George III Half Crown - Chinese Fakes

[seuk 85]

Just got a second copy of the modern Chinese forgery with reverse turned a 180 degree.

I'm not sure how much has been written about them - anyway even though my two coins are from different years (1818 and 1819) and one is golden and the other trying to look like silver they seems to have a number of 'repeating depressions' which I've tried to mark on the following scan.

Most prominent are

on obverse: an extra bead over E in DEI

on Reverse: dot in cross of crown + two notchs over PE of PENSE

[azda 973]

I had one of these about 14 months ago, it was very convincing but as yours is, it was rotated 180 degrees, also the background lines in the quadrent where the 3 lions are went through the tail, the lines should'nt go through the tail.

[Peter 615]

It looks like the Chinese just need a bit of quality control.

A plus point is that their raw materials are/have increased.

[azda 973]

The bottom serif of the I in DEI looks buggered to, far to fat. In fact, the only I that looks right is the I in GRATIA

Edited September 12, 2011 by azda

[seuk 85]

I had one of these about 14 months ago, it was very convincing but as yours is, it was rotated 180 degrees, also the background lines in the quadrent where the 3 lions are went through the tail, the lines should'nt go through the tail.

Great - we can add a few details then. The chinese as far I know have made both high and low quality fakes from the same masters, so some of them may looks convincing when shown in an auction picture...

On my two coins the first lion has part of tail missing and both have areas of weak or missing background lines.

[seuk 85]

The bottom serif of the I in DEI looks buggered to, far to fat. In fact, the only I that looks right is the I in GRATIA

Yes - I left it out since my gold copy don't have this error.

[azda 973]

The bottom serif of the I in DEI looks buggered to, far to fat. In fact, the only I that looks right is the I in GRATIA

Yes - I left it out since my gold copy don't have this error.

None the less Seuk, it should be noted so others can see what they are looking for.

[seuk 85]

The bottom serif of the I in DEI looks buggered to, far to fat. In fact, the only I that looks right is the I in GRATIA

Yes - I left it out since my gold copy don't have this error.

None the less Seuk, it should be noted so others can see what they are looking for.

Well I think at this point its more important to make clear which errors are on all of the counterfeits. My copies are obviously 2nd class and so may have more errors than the best copies. It would be fun though if there's a slowly degeneration taking place, one will however need a larger number of coins for study.

http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/250889358366?ssPageName=STRK:MEWAX:IT&_trksid=p3984.m1438.l2649

[Peter 615]

Has Shawnee coins been advised of his Chinese delight?

[seuk 85]

Has Shawnee coins been advised of his Chinese delight?

Yes - I've written him saying that this is likely a fake and asked if the reverse die is rotated.

[seuk 85]

This 1820 fake is on ebay by an Australian seller. Having all the usual marks revealing it to be a chinese counterfeit. So now the set is about complete - anyone seen an 1817 yet?

[Peckris 579]

This 1820 fake is on ebay by an Australian seller. Having all the usual marks revealing it to be a chinese counterfeit. So now the set is about complete - anyone seen an 1817 yet?

I'm a bit confused - are you saying that a Georgian forgery has itself been faked in China and passed off as a genuine item? I'm assuming you haven't started collecting modern Chinese fakes!

[azda 973]

This 1820 fake is on ebay by an Australian seller. Having all the usual marks revealing it to be a chinese counterfeit. So now the set is about complete - anyone seen an 1817 yet?

He's not actually selling it as original. In the heading it states Commems which would be commemorative i assume

[seuk 85]

This 1820 fake is on ebay by an Australian seller. Having all the usual marks revealing it to be a chinese counterfeit. So now the set is about complete - anyone seen an 1817 yet?

I'm a bit confused - are you saying that a Georgian forgery has itself been faked in China and passed off as a genuine item? I'm assuming you haven't started collecting modern Chinese fakes!

Its a standard fake of a genuine coin - All fakes of George III (silver) is of interest to me. Seems the model for the chinese fakes were a 1818 coin as both the 1819 and 1820 counterfeits are incorrect.

[seuk 85]

This 1820 fake is on ebay by an Australian seller. Having all the usual marks revealing it to be a chinese counterfeit. So now the set is about complete - anyone seen an 1817 yet?

He's not actually selling it as original. In the heading it states Commems which would be commemorative i assume

Yes - Perhaps he's the Australian branch of the London Mint Office...

[Coinery 926]

This 1820 fake is on ebay by an Australian seller. Having all the usual marks revealing it to be a chinese counterfeit. So now the set is about complete - anyone seen an 1817 yet?

I'm a bit confused - are you saying that a Georgian forgery has itself been faked in China and passed off as a genuine item? I'm assuming you haven't started collecting modern Chinese fakes!

Its a standard fake of a genuine coin - All fakes of George III (silver) is of interest to me. Seems the model for the chinese fakes were a 1818 coin as both the 1819 and 1820 counterfeits are incorrect.

Great resource, thanks seuk!

[Peter 615]

Brilliant info seuk.

Very much appreciated.I will not be making rash buys.

[Peckris 579]

This 1820 fake is on ebay by an Australian seller. Having all the usual marks revealing it to be a chinese counterfeit. So now the set is about complete - anyone seen an 1817 yet?

I'm a bit confused - are you saying that a Georgian forgery has itself been faked in China and passed off as a genuine item? I'm assuming you haven't started collecting modern Chinese fakes!

Its a standard fake of a genuine coin - All fakes of George III (silver) is of interest to me. Seems the model for the chinese fakes were a 1818 coin as both the 1819 and 1820 counterfeits are incorrect.

Nope, I'm still confused! I don't know what you mean about '1819 and 1829 counterfeits are incorrect'? However, if you've extended your interest to Chinese fakes, then it's your business of course, but I'd advise caution...

[seuk 85]

This 1820 fake is on ebay by an Australian seller. Having all the usual marks revealing it to be a chinese counterfeit. So now the set is about complete - anyone seen an 1817 yet?

I'm a bit confused - are you saying that a Georgian forgery has itself been faked in China and passed off as a genuine item? I'm assuming you haven't started collecting modern Chinese fakes!

Its a standard fake of a genuine coin - All fakes of George III (silver) is of interest to me. Seems the model for the chinese fakes were a 1818 coin as both the 1819 and 1820 counterfeits are incorrect.

Nope, I'm still confused! I don't know what you mean about '1819 and 1829 counterfeits are incorrect'? However, if you've extended your interest to Chinese fakes, then it's your business of course, but I'd advise caution...

Well the thread is about the modern Chinese fakes and how to spot them. I don't find them very interesting in themselves (unlike contemporary counterfeits) but its a good idea to know what to look for when buying from ebay or other web sources. So far we have high quality 1818 fakes and low quality ditto plus 1819+1820 (Spink mentions 1817 as well but I've yet to see one).

Looking at the bottom row examples of the Chinese fakes from the year 1818 to 1820 you will see that the figures 1 and 8 are basically of same design as on a genuine coin. (1 being a little thinner on 1819/20 + The 8 on the fake 1820 is a somewhat damaged). But on the fake 1819 halfcrown the 9 is simply a differnt design being more narrow than on a genuine coin (also the year are misplaced on the 1819 fake). Same with the 1820 halfcrown where both 2 and 0 are different from the genuine thing.

[Peckris 579]

This 1820 fake is on ebay by an Australian seller. Having all the usual marks revealing it to be a chinese counterfeit. So now the set is about complete - anyone seen an 1817 yet?

I'm a bit confused - are you saying that a Georgian forgery has itself been faked in China and passed off as a genuine item? I'm assuming you haven't started collecting modern Chinese fakes!

Its a standard fake of a genuine coin - All fakes of George III (silver) is of interest to me. Seems the model for the chinese fakes were a 1818 coin as both the 1819 and 1820 counterfeits are incorrect.

Nope, I'm still confused! I don't know what you mean about '1819 and 1829 counterfeits are incorrect'? However, if you've extended your interest to Chinese fakes, then it's your business of course, but I'd advise caution...

Well the thread is about the modern Chinese fakes and how to spot them. I don't find them very interesting in themselves (unlike contemporary counterfeits) but its a good idea to know what to look for when buying from ebay or other web sources. So far we have high quality 1818 fakes and low quality ditto plus 1819+1820 (Spink mentions 1817 as well but I've yet to see one).

Looking at the bottom row examples of the Chinese fakes from the year 1818 to 1820 you will see that the figures 1 and 8 are basically of same design as on a genuine coin. (1 being a little thinner on 1819/20 + The 8 on the fake 1820 is a somewhat damaged). But on the fake 1819 halfcrown the 9 is simply a differnt design being more narrow than on a genuine coin (also the year are misplaced on the 1819 fake). Same with the 1820 halfcrown where both 2 and 0 are different from the genuine thing.

I'll leave it your obvious expertise! Mind you, the 1820 fake is very very easy to spot, the date being incuse.

[numismatist 2]

I am right in thinking something very odd about this 1817 Bullhead

...the muscles in the cheeks, hair , ear etc...just seems all wrong

to me (Ebay 120899857720) See second picture for one that looks okay

[Peckris 579]

I am right in thinking something very odd about this 1817 Bullhead

...the muscles in the cheeks, hair , ear etc...just seems all wrong

to me (Ebay 120899857720) See second picture for one that looks okay

Yes, it appears to be a contemporary forgery which would interest Seuk - it just looks so wrong on so many counts, that it is unlikely to be a Chinese fake. I think I can see copper patches beginning to show through? I've sent the seller a message saying it's likely to be a forgery, and will be interested to see his reply.

P.S. - do bear in mind that the 'kosher' example is slightly angled which would distort immediate comparisons; that doesn't affect my verdict that it is most probably a wrong 'un!

Edited July 27, 2012 by Peckris

[seuk 85]

I am right in thinking something very odd about this 1817 Bullhead

...the muscles in the cheeks, hair , ear etc...just seems all wrong

to me (Ebay 120899857720) See second picture for one that looks okay

Yes, it appears to be a contemporary forgery which would interest Seuk - it just looks so wrong on so many counts, that it is unlikely to be a Chinese fake. I think I can see copper patches beginning to show through? I've sent the seller a message saying it's likely to be a forgery, and will be interested to see his reply.

P.S. - do bear in mind that the 'kosher' example is slightly angled which would distort immediate comparisons; that doesn't affect my verdict that it is most probably a wrong 'un!

Yes, its contemporary. I seen 8 examples of this exact die pair. Unfortunately none of mine are as good as this one but if he'll reduce the price with about £100 I'll probably buy it

Here's my best example without silvering compared with the one on ebay

(I have informed the seller)

[DaveG38 385]

Assuming this is a fake, I'd like to see Seuk identify the dies!!!

And that's leaving aside the wrong denomination attribution.

http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/GEORGE-III-DOLLAR-lot-9-/271022283218?pt=UK_Coins_BritishMilled_RL&hash=item3f1a2fd9d2

I like the idea that a bit of TLC would help improve it. The last rites and a vicar might be more appropriate.

Edited July 28, 2012 by DaveG38

[Peckris 579]

Assuming this is a fake, I'd like to see Seuk identify the dies!!!

And that's leaving aside the wrong denomination attribution.

http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/GEORGE-III-DOLLAR-lot-9-/271022283218?pt=UK_Coins_BritishMilled_RL&hash=item3f1a2fd9d2

I like the idea that a bit of TLC would help improve it. The last rites and a vicar might be more appropriate.