Hmmm..

[morezone]

Found it.  Seems the seller is away/inactive.

http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/999-958-Pure-Fine-Silver-Britannia-Bullion-1oz-1-Ounce-2-BU-Coin-Test-Kit-BN-/291081575378

[Roy]

Minor update: Took it to the local 'cash-4-gold' charlatans.

He weighed it (4.00g), measured it (19.66mm) and shook his head.

No surprises here, but no answers either. It's fake, but I wonder as to its composition.

Roy

[goldbones]

1 hour ago, Roy said:

Minor update: Took it to the local 'cash-4-gold' charlatans.

He weighed it (4.00g), measured it (19.66mm) and shook his head.

No surprises here, but no answers either. It's fake, but I wonder as to its composition.

Roy

Due to the weight being accurate and the dimensions only off by a small percentage (diameter 19.66 vs 19.30 is just 2%) is the thickness out by 10%? if so id estimate it as 18 carat gold.

A specific gravity and surface analysis would be needed to confirm that suspicion.

[goldbones]

To put into perspective why i think it has to be gold in 18 carat range:

If you had 4 grams of silver in the form of a coin and it had around the same diameter as a half sovereign it would be around 70% thicker ( about 1.7mm thick), the same for lead pure iron or copper would come in 100% thicker, take a copper penny for instance it is 20.3mm around 1.56 mm thick and only weighs 3.56 grams imagine if it was 4 grams and had a smaller diameter would it still be 1.56mm thick? no it would be 2 mm thick.

So from what you show whatever it is it has to be more dense than silver but less dense than pure gold but still less than 22 ct so i'd say 18 ct or slightly under.

 

[Roy]

Thanks goldbones!

I was struggling with the maths and couldn't find a formula.

I was forming a similar conclusion. To be in weight but only slightly bigger, and slightly thicker, would discount lead, copper or brass.

It's difficult to measure the thickness. My vernier says about 1.2mm but that's because of the extra thick rim. I would estimate 10% too thick.

I'm doing a SG test soon, just watching all the vids! 

Roy

[whitesands1]

I hope this proceeds to a happy outcome.  Compulsive browsing in the meantime!

 

[goldbones]

5 minutes ago, Roy said:

Thanks goldbones!

I was struggling with the maths and couldn't find a formula.

I was forming a similar conclusion. To be in weight but only slightly bigger, and slightly thicker, would discount lead, copper or brass.

It's difficult to measure the thickness. My vernier says about 1.2mm but that's because of the extra thick rim. I would estimate 10% too thick.

I'm doing a SG test soon, just watching all the vids! 

Roy

Its one of them things where i'm so sure that is 18ct that if you were known to me and showed me it down the pub i'd slap £40 on the table to take it off your hands there and then because i'd know if i were right i can get about £80 for it.

These days nobody would bother taking 20-30% gold content through fakes, but 100 years ago when a half sovereign would have been circulating and used probably as frequently as £50 notes today it would have been profitable it's not like people were all walking around with digital calipers accurate scales and x-ray machines and stuff , so i'd say it was faked around the time those coins were minted. 

[Roy]

Interesting stuff.

Its provenance certainly sparks the imagination. I agree with you as to its 'birthday' and that invites even more questions. Potentially a 100 year old fake?

It must have been hiding for a long time! I wonder if its date and mintmark are significant? A 1912 Sydney half is by no means rare, but still a smaller than average mintage?

I think there's more to this coin than meets the eye... but sadly, it's not its gold content 

 

[sovereignsteve]

nothing significant in the date from a numismatic perspective, cheap as chips.

if it was a numismatic fake of a rare year, it would be more recent, 22ct gold and the correct size.

[goldbones]

Yeah numismatic fakes are spot on sometimes since they don't care about the gold but are making money due to collector valuation.

Older sovereigns (Victorian) were cleverly faked at the time by heavy 22ct gold  plating over a mixture of platinum and silver because 130 years ago platinum was about 1/10th of the gold price or less.

So interestingly some fakes are actually worth as much and sometimes more than the real thing if the platinum price is above gold price.

[Roy]

One other thing!

What about the eBay dealer that sold me the coin? (Although this is strictly academic now.)

He is a long time dealer, 10 years plus, 100% feedback, nearly 1000 sales. All coins, specifically sovereigns.

Discretion forbids me from revealing his identity, but his user name alludes to him being the country's premier gold dealer...

How did he miss this? I see the best in people so assume it was a mistake...but if a spotty oik in cash-4-gold spotted it, there is no excuse.

 

[goldbones]

46 minutes ago, Roy said:

One other thing!

What about the eBay dealer that sold me the coin? (Although this is strictly academic now.)

He is a long time dealer, 10 years plus, 100% feedback, nearly 1000 sales. All coins, specifically sovereigns.

Discretion forbids me from revealing his identity, but his user name alludes to him being the country's premier gold dealer...

How did he miss this? I see the best in people so assume it was a mistake...but if a spotty oik in cash-4-gold spotted it, there is no excuse.

 

Well im 99.99% certain he didn't create the fake himself, if he is dealing with a lot of sales it is likely an oversight where he just checked the weight and thought it looked about right.

What these dealers should be aware of is even 1 bad sale out of 1000 can put a dent in reputation so they should go the extra mile to check each coin with scrutiny but i'm willing to bet a lot do not, and feedback isn't all that much of a guide really, does every buyer check the coin to the same degree as you are here? unlikely, more to the point i suspect you gave him positive feedback before you was like..."wait something not right"

[ArthGoch]

On 2/14/2016 at 23:24, Roy said:

Two 1912 halves.

London and Sydney, I believe.

1 has a much larger diameter, but same weight.

Possible fake?

The 'Sydney' coin has very rough serrations

HI Roy - Have a look at this 

http://d65852kwq1u8u.cloudfront.net/topic-26184-weird-mintmark-on-sovereign.html

Dubai is a wash with these 'Jewelry Sovereigns' and most are copies of late Vic' or Edwardian.

As stated in the blog a number of these are locally assayed marked as 21 carat, while I had known others to be 18 or even 9, some hallmarked others not. Some were poor quality others very good.

In defense of the gold souk these were never sold to deceive but are in the majority of cases sewn/fixed into bridal jewelry that is used as part of the dowery in Asian weddings. On the upside the authorities in the UAE take a dim view of inaccurate AGW or misrepresentation of a low carat for a higher one.

If  your coins are jewelry sovereigns, and the weight and dimension of the coins are correct, hopefully your AGW will mean you are not to much out of pocket 

 

[Roy]

Crikey! That's uncanny...was it you goldbones? 

I did give him positive feedback. I was impressed with his contact, his delivery times and packaging. I never thought to check the coin. Doh!

 

[sovereignsteve]

I see no reason why you shouldn't contact the seller and explain things. If you have the oroginal photos and photos of the coins in hand, it should be enough to convince him you're  not pulling a fast one. If he's a reputable dealer he should re-imburse you. If not, name and shame.

[sovereignsteve]

2 hours ago, goldbones said:

Yeah numismatic fakes are spot on sometimes since they don't care about the gold but are making money due to collector valuation.

Older sovereigns (Victorian) were cleverly faked at the time by heavy 22ct gold  plating over a mixture of platinum and silver because 130 years ago platinum was about 1/10th of the gold price or less.

So interestingly some fakes are actually worth as much and sometimes more than the real thing if the platinum price is above gold price.

I didn't think it was possible to electroplate 22 ct gold, you would get 24 ct. Happy to be put right, maybe @Fluttershy would oblige?

[goldbones]

17 minutes ago, sovereignsteve said:

I didn't think it was possible to electroplate 22 ct gold, you would get 24 ct. Happy to be put right, maybe @Fluttershy would oblige?

They could have used chemical plating no electric needed, older methods existed before electricity.

[goldbones]

58 minutes ago, Roy said:

Crikey! That's uncanny...was it you goldbones? 

I did give him positive feedback. I was impressed with his contact, his delivery times and packaging. I never thought to check the coin. Doh!

 

It's why i avoid ebay for this sort of thing, i would buy gold off ebay if ebay offered a special 10% annual investment income as a form of insurance, that would be where if you say purchased £1000 worth of investment type product such as gold they gave you £100. Then it would be worth my time.

But there is more chance of an alien invasion led by Elvis Presley as army general, so ill not hold my breath. 

[Coincollector]

I have a half sovereign 1916 Sydney mint. Weighs 3.99 grams, 0.99mm depth but 19.6mm wide! It's in perfect condition, a very high grade. But like yours the diameter is to large should be 19.3mm.

i bought it of a coin dealer and taken it to two other coin dealers both say it's genuine and had it XRF gunned and its 22ct. I searched the Internet at the time of purchase about a year ago and found a couple of other half sovereigns with a Sydney mint which also measured 19.6mm.

[sovereignsteve]

4 minutes ago, Coincollector said:

I have a half sovereign 1916 Sydney mint. Weighs 3.99 grams, 0.99mm depth but 19.6mm wide! It's in perfect condition, a very high grade. But like yours the diameter is to large should be 19.3mm.

i bought it of a coin dealer and taken it to two other coin dealers both say it's genuine and had it XRF gunned and its 22ct. I searched the Internet at the time of purchase about a year ago and found a couple of other half sovereigns with a Sydney mint which also measured 19.6mm.

Interesting but the OP says it is also thicker than standard and in the photo it does look so.

[Roy]

Steve, I could but tbh, I like the coin and want to keep it. It's not all about money, is it.

Coincollector: Thanks for that. Another avenue to pursue, but as Steve says, it is also too thick. Have you measured your thickness? (I can't believe I said this...) 

Roy

[Coincollector]

This person half sovereign measure 19.6mm also NGC says its fake but XRF 22ct:

 

http://boards.collectors-society.com/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=8142038

[sovereignsteve]

3 minutes ago, Roy said:

 Have you measured your thickness? (I can't believe I said this...) 

Roy

C'mon Roy that made me LOL, very loud!

[goldbones]

11 minutes ago, Coincollector said:

This person half sovereign measure 19.6mm also NGC says its fake but XRF 22ct:

 

http://boards.collectors-society.com/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=8142038

NGC will put "not genuine" on it even if it is 22 carat because their "not genuine" label applies to the numismatic authenticity, your coin might be fake but still be 21k or 22k gold.

A 22k fake is worth the same as a 22k genuine by bullion value but the fake has zero numismatic value. 

[Roy]

The 19.6mm measurement is consistent with these 'rogue coins' and they all appear to be on the upper weight limit.

I don't know if it's relevant, but my coin was advertised as UNC.