Fake 1887 £5 ?

[wilky1]

I bought this at auction and it came today, the first thing I did was to weigh it and its light 38.60 g instead of 39.94g I then weighed 5 new sovereigns and they came in spot on 39.9g.

Now I am concerned is it a fake I would really appriciate some help before I go back to the auction house so here are a few pictures of it.

Many thanks

 

Martin.

[BackyardBullion]

Measure all the dimensions as accurately as possible. If those aren't right then it is most probably a fake.

[ilovesilverireallydo]

That looks like a really good quality fake. The 1887 version is the most faked version out there. 

Like @BackyardBullion suggests, measure the dimensions. If you have a jeweller nearby, ask them to XRF the coin too. 

[Oldun]

Hope this helps....teaching moment. If you can figure it out yourself, you will be a much wiser person. 

https://taxfreegold.co.uk/fakefivepounds.html

 

https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/1887-gold-five-pound-piece-forgeries-elizabeth-beckford

[Oldun]

 

[Nick]

I got caught out buying from a well known auction house. I took it that they did all the checks themselves and so I was naive and took their work for it. It was a Krugerrand and I bought it for a reasonable price..not amazing but better than dealers.

It wasn't until I got it home that I checked it myself and the weight was terribly out.

In fairness to them I sent an email and called them. It didn't take much persuading for them to let me send it back for them to evaluate themselves.

A few days later they refunded the full amount with an apology.

That one doesn't look quite right to me. That said I don't really collect Victoria's so I'm by no means we'll versed enough to tell you exactly.

 

[HawkHybrid]

6 minutes ago, shortstack68 said:

5 new sovereigns compared to a coin that is 150 years old and with wear isn't comparable. 

 

I disagree.

39.94/38.6 the difference is almost ~3.5%. from the photos

it doesn't look that worn.

getting a dealers opinion or just go back to the auction house

with your concern is probably what I would try.

 

HH

[Fivepoundfred]

I think pitting on the coin surface when magnified and rim irregularities are common signs of a fake, as mentioned in the Chard article. Also if the Letters BP are mushy or blobby this can point towards a fake.

[ilovesilverireallydo]

54 minutes ago, HawkHybrid said:

 

I disagree.

39.94/38.6 the difference is almost ~3.5%. from the photos

it doesn't look that worn.

getting a dealers opinion or just go back to the auction house

with your concern is probably what I would try.

 

HH

Exactly agreed. The weight difference is significant enough to worry me. Remember most coins were usually a tad over weight - unless heavily circulated I wouldnt expect more than 1gram to wear off. 

[wilky1]

Thanks for all your replies, I have measured the the coin and yes I think it is a fake.

 

weight 38.60

Diameter ranges with digital calipers from 36.24-36.14-36.22

No where is it 36.02

 

Kind regards

 

Martin.

[sovereignsteve]

If the weight is that far out, it's definitely a fake. Even though it is pretty worn in numismatic terms, it shouldn't have lost more than 0.1 - 0.2g

The 1887 £5 is the most faked coin I know, I've seen probably 2 or 3 fakes for every real one.

The reverse of these coins usually tells the story, if you compare them to a real one. Mainly the date and tail stand out as wrong. This one seems to have poor definition of G&D.

[KDave]

I had a fake one of these bought from HGM as bullion, it was the correct weight and size but fake. There are many fakes some extremely high quality. I sent mine back to hgm to be melted 

I feel your pain. 

[sovereignsteve]

1 minute ago, KDave said:

I had a fake one of these bought from HGM as bullion, it was the correct weight and size but fake.

I've had two

[sovereignsteve]

3 hours ago, wilky1 said:

I bought this at auction

Now this shouldn't happen. No reputable auction house should be letting these slip through; they shouldn't be selling coins unless they have enough knowledge and experience to sieve out any fakes. This one especially is inexcusable due to the weight anomaly.

I think "name and shame" is in order so that we can all avoid them.

[wilky1]

12 minutes ago, sovereignsteve said:

Now this shouldn't happen. No reputable auction house should be letting these slip through; they shouldn't be selling coins unless they have enough knowledge and experience to sieve out any fakes. This one especially is inexcusable due to the weight anomaly.

I think "name and shame" is in order so that we can all avoid them.

 

I will await the outcome as I have just posted it back before I do that, BUT apparently they had an expert come in and grade the coins, this one was supposed to be EF they are going to get him to reevaluate the coin, I did say that I would have it professionally evaluated if they insist its not fake.

 

Martin.

[sovereignsteve]

38 minutes ago, wilky1 said:

 

I will await the outcome as I have just posted it back before I do that, BUT apparently they had an expert come in and grade the coins, this one was supposed to be EF they are going to get him to reevaluate the coin, I did say that I would have it professionally evaluated if they insist its not fake.

 

Martin.

"expert"! a joke surely, coin is nowhere near EF

[StackAuAg]

I recently invested in the pmv pro. It test metals, not an expert so I rather be safe than sorry.  It does have its limitations but it will do what I need. 

[SVcollector]

unfortunately fake! the details arent very sharp despite the low condition. 

[Pipers]

Imo it's a fake,  did the auction house not state the weight of the coin before it was sold.  I have to say most auction houses over state the condition of coins eg ef when in fact the coin is 'effectively faulty'

[Gordon]

I would measure all the dimensions as accurately as possible. I come across a 1893 Double sovereign that was fake it had the right weight and was 22ct (probably melted from 2 sovereigns) but the dimensions wear not quite right.