1925 Half Sovereign - no mint mark

[TheGoldSovereign]

On 20/02/2017 at 19:51, Murph said:

Certainly struck me as having the pock marked cast look to it but I guess if they employ someone who doesn't really pay attention to the look of coins and relies on the scanner it would pass.

If they have tested it before buying I'd imagine it will be close to 22ct.  If it turns out not to be that could be more worrying and I doubt they'd like to own up to that as it would make buying bars or some other coins from them a much riskier proposition.

Well that is what I also assumed, I simply asked them for their tolerances but they wouldn't tell me and I must send it in.

Seems like an awful lot of hassle and cost to them that's uncessesary if they check 100% of coins to a tight tolerance don't you think?

[sovereignsteve]

On 22/02/2017 at 07:08, sg86 said:

Well that is what I also assumed, I simply asked them for their tolerances but they wouldn't tell me and I must send it in.

Seems like an awful lot of hassle and cost to them that's uncessesary if they check 100% of coins to a tight tolerance don't you think?

Did you get any joy with this?

[TheGoldSovereign]

4 minutes ago, sovereignsteve said:

Did you get any joy with this?

Ah it's escaped my mind, lots going on!

I have an order with them open so i'll get it posted over the weekend and they can save some posted sending both back to me

[prophet800]

On 20/02/2017 at 21:57, sovereignsteve said:

I still have 3 fakes somewhere but I don't know where. I've had them a while and kept them in the house somewhere well away from my real ones which are in safe storage. Trouble is I can't remember which super safe place I actually put them. Guess I'll come across them at some point.

Can't remember the dates but there was a YH, JH and a Gv. The YH is awful, even my dog would have spotted it, but the other 2 aren't too bad at all, they would pass all but the closest inspection. They are all very close to standard alloy.

I've also seen a fake JH half and one or two Gv halves.

I'll try to find them and post pictures for your amusememnt and education

 

I remember asking your opinion on this half I bought, I sent it back and got my money back in the end. It didn't ping right and failed the gravity test miserably ?

[prophet800]

It was very pale when in the hand plus if I remember correctly it was too thick as well

Sent from my GT-I9300 using Tapatalk

[Silverhunter]

5 minutes ago, prophet800 said:

It was very pale when in the hand plus if I remember correctly it was too thick as well

Sent from my GT-I9300 using Tapatalk
 

Was was it bought online?

[prophet800]

Ebay for my sins :-(. Something didn't feel right as soon as I held it. I spent a couple of days checking it and checking it again. So I thought if in doubt leave it out and sent it back. The seller wasn't to impressed but as far as I know he didn't put it up for sale again

Sent from my GT-I9300 using Tapatalk

[Silverhunter]

4 minutes ago, prophet800 said:

Ebay for my sins :-(. Something didn't feel right as soon as I held it. I spent a couple of days checking it and checking it again. So I thought if in doubt leave it out and sent it back. The seller wasn't to impressed but as far as I know he didn't put it up for sale again

Sent from my GT-I9300 using Tapatalk
 

At least there was no arguing over it

[prophet800]

[sovereignsteve]

That was the first 1887 half fake I's seen, certainly the doubles and fives have been afflicted.

[prophet800]

He said it was from his personal collection but it just didn't feel right in my gut

[sovereignsteve]

I've seen other jub head fake halves and they tend to be a good quality.

[prophet800]

I couldn't argue with the quality and I really was doubting myself but I think you should always go with your initial feeling so back it went ha

Sent from my GT-I9300 using Tapatalk

[sovereignsteve]

Overall it looks convincing but it just doesn't look quite right to my eyes. The colour and surface of the fields look dodgy, but the real giveaway is the area of border beading to the south west of the obverse, it's awful.

[prophet800]

When you look at it that close I'm glad it went back

Sent from my GT-I9300 using Tapatalk

[Roy]

Well spotted SS.

I wish you'd sold it to me  

(I like suspicious coins)

[sovereignsteve]

58 minutes ago, prophet800 said:

When you look at it that close

Sent from my GT-I9300 using Tapatalk
 

sometimes you just have to

[augur]

On 19/02/2017 at 21:36, sovereignsteve said:

The standard of this fake is poor and wouldn't fool any dealer or serious collector, but there again, it [this specific fake] wasn't made to do so.

I think this says it all.

[Bumble]

Just to chip in belatedly...

@Roy asks, If it is a fake, you have to wonder why pick a date that is only minted outside of the UK?
A possible answer is that a forger might pick an invalid date so if they are prosecuted they can legitimately claim that their coin cannot be a forgery since there exists no genuine coin for it to be a forgery of. I believe at least one forger has successfully made this defence.

HGM must check everything, surely?
FWIW, I have had the experience of selling a krug to HGM over the counter, and the tests they performed were: visual inspection (by eye, not using a loupe), weighing, pinging and xrf scan. This would not catch a good quality fake made of gold of the right quality.

As @Barney's post above explains, many fake sovereigns were made between 1925 and the early 1950s for the simple reason that the Royal Mint were not making them, but there was a significant demand. The forgers stepped in to supply this demand, usually with coins of 22 ct quality, or close to it, profiting from the difference in value between the gold content and the coin price. Fakes of this kind are still common in India and in South America. If you are only interested in the gold content, then you might not care whether it is an authentic Royal Mint coin; you could regard it as a round that will never be worth less than its scrap value.