i believe these were used in india and other countries during the time, everyone knew what a sovereign was so it was easier to barter, its a fake but it is real gold and the proper weight
Yes many people in various countries have traded with counterfeit sovs purely as a recognised way of trading gold. I'm researching for a future video on this too
I'm with you on that half-sovereign being fishy. There is a plain difference in lack of detail. Even if it was a weak strike it would still have more definition than what we're seeing. Good call, mate.
Mmm, my knowledge of sovs is pretty limited, but the Obverse seems ok but the reeded edge seems a little angled !! Is this a test, and the coin is completely authentic 🤣🤣🤣 . Love the challenge, thanks for sharing, btw how does it read on your Sigma ?
I had one not long ago I questioned. The dealer I bought it from said I could bring it back but I did a scratch test on it and it tested good for 22K gold so I kept it. Oddly it wouldn't pass the Sigma which is what alerted me to look closer.
At least the gold content is good 👍🏼 I've come across a few that sigma test didn't like but have been fine with xrf, weight, dimensions and just visually they look as they should. It is unusual though
Dear Saurus - the fakeness stood out to me immediately. I've seen these types of fakes before. From a distance (2-3 meters) they look great and unworn a la too good to be true. In close inspection everything is wrong, as you show in the video. The "SA" is particularly ridiculous. In order not to make too long comments, please read my other comment in this section.
I've had a few 1/10oz Gold coins that look a bit 'different' compared with their 1oz and 1/4oz counterparts and had them checked and found them to be the real thing, (well they were .999 Gold content). I can only assume that being so light, the dies/presses have to be under a lot less pressure, (as it will cause the blanks to bend and distort with being so thin and light), giving them a slightly different look? Just a thought and I may be well off the mark, any thoughts??
Looks very much like a casting. Devices are fuzzy without clean edges and the fields are grainy. That rim is horrendous. What's it made of? Is it 9ct or 14ct?
The sigma verifier flagged it suggesting something about the metal composition wasn't right... With xrf testing it was very close to the correct gold content but slightly outside of what was expected for a 22ct coin
I have entertained the idea of getting one of the sigmas, as much as I am invested in it, the high price of a sigma would be justifiable@@SovereignSaurus
Definitely a questionable piece. The horse's head, tail and rear leg look very irregular. That edge on the reverse looks just plain wrong. And the SA mintmark also looks odd. I'd send this one back. Thanks for showing it to us though. Great examination of the piece and discussion you had about it.
I'd like to feature more dodgy coins so we can all learn from them but it's unlikely that they make it to me from what I buy. I have seen some very high carat counterfeits at a gold buying shop although I didn't have my phone to take a pic or video
IF you can verify that it is real gold ,i think that you should keep it as a curiosity. I believe that some jeweller copies are worth more than the minted examples? Xrf test ? The fine lines radiating outwards, 5:39 mark , can indicate metal flow away from centre and could be why the details are weaker?
I have two 1926 south African half sovereigns. There are many fake half sovereigns around, but concerning this piece the 1926 south African piece does have high milling on some of them, and this piece could well be genuine. Most of the fake halfs I have seen tend to have the inner milling missing. Although this does look strange the color looks right, and although the inner milling is flat, do all the checks, weight and try and get a spec tron test and check to see that it is 22ct. The south African 1926 does seem to have high inner milling then the english and Australian pieces and when circulated it wears more on the edge. Finaly it may worth consider sending to one of the slab bin companies to see what they say.
Thank you for the input it's great to hear from someone who has a couple. I've got a follow up video coming out soon. It was a little overweight for the wear and also the wear wasn't consistent with expectations, how the rim was so sharp with no wear yet the dragon and rider did have wear and the mint mark was very bold 🤔 The sigma verifier also flagged the half as being an unusual composition
@@SovereignSaurus Thank you for your reply. First can I say that slight wear on the reverse on the helmet of st george and leg means nothing, as this is quit normal on colonel half sovereigns due to how the die was cut. Colonel half sovereigns rarely if ever show the sock on st george fully cut on the die. The half in England did show this fully when in uncirculated condition not so on Australian and south African pieces. I have been collecting these pieces for over forty years, and worked at the Royal mint, and worked on the first head sovereigns of Elizabeth 11 mary gillick sovereigns. 1957 to 1968. The texture of the colour depended on the alloy received at the mint nothing more nothing less.The 1887 half sovereign showed the crown on the reverse crushed up by the edge, many were like this but some were perfect, this depended if coller on the die was tight or loose. What is the milling like on the edge?. Is it cut deep or soft cut,?. I would be surprised if your piece turned out to be fake. The colour is correct this spiking on the edge I have seen on genuine pieces.
Curiously I have just watched another, silent, video lasting about 90 seconds, of someone showing off a 1926 full sovereign. It also had that mottled effect in the background on both sides of the coin, and seemed to me to be a fake. And I told them so.
It looks suspect to me.. the sword angle and the outine of the dragons underside etc etc the list goes on.. but apparently coins back then .. if you were to use them as currency (before they went to paper) they were worth more than the gold weight! so .. as seen on another channel .. when they are scanned.. they may even have slightly more gold content and a higher remaining silver ... compared to copper.. but also if a rare date or mint error .. they will just make them as close to the real gold content as possible..
Yes thanks for sharing. I got to see some 21ct fakes at a gold shop not too long ago. I noticed something seemed off after a quick look although I had a suspicion as to why he had shown me them that weren't available for purchase. I like to think I would have noticed if he mixed them in a tube of genuine sovs but it's always worth testing too
@@SovereignSaurus As you mentioned ..it has been going since coins were made .. I've seen some ancient coins come back as fake ! but who knows when they were made..😅 it's gotta be hard if you buy a fake and only realise 10 years later when you send for grading...
1922 London mint: I purchased a sovereign knowing that it was counterfeit; I am extremely happy to have it for my collection. I paid simply for the gold content and it has a weight of 8.01 gm. I have previously spent quite a bit time handling and examining the sovereigns in my collection to obtain an understanding of the genuine article. The 1922 (London mint, i.e., no mint mark) counterfeit has me quite flummoxed because it is such a good copy. Prior to examining my counterfeit, I believed that I would be able to spot a counterfeit sovereign and this is not the case.
Hi, thanks for sharing. There are varying standards of counterfeit coins but that one obviously fails at the first hurdle simply a date and mintmark combination that doesn't exist. I don't recall having a KGV sov that was so heavy. Did you have the gold content tested anywhere?
@@SovereignSaurus The gold content tested as 91.7% Au. The dimensions are commensurate with an authentic sovereign as is the milled edge. The counterfeit is slightly duller on comparison with other authentic George V. I have been on the look out for an Italian, Syrian, Beirut counterfeit but have had no luck; I would like also to get my hands on one of the counter struck ersatz. I understand that some of the Italian counterfeits are good copies. I would also like to find a 1917 non-London Mint that has had its branch mint altered such that it appears as a London Mint 1917. I would like to know what are the other differences between 1917 London Mint sovereigns and those of the 1917 branch mint sovereigns other than the mark above the date.
i believe these were used in india and other countries during the time, everyone knew what a sovereign was so it was easier to barter, its a fake but it is real gold and the proper weight
Yes many people in various countries have traded with counterfeit sovs purely as a recognised way of trading gold. I'm researching for a future video on this too
Yep I've got two ,just found out about the Indian ones last week ,
I'm with you on that half-sovereign being fishy. There is a plain difference in lack of detail. Even if it was a weak strike it would still have more definition than what we're seeing. Good call, mate.
Yes I think I made the right choice, your point about the detail, that along with the mint mark being really defined doesn't add up
Great information as usual. Keep up the great work
Much appreciated!
another great video tnx for the education always fun too learn about coins. have a good weekend
Thanks, you too mate!
Do you have another half sovereign to compare it to? I imagine there’s a difference between half and full sovereigns.
Not of that year.... Certainly interesting.
Mmm, my knowledge of sovs is pretty limited, but the Obverse seems ok but the reeded edge seems a little angled !! Is this a test, and the coin is completely authentic 🤣🤣🤣 . Love the challenge, thanks for sharing, btw how does it read on your Sigma ?
Hey mate. Haha no not a trick video... Sigma didn't like it and neither did XRF machine
I had one not long ago I questioned. The dealer I bought it from said I could bring it back but I did a scratch test on it and it tested good for 22K gold so I kept it. Oddly it wouldn't pass the Sigma which is what alerted me to look closer.
At least the gold content is good 👍🏼 I've come across a few that sigma test didn't like but have been fine with xrf, weight, dimensions and just visually they look as they should. It is unusual though
Dear Saurus - the fakeness stood out to me immediately. I've seen these types of fakes before. From a distance (2-3 meters) they look great and unworn a la too good to be true. In close inspection everything is wrong, as you show in the video. The "SA" is particularly ridiculous. In order not to make too long comments, please read my other comment in this section.
Thanks for your input really interested to learn more and help share the info to other stackers
Textbook counterfeit. Similar to a lot of pre33 American gold counterfeits.
Interesting I've not studied the pre 33 enough I'll take a look for some info on those thanks 👍🏼
I've had a few 1/10oz Gold coins that look a bit 'different' compared with their 1oz and 1/4oz counterparts and had them checked and found them to be the real thing, (well they were .999 Gold content). I can only assume that being so light, the dies/presses have to be under a lot less pressure, (as it will cause the blanks to bend and distort with being so thin and light), giving them a slightly different look? Just a thought and I may be well off the mark, any thoughts??
Could be I'll take a look at the minting process in a bit more detail
Looks very much like a casting. Devices are fuzzy without clean edges and the fields are grainy. That rim is horrendous. What's it made of? Is it 9ct or 14ct?
it should be 22k if it is authentic shouldnt it?
The sigma verifier flagged it suggesting something about the metal composition wasn't right... With xrf testing it was very close to the correct gold content but slightly outside of what was expected for a 22ct coin
I have entertained the idea of getting one of the sigmas, as much as I am invested in it, the high price of a sigma would be justifiable@@SovereignSaurus
Definitely a questionable piece. The horse's head, tail and rear leg look very irregular. That edge on the reverse looks just plain wrong. And the SA mintmark also looks odd. I'd send this one back. Thanks for showing it to us though. Great examination of the piece and discussion you had about it.
I'd like to feature more dodgy coins so we can all learn from them but it's unlikely that they make it to me from what I buy. I have seen some very high carat counterfeits at a gold buying shop although I didn't have my phone to take a pic or video
Cheers Sovereign Saurus🥃
🍻
IF you can verify that it is real gold ,i think that you should keep it as a curiosity. I believe that some jeweller copies are worth more than the minted examples? Xrf test ? The fine lines radiating outwards, 5:39 mark , can indicate metal flow away from centre and could be why the details are weaker?
Thanks I will research more on the actual process of minting coins. The composition wasn't quite right with xrf testing. Sigma didn't like it either
This is exact the reason if I was to start collecting sovereigns etc , I’d go to a main dealer and pay the extra premium to be sure it’s genuine.
Yeah it isn't always more expensive from a main dealer either just depends on the offers
I have two 1926 south African half sovereigns. There are many fake half sovereigns around, but concerning this piece the 1926 south African piece does have high milling on some of them, and this piece could well be genuine. Most of the fake halfs I have seen tend to have the inner milling missing. Although this does look strange the color looks right, and although the inner milling is flat, do all the checks, weight and try and get a spec tron test and check to see that it is 22ct. The south African 1926 does seem to have high inner milling then the english and Australian pieces and when circulated it wears more on the edge. Finaly it may worth consider sending to one of the slab bin companies to see what they say.
Thank you for the input it's great to hear from someone who has a couple. I've got a follow up video coming out soon. It was a little overweight for the wear and also the wear wasn't consistent with expectations, how the rim was so sharp with no wear yet the dragon and rider did have wear and the mint mark was very bold 🤔 The sigma verifier also flagged the half as being an unusual composition
@@SovereignSaurus Thank you for your reply. First can I say that slight wear on the reverse on the helmet of st george and leg means nothing, as this is quit normal on colonel half sovereigns due to how the die was cut. Colonel half sovereigns rarely if ever show the sock on st george fully cut on the die. The half in England did show this fully when in uncirculated condition not so on Australian and south African pieces. I have been collecting these pieces for over forty years, and worked at the Royal mint, and worked on the first head sovereigns of Elizabeth 11 mary gillick sovereigns. 1957 to 1968. The texture of the colour depended on the alloy received at the mint nothing more nothing less.The 1887 half sovereign showed the crown on the reverse crushed up by the edge, many were like this but some were perfect, this depended if coller on the die was tight or loose. What is the milling like on the edge?. Is it cut deep or soft cut,?. I would be surprised if your piece turned out to be fake. The colour is correct this spiking on the edge I have seen on genuine pieces.
Curiously I have just watched another, silent, video lasting about 90 seconds, of someone showing off a 1926 full sovereign. It also had that mottled effect in the background on both sides of the coin, and seemed to me to be a fake. And I told them so.
The more vigilant we all are the better
It looks suspect to me.. the sword angle and the outine of the dragons underside etc etc the list goes on.. but apparently coins back then .. if you were to use them as currency (before they went to paper) they were worth more than the gold weight! so .. as seen on another channel .. when they are scanned.. they may even have slightly more gold content and a higher remaining silver ... compared to copper.. but also if a rare date or mint error .. they will just make them as close to the real gold content as possible..
Yes thanks for sharing. I got to see some 21ct fakes at a gold shop not too long ago. I noticed something seemed off after a quick look although I had a suspicion as to why he had shown me them that weren't available for purchase. I like to think I would have noticed if he mixed them in a tube of genuine sovs but it's always worth testing too
@@SovereignSaurus As you mentioned ..it has been going since coins were made .. I've seen some ancient coins come back as fake ! but who knows when they were made..😅 it's gotta be hard if you buy a fake and only realise 10 years later when you send for grading...
1922 London mint: I purchased a sovereign knowing that it was counterfeit; I am extremely happy to have it for my collection. I paid simply for the gold content and it has a weight of 8.01 gm. I have previously spent quite a bit time handling and examining the sovereigns in my collection to obtain an understanding of the genuine article. The 1922 (London mint, i.e., no mint mark) counterfeit has me quite flummoxed because it is such a good copy. Prior to examining my counterfeit, I believed that I would be able to spot a counterfeit sovereign and this is not the case.
Hi, thanks for sharing. There are varying standards of counterfeit coins but that one obviously fails at the first hurdle simply a date and mintmark combination that doesn't exist. I don't recall having a KGV sov that was so heavy. Did you have the gold content tested anywhere?
@@SovereignSaurus The gold content tested as 91.7% Au. The dimensions are commensurate with an authentic sovereign as is the milled edge. The counterfeit is slightly duller on comparison with other authentic George V. I have been on the look out for an Italian, Syrian, Beirut counterfeit but have had no luck; I would like also to get my hands on one of the counter struck ersatz. I understand that some of the Italian counterfeits are good copies. I would also like to find a 1917 non-London Mint that has had its branch mint altered such that it appears as a London Mint 1917. I would like to know what are the other differences between 1917 London Mint sovereigns and those of the 1917 branch mint sovereigns other than the mark above the date.