Newb Question - Old Sovs Vs New Sovs

[ilovesilverireallydo]

1 hour ago, Ansel said:

I think the main things are that you noticed something was awry and that Atkinsons refunded you. I hope they include postage including your return costs? Good job on spotting it fella. 

 

I'm sure I read somewhere that sovereigns were worth more than their weight in gold in some parts of the world? I'm sure our more knowledgeable members can attest to this or correct me?

there was heavy demand after they stopped making them which led to a large number of good quality forgeries to hit the market. https://goldsovereigns.co.uk/sovereignfakesin20thcentury.html

Middle eastern sovs were actually of a higher quality than the genuine product. 

http://www.drakesterling.com/coins-for-sale/news-wire/news-wire/counterfeit-gold-sovereigns

[NRSovereign]

5 hours ago, JunkBond said:

Just had a call from Atkinsons, they have tested the coin and it's ok gold wise but they said they would have to send it off to their numismatic guy for further checks to confirm if its genuine.

I told them I had already sourced another 1887 and they offered me a full refund with no hassle.

So I would say make sure you are on the ball if buying anything other than bullion from them as it seems there is no in house expert.

Put some picture up of the new one when you received it so we can all have a look

[JunkBond]

14 hours ago, NRSovereign said:

Put some picture up of the new one when you received it so we can all have a look

It's on the today I received thread but to save you trawling through! Any excuse to post a picture of a half sov.

 

[NRSovereign]

2 hours ago, JunkBond said:

It's on the today I received thread but to save you trawling through! Any excuse to post a picture of a half sov.

 

Nice bet you a lot happier with that one! Very nice indeed  

[Elements]

1887 half about to end on ebay,

yours looks better than this though

https://m.ebay.co.uk/itm/Half-Sovereign-1887-GVF-EF/222862013587?hash=item33e39c7493:g:7cMAAOSwLWZal~CD

[JunkBond]

18 minutes ago, Elements said:

1887 half about to end on ebay,

yours looks better than this though

https://m.ebay.co.uk/itm/Half-Sovereign-1887-GVF-EF/222862013587?hash=item33e39c7493:g:7cMAAOSwLWZal~CD

fair few knocks on the obverse.

£143

[Elements]

13 minutes ago, JunkBond said:

fair few knocks on the obverse.

Yeah, poor victoria!

[Pipers]

This thread has been an excellent read.

The eBay 1\2 sov looks rubbish.

I have a a couple of fake sovereigns. in fact i bought one on purpose at auction very cheaply G5th it is very well made, though under weight it's .900 gold. I am sure its Italian. It is still worth its bullion weight but I am not selling it as I us it to compare. 

 

 

[JunkBond]

Just to update everyone, had an email from Atkinsons.

" Dear Mr JunkBond

To update you about the 1887 Half Sovereign. I thought you may be interested in knowing the results of this coin. We sent this to our external colleague who is more specialised in numismatic products. He confirmed that the sovereign is a genuine coin.I hope this information is helpful, but should you have any queries please do not hesitate to contact me."

So it was thicker than normal but genuine, throw the calipers away boys!

 

 

[Sovsaver]

38 minutes ago, JunkBond said:

Just to update everyone, had an email from Atkinsons.

" Dear Mr JunkBond

To update you about the 1887 Half Sovereign. I thought you may be interested in knowing the results of this coin. We sent this to our external colleague who is more specialised in numismatic products. He confirmed that the sovereign is a genuine coin.I hope this information is helpful, but should you have any queries please do not hesitate to contact me."

So it was thicker than normal but genuine, throw the calipers away boys!

 

 

Not totally surprised by that myself, but maybe I’m just too trusting.

[Ansel]

Your icon is quite fitting for that post!  Thanks for updating us on this episode of real or fake.

However you got an absolute cracker of a coin instead so all is good, have a long lingering look at her right now and be dazzled once again by the allure of beautiful gold. 

[Elements]

On 08/03/2018 at 13:46, Pipers said:

This thread has been an excellent read.

The eBay 1\2 sov looks rubbish.

I have a a couple of fake sovereigns. in fact i bought one on purpose at auction very cheaply G5th it is very well made, though under weight it's .900 gold. I am sure its Italian. It is still worth its bullion weight but I am not selling it as I us it to compare. 

 

 

It does look poor and kind of reinforces 2 points. 1)JB got a decent one for not a lot more. 2) Demand is high for shields, even poor ones and is maybe why hattons have gone doen the route of £140 for a half shield lucky dip condition as mentioned on a different thread

[sovereignsteve]

4 hours ago, JunkBond said:

Just to update everyone, had an email from Atkinsons.

" Dear Mr JunkBond

To update you about the 1887 Half Sovereign. I thought you may be interested in knowing the results of this coin. We sent this to our external colleague who is more specialised in numismatic products. He confirmed that the sovereign is a genuine coin.I hope this information is helpful, but should you have any queries please do not hesitate to contact me."

So it was thicker than normal but genuine, throw the calipers away boys!

 

 

Interesting. A few points.

Plenty of dealers/experts have been taken in by fakes.

This coin was the correct weight and the correct gold alloy; assuming the OP can correctly weigh a coin and Atties can correctly test gold!

This coin was certainly too thick around the rim.

Therefore, it must have been too thin (slightly) in the main body of the coin.

I don't know enough about the mechanics of coin dies and striking to know if this is possibly. Is the milled ring that is held around the outside of the two dies thicker than is usually necessary or is it the exact size required for a correctly struck coin?

I have never seen a genuine sovereign that is too thick around the rim.

Maybe @ChardLizzie could ask this question of any experienced numismatists she may know?

[ChardsCoinandBullionDealer]

2 hours ago, sovereignsteve said:

Interesting. A few points.

Plenty of dealers/experts have been taken in by fakes.

This coin was the correct weight and the correct gold alloy; assuming the OP can correctly weigh a coin and Atties can correctly test gold!

This coin was certainly too thick around the rim.

Therefore, it must have been too thin (slightly) in the main body of the coin.

I don't know enough about the mechanics of coin dies and striking to know if this is possibly. Is the milled ring that is held around the outside of the two dies thicker than is usually necessary or is it the exact size required for a correctly struck coin?

I have never seen a genuine sovereign that is too thick around the rim.

Maybe @ChardLizzie could ask this question of any experienced numismatists she may know?

I'll ask Lawrence and Juliana for their opinion - and on Monday, I'll be checking out our half sovereign stock against our Black Museum of fakes.

 

[tbone]

Well I guess this thread started out as pro Old sovs and turned into a good reason for a new stacker to avoid them.  My local dealer has been in the business for a long time and he admits he's seen a lot of fakes, and a lot of very good fakes too.  The raw ones I buy are from him or a major online dealer, and I usually get them graded (but I'm not stacking them for the gold weight, more collecting the better BU ones I find)

[kimchi]

Fascinating thread!

On ‎09‎/‎03‎/‎2018 at 21:07, ChardLizzie said:

I'll ask Lawrence and Juliana for their opinion - and on Monday, I'll be checking out our half sovereign stock against our Black Museum of fakes.

 

This was a while ago but do you remember any opinions on this @ChardLizzie? As a newbie to old sovs it would be very helpful to have this mystery of the thickness cleared up!

[ChardsCoinandBullionDealer]

On 22/05/2018 at 09:39, kimchi said:

Fascinating thread!

This was a while ago but do you remember any opinions on this @ChardLizzie? As a newbie to old sovs it would be very helpful to have this mystery of the thickness cleared up!

This is from Lawrence - there are lots of comments in the thread so I've put his comments in bold:

Lizzie asked for advice regarding a comment on this thread (the post was actually about a fake, but that was a tangent from the original post).

My answers are usually not quick short ones unless they are to say "read this page I created previously", with an appropriate link.

Since I/we created our first website in 1998, I preferred to answer FAQs with a definitive information/opinion page rather, and point the enquirer to the page rather than give brief answers to individual questions; this has worked well, and over 90% of the questions we still get asked have already been answered years ago. However some of these older pages are getting harder to find, and situations evolve over time. It looks like I need to start work on a new info page, but as I no longer work 12 hours a day, it might have to wait, meanwhile...

New Coins
- Perfect condition - not necessarily, even if you buy new RM proofs! 

- Potentially less risk of fakes as I've typically been buying from mainstream dealers 

- We have seen QEII fakes, see our blog 1958 Counterfeit Gold Sovereign - A Fascinating Fake but they are not as common as with older coins. It is unusual for us to see fake Elizabeth II sovereigns, so it was interesting to examine this specimen closely.

- Typically come capsuled or in a RM Blister - not always, but surely the coin itself is more important.

- Relatively low mintage compared to older dates. May or may not be a factor in the future. If coins are made for collectors they are likely to have a low mintage compared with coins made for circulation. 124,050 makes 1841 a low mintage, rare sovereign , yet 100,000 for 2002 makes it very common and cheap by comparison, yet it is a lower mintage.

- Look horrible, like copper pennies. Agreed, old sovereigns, pre-QEII used to have a small but important silver content. The marketing people at the RM don't know this; some years ago I spotted some misinformation about this on one of their publications (I have been looking for a copy of it), stating that gold sovereigns were traditionally made from red gold. They are wrong.

Get what is at a decent price. - Agreed.

 

Old Coins

- Potentially Cheaper/Less premium (HGM) We have written a blog about the pros and cons which you may find useful New v Old Sovereigns - Which Are The Best Buy?

- Something different to look at in the stack - Agreed, it becomes a decision of pure investment versus collecting, yes will generally pay more to pick and get something different, but you should get more pleasure at little extra cost. Each year we have a guess at what will be on the new sovereign for the next year. Read our blog about Britain's most popular gold coin and see if you agree.

- Lots of collectable coins Agreed, you may need to accept more wear and lower grades, but you get the same gold content, and a real coin which was made for circulation, not something churned out for collectors or investors.

- Lots of history you can research and keep you interested - Agreed

- Lots of options to get you into collecting them, different mints, different monarchs - Agreed

- They actually look like gold, even the bashed up ones look nice compared to the brand new shiny penny horrible welsh mint sovereigns - in my opinion! - Agreed

- Lots of history you can research and keep you interested - Agreed, invest some time in reading something like The Gold Sovereign Book  

 

In this blog The Gold Bullion Market Since 1964 we discuss an overview of British gold coin & bullion dealers including banks since 1964. Because the High Street banks would only sell new sovereigns (probably because they would lack the expertise to buy back old sovereigns), with the effect that new (QEII) ones went to a premium over old ones.

 

I have not heard anyone say the likes of Atkinsons or Chard have sold a dud. Chard does a video on fake sovereigns. - Sure, but I am not infallible, the 1958 linked above got past me on the way in, thank goodness we re-checked it before it went out. We only lost a few pounds on it, not 50 years of reputation.

These people are dealing with more sovereigns than we have had hot dinners. - Over 1,000 a day sometimes.

Get them from one of the main dealers. As far as i know they have testing equipment. - Yes, but none of us should need it or have to rely on it, although since we bought our Niton tester, I will admit to getting a little lazy. It does mean a staff member can test something quickly and easily, but it does not guarantee a coin is genuine, some fakes have too much gold content. Not all dealers will have an XRF machine, the Niton is priced at £13,500 plus VAT, and needs expensive periodic servicing, some of the components are consumables, which are also expensive to replace (think about £3,500 plus VAT for an X-Ray sensor!). Even so, an XRF is not idiot-proof, some random results can occur, and you need to learn how to interpret some of the alloy analysis.

When hand checking sovereigns, it is possible to manage close to 1,000 per hour, depending what sampling time you set on an XRF, you might get through about 20 per hour.

Their reputation is on the line. - Correct, 1887 Jubilee £2 and £5s almost give me nightmares, ever since the infamous Lebanese / Harry Stock / Manchester fakes entered the market in the 1970s.

Can you tell me,is it as big a problem as everyone fears?

do you see a large number of fakes? Yes, we see fake sovereigns and other coins most days.

Its not struck central on the planchet and is thicker than normal and weighs 3.98g Genuine coins can be mis-struck, but it should always be a warning sign; 3.98 is the incorrect weight, it should be 3.99+, especially as it looks uncirculated therefore should be full weight, but how accurate are your scales? (we often use a diamond carat balance and multiply by 5). Thicker planchet sounds bad, usually indicates lower gold content, but in this case, may have a thicker raised edge because of the off-centre strike. It is difficult to photograph coins in such a way that makes it easy to differentiate between genuine and fake, except for the most obvious fakes. The photo of the 2 edges appears to show a difference in the number of serrations, it would have been good to have taken photos of the edge serrations, and counted them (this is much easier from a photo than trying to do it directly with a coin.)

it would be interesting to know the SD of this coin. - SD???  (Lawrence wasn't sure what SD means).

Hope this helps. Let me know if Lawrence has missed anything out.