Florin 1849

[azda 973]

My date cut out

[seuk 85]

Think I may have found something...

There's a small dot under I of Victoria on both Palves and the PCGS example (It may also seems there's also a dot on Robs coin - could be the picture however its not in the same position!)

[Peter 615]

Off to bed now but it is underweight and a Chinese copy.

[Rob 3,002]

Think I may have found something...

There's a small dot under I of Victoria on both Palves and the PCGS example (It may also seems there's also a dot on Robs coin - could be the picture however its not in the same position!)

The dots are the same on the two questionables and there is an additional similar dot just in front of the eyebrow, but the shape of the upper serif of the C in VICTORIA is different on these two coins as is the profile of the A. One resembles the C on my coin, but the other is considerably thicker. The chin has a different shape on the two dubious coins, so overall we probably have two separate dodgy issues. The common points coupled with the differences suggests the dots may be on the matrix.

The 'dot' on my coin isn't after increasing the image size and playing with the contrast etc. There is a small line mark/toning however which is giving an optical illusion. Unfortunately I can't confirm in the hand as I sold this a couple years ago, unless I ask a favour of the buyer (assuming he still has it).

[seuk 85]

Think I may have found something...

There's a small dot under I of Victoria on both Palves and the PCGS example (It may also seems there's also a dot on Robs coin - could be the picture however its not in the same position!)

The dots are the same on the two questionables and there is an additional similar dot just in front of the eyebrow, but the shape of the upper serif of the C in VICTORIA is different on these two coins as is the profile of the A. One resembles the C on my coin, but the other is considerably thicker. The chin has a different shape on the two dubious coins, so overall we probably have two separate dodgy issues. The common points coupled with the differences suggests the dots may be on the matrix.

The 'dot' on my coin isn't after increasing the image size and playing with the contrast etc. There is a small line mark/toning however which is giving an optical illusion. Unfortunately I can't confirm in the hand as I sold this a couple years ago, unless I ask a favour of the buyer (assuming he still has it).

There's one on ebay too: http://www.ebay.com/itm/1849-Queen-Victoria-Godless-Florin-high-grade-/190703345450?pt=US_World_Coins&hash=item2c66ce1f2a - with a light die crack from O to A of Victoria.

The reverse having the same flaw in the central rose on reverse as the PGSC examples (Palves don't have it)

(PGSC coin 1st - ebay coin 2nd - Palves 3rd)

[numismatist 2]

Good find by " seuk " that DOT may be very important if they are fakes

and worth making more comparisons on known genuine ones that have a long

time provenance. On some discussions on the fake Gothic Crowns they say

the HARP STRINGS are not straight. The PCGS one seems to have harp strings

that curve and I wonder if other dountful ones have that problem as well

but its not obvious though shown on some I think I can see some curviture ?

[Coinery 926]

If it's for details like a dot below the I, then you can understand why TPGC's don't release their findings to the general public! Especially when you consider they may have this information whilst the dies are still active.

One would presume, with the TPGC's financial investment in not slabbing a fake, that the last thing they'd be doing is saying 'hey me old China, you need to do something with that little hole in the field of yer obverse die, or you'll not be selling any more forty-niners!'

Great work so far Rob and Seuk, been burning some midnight oil I see!

[scott 129]

the 9 thing, i wouldn't look there there are a few differant 9 styles probably.

the thing is, trying to buy one of these in top grade, it would still be hard to find these fakes as the flaws are so minor.

[Red Riley 2]

the thing is, trying to buy one of these in top grade, it would still be hard to find these fakes as the flaws are so minor.

Not if you took scales around with you. The one I currently have is on the money at 11.31 precisely. Although I don't have a low grade godless I do have a variety of early Victorian Gothics to hand and these are how they checked out for weight;

1852 EF 11.33

1857 GVF 11.28

1864 NEF 11.25

1864 Poor 10.47

1870 NEF 11.30

1878 GF 11.20

And for comparison;

1888 AU 11.33

1889 GVF 11.32

1897 GEF 11.36

1902 EF 11.35

1902 GF 11.13 etc.

So, reasonably consistent and shows how much metal coins lose as they descend the grades. From that, I think we can safely say that an EF Gothic (and probably a Godless) is unlikely to weigh less than 11.25g. So, until the Chinese perfect their techniques or actually stump up for the relevant quantiy of sterling silver, we can simply rely on the weight.

Just a simple question though, I know that CCGB gives accurate weights for all later milled coins but for anything earlier I usually have to do my own calculations. Is there one publication that gives the average weights of earlier coins?

[azda 973]

the thing is, trying to buy one of these in top grade, it would still be hard to find these fakes as the flaws are so minor.

Is there one publication that gives the average weights of earlier coins?

Something i've been looking for to Derek. Now that this thread has made a kind of conclusion, is it possible to open a new thread called Fakes and post it in there and sticky pin it for future refrences?

[Peter 615]

Peck does copper.He gives a weight range and average of his studied coins.

I weigh mine it is all good info.

I think there was much tighter controls on silver and especially gold...hence adjustment marks.

[Peter 615]

the thing is, trying to buy one of these in top grade, it would still be hard to find these fakes as the flaws are so minor.

Is there one publication that gives the average weights of earlier coins?

Something i've been looking for to Derek. Now that this thread has made a kind of conclusion, is it possible to open a new thread called Fakes and post it in there and sticky pin it for future refrences?

I think you have requested it before.It is a great idea.

[Red Riley 2]

There is already a website, as I think we've said before; http://www.forgerynetwork.com/Default.aspx .

The reason for the Chinese flooding slabbed forgeries onto the market has just occurred to me, when a coin is in its plastic tomb, it cannot be weighed. No doubt the TPGs can provide a weight for their slabs but it would presumably be easy enough to introduce some denser material into the faked slab. Makes you think...

[Peckris 579]

Think I may have found something...

There's a small dot under I of Victoria on both Palves and the PCGS example (It may also seems there's also a dot on Robs coin - could be the picture however its not in the same position!)

The dots are the same on the two questionables and there is an additional similar dot just in front of the eyebrow, but the shape of the upper serif of the C in VICTORIA is different on these two coins as is the profile of the A. One resembles the C on my coin, but the other is considerably thicker. The chin has a different shape on the two dubious coins, so overall we probably have two separate dodgy issues. The common points coupled with the differences suggests the dots may be on the matrix.

The 'dot' on my coin isn't after increasing the image size and playing with the contrast etc. There is a small line mark/toning however which is giving an optical illusion. Unfortunately I can't confirm in the hand as I sold this a couple years ago, unless I ask a favour of the buyer (assuming he still has it).

There's one on ebay too: http://www.ebay.com/itm/1849-Queen-Victoria-Godless-Florin-high-grade-/190703345450?pt=US_World_Coins&hash=item2c66ce1f2a - with a light die crack from O to A of Victoria.

The reverse having the same flaw in the central rose on reverse as the PGSC examples (Palves don't have it)

(PGSC coin 1st - ebay coin 2nd - Palves 3rd)

Given that the obverse dot is common to all three questionables, but the reverse flaw only to two out of three, then there is a strong possibility that either the same forger used one original obverse and two original reverses to make a series of fakes, or that the reverse flaw somehow got into the process as part of the forging (a bit of gunk on the "die"). I'd tend to suggest the latter is more likely.

[Coinery 926]

There is already a website, as I think we've said before; http://www.forgerynetwork.com/Default.aspx .

The reason for the Chinese flooding slabbed forgeries onto the market has just occurred to me, when a coin is in its plastic tomb, it cannot be weighed. No doubt the TPGs can provide a weight for their slabs but it would presumably be easy enough to introduce some denser material into the faked slab. Makes you think...

You can check the right coin is in the right slab on the websites, but how do you know it's not a duplicate slab with the same number as the genuine one that's sat in Lord Gotitall's collection in the Isle of Man?

Until all the TPGC's insist on QUALITY online images, we are all as helpless as one another buying slabs!

[Rob 3,002]

Think I may have found something...

There's a small dot under I of Victoria on both Palves and the PCGS example (It may also seems there's also a dot on Robs coin - could be the picture however its not in the same position!)

The dots are the same on the two questionables and there is an additional similar dot just in front of the eyebrow, but the shape of the upper serif of the C in VICTORIA is different on these two coins as is the profile of the A. One resembles the C on my coin, but the other is considerably thicker. The chin has a different shape on the two dubious coins, so overall we probably have two separate dodgy issues. The common points coupled with the differences suggests the dots may be on the matrix.

The 'dot' on my coin isn't after increasing the image size and playing with the contrast etc. There is a small line mark/toning however which is giving an optical illusion. Unfortunately I can't confirm in the hand as I sold this a couple years ago, unless I ask a favour of the buyer (assuming he still has it).

There's one on ebay too: http://www.ebay.com/itm/1849-Queen-Victoria-Godless-Florin-high-grade-/190703345450?pt=US_World_Coins&hash=item2c66ce1f2a - with a light die crack from O to A of Victoria.

The reverse having the same flaw in the central rose on reverse as the PGSC examples (Palves don't have it)

(PGSC coin 1st - ebay coin 2nd - Palves 3rd)

Given that the obverse dot is common to all three questionables, but the reverse flaw only to two out of three, then there is a strong possibility that either the same forger used one original obverse and two original reverses to make a series of fakes, or that the reverse flaw somehow got into the process as part of the forging (a bit of gunk on the "die"). I'd tend to suggest the latter is more likely.

On the assumption that both the PCGS and Palves' coins are copies, there must be at least two obverse dies in use. You would expect two reverses in this case. One obverse has a pointed top to the A whilst the other is slightly flat. The top serifs on the C are completely different thicknesses too.

[Peckris 579]

Think I may have found something...

There's a small dot under I of Victoria on both Palves and the PCGS example (It may also seems there's also a dot on Robs coin - could be the picture however its not in the same position!)

The dots are the same on the two questionables and there is an additional similar dot just in front of the eyebrow, but the shape of the upper serif of the C in VICTORIA is different on these two coins as is the profile of the A. One resembles the C on my coin, but the other is considerably thicker. The chin has a different shape on the two dubious coins, so overall we probably have two separate dodgy issues. The common points coupled with the differences suggests the dots may be on the matrix.

The 'dot' on my coin isn't after increasing the image size and playing with the contrast etc. There is a small line mark/toning however which is giving an optical illusion. Unfortunately I can't confirm in the hand as I sold this a couple years ago, unless I ask a favour of the buyer (assuming he still has it).

There's one on ebay too: http://www.ebay.com/itm/1849-Queen-Victoria-Godless-Florin-high-grade-/190703345450?pt=US_World_Coins&hash=item2c66ce1f2a - with a light die crack from O to A of Victoria.

The reverse having the same flaw in the central rose on reverse as the PGSC examples (Palves don't have it)

(PGSC coin 1st - ebay coin 2nd - Palves 3rd)

Given that the obverse dot is common to all three questionables, but the reverse flaw only to two out of three, then there is a strong possibility that either the same forger used one original obverse and two original reverses to make a series of fakes, or that the reverse flaw somehow got into the process as part of the forging (a bit of gunk on the "die"). I'd tend to suggest the latter is more likely.

On the assumption that both the PCGS and Palves' coins are copies, there must be at least two obverse dies in use. You would expect two reverses in this case. One obverse has a pointed top to the A whilst the other is slightly flat. The top serifs on the C are completely different thicknesses too.

Good point, but how would you then explain the dot? The fact that it is in EXACTLY the same place is odd, if different dies are involved. Unless it's a deliberate mark placed by the Mint, in which case there will be genuine items out there with it. On the other hand, if it's a mark imparted as part of the casting process, it would tend to vary with each different casting.

We're now looking at a situation where the dot may be a genuine artefact, and is present on at least one series of forgeries. Which also means that one or more of those 3 examples may be genuine. And which takes us back full circle to the weight issue as the best means of determining fakes.

[Rob 3,002]

Think I may have found something...

There's a small dot under I of Victoria on both Palves and the PCGS example (It may also seems there's also a dot on Robs coin - could be the picture however its not in the same position!)

The dots are the same on the two questionables and there is an additional similar dot just in front of the eyebrow, but the shape of the upper serif of the C in VICTORIA is different on these two coins as is the profile of the A. One resembles the C on my coin, but the other is considerably thicker. The chin has a different shape on the two dubious coins, so overall we probably have two separate dodgy issues. The common points coupled with the differences suggests the dots may be on the matrix.

The 'dot' on my coin isn't after increasing the image size and playing with the contrast etc. There is a small line mark/toning however which is giving an optical illusion. Unfortunately I can't confirm in the hand as I sold this a couple years ago, unless I ask a favour of the buyer (assuming he still has it).

There's one on ebay too: http://www.ebay.com/itm/1849-Queen-Victoria-Godless-Florin-high-grade-/190703345450?pt=US_World_Coins&hash=item2c66ce1f2a - with a light die crack from O to A of Victoria.

The reverse having the same flaw in the central rose on reverse as the PGSC examples (Palves don't have it)

(PGSC coin 1st - ebay coin 2nd - Palves 3rd)

Given that the obverse dot is common to all three questionables, but the reverse flaw only to two out of three, then there is a strong possibility that either the same forger used one original obverse and two original reverses to make a series of fakes, or that the reverse flaw somehow got into the process as part of the forging (a bit of gunk on the "die"). I'd tend to suggest the latter is more likely.

On the assumption that both the PCGS and Palves' coins are copies, there must be at least two obverse dies in use. You would expect two reverses in this case. One obverse has a pointed top to the A whilst the other is slightly flat. The top serifs on the C are completely different thicknesses too.

Good point, but how would you then explain the dot? The fact that it is in EXACTLY the same place is odd, if different dies are involved. Unless it's a deliberate mark placed by the Mint, in which case there will be genuine items out there with it. On the other hand, if it's a mark imparted as part of the casting process, it would tend to vary with each different casting.

We're now looking at a situation where the dot may be a genuine artefact, and is present on at least one series of forgeries. Which also means that one or more of those 3 examples may be genuine. And which takes us back full circle to the weight issue as the best means of determining fakes.

If the dots were on the matrix used for both original dies in 1849 and casts of both pieces happen to have had this feature, then slight differences in the obverses can be explained by wear/infilling/whatever on the original dies. The profile looks different on the two obverses as do the C and A, but if all features on the obverses are consistently present and matched by consistent reverse marks, then it most likely means that two separate copies have been made. Unfortunately, Hocking doesn't list anything useful in the RM museum.

[seuk 85]

Think I may have found something...

There's a small dot under I of Victoria on both Palves and the PCGS example (It may also seems there's also a dot on Robs coin - could be the picture however its not in the same position!)

The dots are the same on the two questionables and there is an additional similar dot just in front of the eyebrow, but the shape of the upper serif of the C in VICTORIA is different on these two coins as is the profile of the A. One resembles the C on my coin, but the other is considerably thicker. The chin has a different shape on the two dubious coins, so overall we probably have two separate dodgy issues. The common points coupled with the differences suggests the dots may be on the matrix.

The 'dot' on my coin isn't after increasing the image size and playing with the contrast etc. There is a small line mark/toning however which is giving an optical illusion. Unfortunately I can't confirm in the hand as I sold this a couple years ago, unless I ask a favour of the buyer (assuming he still has it).

There's one on ebay too: http://www.ebay.com/itm/1849-Queen-Victoria-Godless-Florin-high-grade-/190703345450?pt=US_World_Coins&hash=item2c66ce1f2a - with a light die crack from O to A of Victoria.

The reverse having the same flaw in the central rose on reverse as the PGSC examples (Palves don't have it)

(PGSC coin 1st - ebay coin 2nd - Palves 3rd)

Given that the obverse dot is common to all three questionables, but the reverse flaw only to two out of three, then there is a strong possibility that either the same forger used one original obverse and two original reverses to make a series of fakes, or that the reverse flaw somehow got into the process as part of the forging (a bit of gunk on the "die"). I'd tend to suggest the latter is more likely.

On the assumption that both the PCGS and Palves' coins are copies, there must be at least two obverse dies in use. You would expect two reverses in this case. One obverse has a pointed top to the A whilst the other is slightly flat. The top serifs on the C are completely different thicknesses too.

Good point, but how would you then explain the dot? The fact that it is in EXACTLY the same place is odd, if different dies are involved. Unless it's a deliberate mark placed by the Mint, in which case there will be genuine items out there with it. On the other hand, if it's a mark imparted as part of the casting process, it would tend to vary with each different casting.

We're now looking at a situation where the dot may be a genuine artefact, and is present on at least one series of forgeries. Which also means that one or more of those 3 examples may be genuine. And which takes us back full circle to the weight issue as the best means of determining fakes.

I don't think any kind of casting process is involved making modern counterfeits. They are probably using some kind of computer controled engraving machine like this one:

However the result may be similar to casting in the way that the machine will reproduce any imperfections in the design from the genuine coin used, if not corrected.

[palves 0]

Ok, so basically from what i'm seeing from Palves' coin picture, to Robs and then to mine is that the base of the 9 on Palves' picture is thicker than mine and Robs 9 in the pictures.The slope of the 9 gets thinner as it curves round at the bottom, but Palves' picture, the slope of the 9 stays fat at the bottom and there is no bubble like serif at the end of the 9 in Palves' picture, whereas there is in mine and Robs. Just observations, and theory

Palves, is it possible to get a better picture of the 9 in the date?

here it goes... and thanks a million to all of you guys!

It is a freaking nightmare!

[Peckris 579]

Think I may have found something...

There's a small dot under I of Victoria on both Palves and the PCGS example (It may also seems there's also a dot on Robs coin - could be the picture however its not in the same position!)

The dots are the same on the two questionables and there is an additional similar dot just in front of the eyebrow, but the shape of the upper serif of the C in VICTORIA is different on these two coins as is the profile of the A. One resembles the C on my coin, but the other is considerably thicker. The chin has a different shape on the two dubious coins, so overall we probably have two separate dodgy issues. The common points coupled with the differences suggests the dots may be on the matrix.

The 'dot' on my coin isn't after increasing the image size and playing with the contrast etc. There is a small line mark/toning however which is giving an optical illusion. Unfortunately I can't confirm in the hand as I sold this a couple years ago, unless I ask a favour of the buyer (assuming he still has it).

There's one on ebay too: http://www.ebay.com/itm/1849-Queen-Victoria-Godless-Florin-high-grade-/190703345450?pt=US_World_Coins&hash=item2c66ce1f2a - with a light die crack from O to A of Victoria.

The reverse having the same flaw in the central rose on reverse as the PGSC examples (Palves don't have it)

(PGSC coin 1st - ebay coin 2nd - Palves 3rd)

Given that the obverse dot is common to all three questionables, but the reverse flaw only to two out of three, then there is a strong possibility that either the same forger used one original obverse and two original reverses to make a series of fakes, or that the reverse flaw somehow got into the process as part of the forging (a bit of gunk on the "die"). I'd tend to suggest the latter is more likely.

On the assumption that both the PCGS and Palves' coins are copies, there must be at least two obverse dies in use. You would expect two reverses in this case. One obverse has a pointed top to the A whilst the other is slightly flat. The top serifs on the C are completely different thicknesses too.

Good point, but how would you then explain the dot? The fact that it is in EXACTLY the same place is odd, if different dies are involved. Unless it's a deliberate mark placed by the Mint, in which case there will be genuine items out there with it. On the other hand, if it's a mark imparted as part of the casting process, it would tend to vary with each different casting.

We're now looking at a situation where the dot may be a genuine artefact, and is present on at least one series of forgeries. Which also means that one or more of those 3 examples may be genuine. And which takes us back full circle to the weight issue as the best means of determining fakes.

I don't think any kind of casting process is involved making modern counterfeits. They are probably using some kind of computer controled engraving machine like this one:

However the result may be similar to casting in the way that the machine will reproduce any imperfections in the design from the genuine coin used, if not corrected.

We may be getting towards the situation where Chinese fakes become so technically perfect that it will be near impossible to tell them from the real thing, especially if the dies are 'corrected' as you say. In which case we would need some way of dating the production of coins, for example some future equivalent of Carbon-14 dating.

In numismatics, unlike record collecting or books, 'first issues' are of no importance in themselves, only that 'first strikes' can be of higher quality; if a second strike was of higher quality then they would attract the premium instead. What we may have to come to accept some day is that 'originals' are regarded as 'first issues' and command a price X times higher than a 'second issue' (a later fake).

Thank goodness we haven't reached that stage yet, but I fear it may happen. After all, the number of potential collectors per original coin will grow and grow. Technically perfect fakes could be regarded in the same way as - for example - those Gothic Crown repros of a few years ago, and which went for around one tenth of the price of an original. And if that day comes, China may become the world leader in 'reproduction' coins and sell them openly for a profitable fraction of an original.

[Coinery 926]

Get your long-provenanced coins now, why they are still affordable. For every known Chinese fake that arrives, get out and get yourself the first genuine example with a logbook that you can find!

Rim nicks and dings will be king soon, happily existing as evidence to link a coin to an old catalogue photograph!

[azda 973]

Get your long-provenanced coins now, why they are still affordable. For every known Chinese fake that arrives, get out and get yourself the first genuine example with a logbook that you can find!

Rim nicks and dings will be king soon, happily existing as evidence to link a coin to an old catalogue photograph!

Unfortunately not all coins that people collect come with logbooks Stuart, so as is always said, know you area of collecting extremely well

[Coinery 926]

Get your long-provenanced coins now, why they are still affordable. For every known Chinese fake that arrives, get out and get yourself the first genuine example with a logbook that you can find!

Rim nicks and dings will be king soon, happily existing as evidence to link a coin to an old catalogue photograph!

Unfortunately not all coins that people collect come with logbooks Stuart, so as is always said, know you area of collecting extremely well

But you see, Dave, the point is, it doesn't matter how confident you may be that your coin is genuine, you have to convince someone else of that if you want it to remain an investment!

I can't off the top of my head think of a single coin that couldn't potentially be bought with a history! It will make them even more of a rarity, but great, makes for an exciting new challenge, I'd certainly be looking at it if I was buying certain types for a long-standing collection, the Godless now being one of them!

[TomGoodheart 373]

I can't off the top of my head think of a single coin that couldn't potentially be bought with a history! It will make them even more of a rarity, but great, makes for an exciting new challenge, I'd certainly be looking at it if I was buying certain types for a long-standing collection, the Godless now being one of them!

I think that's fine if you have deep pockets. There's one occasionally posting member here who buys nothing but the very best examples of everything and of course, as such, they all have amazing provenances. But for the average collector on a budget, if you have the choice between a handful of provenanced coins or five or ten times as many, albeit in most cases slightly lesser coins, it's going to be difficult to resist buying the cheaper coins without the history.

The additional problems as I see them are that there are many uninspiring coins that have nevertheless been part of a major collection. Is it better to buy a coin lacking eye appeal for the provenance over one without history but clearly nicer? Plus, although nowadays most coins tend to be illustrated in catalogues, more than 20 years ago, that wasn't the case. It's my experience that grading companies (and even some dealers) have not been good at retaining old tickets with coins. Without either a photograph or some other support, such as a ticket, it's very difficult to be certain about an individual coin's history. The vast majority of coins now on the market probably have little or no evidence of where they were before their last sale. Buying only coins with history will compound the challenge of finding an example for most collectors.

What the answer might be, I'm not sure. I quite agree that the best answer is to only buy coins that can be trusted, which is those that have a history prior to any known fakes, from reputable sources. But modern (post 1800s or so) machine made coins are by their very nature much more alike than the earlier, cruder, efforts. Making distinguishing between one made in 1869 and 2009 very difficult.

And of course, it's not just milled. Most of us here know of the run of replica coins that were on ebay a little while back. I myself nearly bought two of them, one believing it was the coin from Rob's website until it dawned on me that I'd seen that particular coin too many times for it to be true. Fakes are a real pain.