11, 2023 by LawrenceChard

[James32]

9 minutes ago, LawrenceChard said:

Our Niton XRF test results are interesting:

The above is for coin #2

While the result below is for coin #1, which has some gouges under the portrait:

Does this change or influence anyone's opinions?

😎

Lawrence I can't read the atrocious handwriting, coin 1 legit? Coin 2 is off?

[LawrenceChard]

10 minutes ago, James32 said:

Lawrence I can't read the atrocious handwriting, coin 1 legit? Coin 2 is off?

That's my best block capital printing, which I use as my handwriting would probably defeat Alan Turing!

😎

[MonkeysUncle]

So the machine reckons the one with the dodgy geezer is not far off where it should be.

But the one that looks okish is dodgyish.

Think I'll pass on the coins and have cake instead. I can detect genuine cake from fake cake.

[CollectForFun]

1 hour ago, LawrenceChard said:

That's my best block capital printing, which I use as my handwriting would probably defeat Alan Turing!

😎

For the sake of not causing an embarassing confusion one day you could at least try writing "U" and "G" in AU and AG more differently..! 😃

[CollectForFun]

2 hours ago, LawrenceChard said:

Our Niton XRF test results are interesting:

 

The above is for coin #2

While the result below is for coin #1, which has some gouges under the portrait:

 

Does this change or influence anyone's opinions?

😎

Ok, having now looked at the file names, are you sure you didn't mix-up the numbering, or the photographer the coins???

[James32]

Just now, CollectForFun said:

Ok, having now looked at the file names, are you sure you didn't mix-up the numbering, or the photographer the coins???

I think his machine needs recalibration 

[LawrenceChard]

1 hour ago, CollectForFun said:

For the sake of not causing an embarassing confusion one day you could at least try writing "U" and "G" in AU and AG more differently..! 😃

You are quite right. I already do, but it's still hard to tell.

What we really need to do is hook the Niton up to a PC, amd stick all the data into a database.

I did ask some of our tech staff to do this, but they couldn't read my writing!

😎

[LawrenceChard]

1 hour ago, CollectForFun said:

Ok, having now looked at the file names, are you sure you didn't mix-up the numbering, or the photographer the coins???

I double-checked them, but anything is still possible!

😎

[ShineyMagpie]

@LawrenceChard So they are they are both fakes?

If i decifered your enigma encoding correctly 😝 as they should both have an Au of 917 with a tolerance of +/- 3.

But coin 2 has obverse (O) of 912  and a reverse(R) of 907 

& Coin 1 has O of 912 and a R of 913

Making them both out of tolerance, and so fake? Genuinely curious so hear more!

@James32 think we are both wrong did you get your coat?

[CollectForFun]

32 minutes ago, LawrenceChard said:

I double-checked them, but anything is still possible!

😎

Well, this will contain some spoilers, but:

According to the file names, #1 is suspect fake and #2 is scratched.

According to your post with Niton results, the one titled suspect fake is #2 and the one titled scratched is #1.

[James32]

Just now, CollectForFun said:

Well, this will contain some spoilers, but:

According to the file names, #1 is suspect fake and #2 is scratched.

According to your post with Niton results, the one titled suspect fake is #2 and the one titled scratched is #1.

So I was right? 

 

[Solachesis]

1 minute ago, James32 said:

So I was right? 

 

And I was painfully wrong, as usual quelle surprise  

[MonkeysUncle]

Bollocks to 'em, I want Swiss Roll...

[CollectForFun]

So what's the official verdict @LawrenceChardplease? Is the coin from the first analysis, which is probably not authentic due to too low gold reading, #1, or #2 from the photos?

And did you consider the 2nd result of .912-.913 +/-.003 satisfactory for a .917 coin?

[Littlemac]

What should a genuine Rand test read, would there always be a trace of silver? I thought they would just have gold and copper.

[ShineyMagpie]

On 11/01/2023 at 15:48, ShineyMagpie said:

LawrenceChard So they are they are both fakes

Do we have an answer yet?

 

On 11/01/2023 at 16:01, James32 said:

So I was right? 

I think we have confused him, 🤣 

[LawrenceChard]

57 minutes ago, Littlemac said:

What should a genuine Rand test read, would there always be a trace of silver? I thought they would just have gold and copper.

I would always expect at least some silver in any gold coin which had been made for circulation, or which were originally intended as circulating coins. This would include South African gold ponds and rands.

This was most probably due to a number of reasons. 

Circulation gold coins needed to be an alloy for better durability.

Copper and silver are highly compatible with gold, and are the most natural elements for gold alloys.

Gold - copper alloys would be avoided because this makes the alloy too red rather than the attractive yellow of pure gold. People  would expect gold coins to look like gold, and would mistrust gold coins which looked like copper. Silver also helps working properties, which are helpful in production processes.

It was not usual to over-refine gold or silver, so refined gold would tend to contain small traces of silver. There was little point refining the gold further to eliminate the silver content, only to then add silver back in for its desirable properties.

It is only relatively recently, when electrolytic refining became more common, that gold and other metals were highly refined. London Gold Delivery gold bars, for example, need only be a minimum of 995 parts per thousand, even though many mass produced bars are 999.9 ppt.

The first "fine gold" were Canadian maples, introduced in 1979, and in their early years, they were "only" 999 ppt. It was only practical to make find gold coins which were not intended or designed for the wear and tear of circulation . Fine gold coins obviously contain no other elements, or only negligible amounts. 

😎

[Littlemac]

Thanks LC, every day is a school day.