Jump to content
British Coin Forum - Predecimal.com

50 Years of RotographicCoinpublications.com A Rotographic Imprint. Price guide reference book publishers since 1959. Lots of books on coins, banknotes and medals. Please visit and like Coin Publications on Facebook for offers and updates.

Coin Publications on Facebook

   Rotographic    

The current range of books. Click the image above to see them on Amazon (printed and Kindle format). More info on coinpublications.com

predecimal.comPredecimal.com. One of the most popular websites on British pre-decimal coins, with hundreds of coins for sale, advice for beginners and interesting information.

Recommended Posts

Hi

I have a coin in my possession which appears to be a George I (1722) Guinea.

The colour appears to be gold, it weighs 8grm, is approx 25mm dia and has a milled edge.

The reverse is as per images and info I have found in research.

However all the research I have done would indicate that the face should have the following letters:

GEORGIVSDGMBRFRETHIBREXFD

My coin has no second B so reads

GEORGIVSDGMBRFRETHIREXFD

Any help in identification please

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Picture of said coin please....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Thanks for the reply. I'm new to using forums so hopefully the images are ok

Regards

KevinDSC_0412.JPG?gl=GBDSC_0411.JPG?gl=GB

Picture of said coin please....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Thanks for the reply. I'm new to using forums so hopefully the images are ok

Regards

KevinDSC_0412.JPG?gl=GBDSC_0411.JPG?gl=GB

Picture of said coin please....

Edited to add: the larger picture didn't seem to be there when I started replying, but now it is. It's still a bit on the small size but I can at least see the legend and the bust.

Not sure what you've done there Kev! That image is so tiny it is virtually invisible. The way to do it is -

1. When posting, click the "Choose File" button below and select a picture from your computer (make sure it is no greater than 150k).

2. Click "Attach This File"

3. Click "Add to Post"

Then when you're done and added any text to your reply, click "Add Reply"

Edited by Peckris

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi

I have a coin in my possession which appears to be a George I (1722) Guinea.

The colour appears to be gold, it weighs 8grm, is approx 25mm dia and has a milled edge.

The reverse is as per images and info I have found in research.

However all the research I have done would indicate that the face should have the following letters:

GEORGIVSDGMBRFRETHIBREXFD

My coin has no second B so reads

GEORGIVSDGMBRFRETHIREXFD

Any help in identification please

It looks kind of ok for the 4th Bust, but the legend is a little out of whack with the design. The omission of the B means one of two things :

1. it's a contemporary forgery (the weight should be 8.3 - 8.4 gms, yours is a little out)

2. it's a rare variety

I'd incline more to the first, to be honest, but maybe you need the opinion of others more familiar with the gold series.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We need a bigger picture. Try using photobucket to upload large pictures, and make sure you crop to the size of the coin as being able to determine the quality of the work surface will not assist with the object in question. The abbreviation to HI instead of HIB occurs all through the hammered coinage and would be quite acceptable. The W&M halfcrowns have legends reading both FR and FRA within the same issue, so although HI is unusual, it is not necessarily a wrong-un. Weight is important, as is the ability to scrutinise detail. Also, what is the edge like? Pics of this might help too.

Edited by Rob

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We need a bigger picture. Try using photobucket to upload large pictures, and make sure you crop to the size of the coin as being able to determine the quality of the work surface will not assist with the object in question. The abbreviation to HI instead of HIB occurs all through the hammered coinage and would be quite acceptable. The W&M halfcrowns have legends reading both FR and FRA within the same issue, so although HI is unusual, it is not necessarily a wrong-un. Weight is important, as is the ability to scrutinise detail. Also, what is the edge like? Pics of this might help too.

Away from home for a few days but when I get back I will try and get better pics and the edge details plus a more accurate weight.

Thanks for the response

Regards

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

GeorgeICoin.jpg

We need a bigger picture. Try using photobucket to upload large pictures, and make sure you crop to the size of the coin as being able to determine the quality of the work surface will not assist with the object in question. The abbreviation to HI instead of HIB occurs all through the hammered coinage and would be quite acceptable. The W&M halfcrowns have legends reading both FR and FRA within the same issue, so although HI is unusual, it is not necessarily a wrong-un. Weight is important, as is the ability to scrutinise detail. Also, what is the edge like? Pics of this might help too.

Hi again, I hope these images are more satisfactory (used photobucket). Will get an accurate weight from a jewellers thurs.

Regards

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We need a bigger picture. Try using photobucket to upload large pictures, and make sure you crop to the size of the coin as being able to determine the quality of the work surface will not assist with the object in question. The abbreviation to HI instead of HIB occurs all through the hammered coinage and would be quite acceptable. The W&M halfcrowns have legends reading both FR and FRA within the same issue, so although HI is unusual, it is not necessarily a wrong-un. Weight is important, as is the ability to scrutinise detail. Also, what is the edge like? Pics of this might help too.

Hi

Now have an accurate weight: 8.2 gms

Regards

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Gosh, this whole forum has me as suspicious as hell at the moment. The weight is good for the grade, however, the V in GeorgiVs jumped out at me like a sore thumb, I don't ever recall seeing an infilled letter of that fashion on anything else before?

I confess to knowing very little about early-milled gold, but any chance of a look at the edge? Does the milling appear 'right,' complete with no seams etc (having said that, if it's cast, which it just looks SO cast to me, it wouldn't have any seams, maybe a filed/flattened area for removal of a spur)?

Here goes old suspicion again...counterfeiters manage to achieve good gold-weight with thicker, or larger diameter coins, your's should be a 25/26mm coin.

You'll have to forgive me, it's just my genuine-coin-faith is at an all-time low at the minute.

Edited by Coinery

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It looks far too mushy for my liking. Edge and thickness would be good as Coinery says.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

CoinEdgeDetail.jpg

It looks far too mushy for my liking. Edge and thickness would be good as Coinery says.

In the first post I described the edge as milled which I thought was the pattern on the perimeter of the faces.

Following your comments I now realise that it is the actual face of the edge of the coin - this appears fairly smooth

apart from what looks like general knocks and knicks.

The thickness is 1.1mm in the centre and 1mm at the edge.

I believe it's starting to look like something that has been in the family for many years is not what it seems?!!

Regards

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

CoinEdgeDetail.jpg

It looks far too mushy for my liking. Edge and thickness would be good as Coinery says.

In the first post I described the edge as milled which I thought was the pattern on the perimeter of the faces.

Following your comments I now realise that it is the actual face of the edge of the coin - this appears fairly smooth

apart from what looks like general knocks and knicks.

The thickness is 1.1mm in the centre and 1mm at the edge.

I believe it's starting to look like something that has been in the family for many years is not what it seems?!!

Regards

The smooth edge is not a good omen, you should be looking at some nice crisp diagonal ridges, the edge is the bit that most counterfeiters struggle with. My money's on it being a bad one.

With an edge like the one you have, and the suspicions that already accompany the coin, I'd be looking to see if the surface tests + for gold and, if it did, and not a lot would like this, but I'd give that poor edge a light scrape to see if beauty is just skin deep!

For me, it's always about calculated risks when it comes to pursuing metal integrity in these types of instances!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

CoinEdgeDetail.jpg

It looks far too mushy for my liking. Edge and thickness would be good as Coinery says.

In the first post I described the edge as milled which I thought was the pattern on the perimeter of the faces.

Following your comments I now realise that it is the actual face of the edge of the coin - this appears fairly smooth

apart from what looks like general knocks and knicks.

The thickness is 1.1mm in the centre and 1mm at the edge.

I believe it's starting to look like something that has been in the family for many years is not what it seems?!!

Regards

How many years, if you don't mind me asking? I only ask because the Chinese fakes are comparatively recent, but there was a great spate of Middle East fakes of gold coins in the 1970s. If it goes back a long way, it is less likely (though far from impossible) to be a fake. However it could be a counterfeit which would make it of historic interest, and of course the gold value is not to be ignored.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

CoinEdgeDetail.jpg

It looks far too mushy for my liking. Edge and thickness would be good as Coinery says.

In the first post I described the edge as milled which I thought was the pattern on the perimeter of the faces.

Following your comments I now realise that it is the actual face of the edge of the coin - this appears fairly smooth

apart from what looks like general knocks and knicks.

The thickness is 1.1mm in the centre and 1mm at the edge.

I believe it's starting to look like something that has been in the family for many years is not what it seems?!!

Regards

How many years, if you don't mind me asking? I only ask because the Chinese fakes are comparatively recent, but there was a great spate of Middle East fakes of gold coins in the 1970s. If it goes back a long way, it is less likely (though far from impossible) to be a fake. However it could be a counterfeit which would make it of historic interest, and of course the gold value is not to be ignored.

Does anyone have a date for the earliest of the known Chinese fakes?

Also, Peck, just out of interest, do you happen to know the earliest of the 70's material?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not that old but Ashmore was operating and also a coins digest of 1969 was full of fake reports.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

CoinEdgeDetail.jpg

It looks far too mushy for my liking. Edge and thickness would be good as Coinery says.

In the first post I described the edge as milled which I thought was the pattern on the perimeter of the faces.

Following your comments I now realise that it is the actual face of the edge of the coin - this appears fairly smooth

apart from what looks like general knocks and knicks.

The thickness is 1.1mm in the centre and 1mm at the edge.

I believe it's starting to look like something that has been in the family for many years is not what it seems?!!

Regards

How many years, if you don't mind me asking? I only ask because the Chinese fakes are comparatively recent, but there was a great spate of Middle East fakes of gold coins in the 1970s. If it goes back a long way, it is less likely (though far from impossible) to be a fake. However it could be a counterfeit which would make it of historic interest, and of course the gold value is not to be ignored.

I don't mind you asking at all. The coin was found in the possesions of my grandmother who was born in 1900. I don't know when she aquired this or if the coin had been in the family prior to this, as the house she lived in had been in the family for a previous generation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry, I don't know very much about the Middle East "problem" except that it was rife in the 70s, but as Peter says it pre-dates that even.

The coin has a 'blurry' 'rubbed' look about it, which could be an indication of a fake. Or it could simply be that it was mounted and worn as jewellery. I think it would need an expert eye to look at it carefully. It could be quite an old fake from what you say, but it isn't necessarily a fake, though the 'unknown' legend error is a bit of a poser.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry, I don't know very much about the Middle East "problem" except that it was rife in the 70s, but as Peter says it pre-dates that even.

The coin has a 'blurry' 'rubbed' look about it, which could be an indication of a fake. Or it could simply be that it was mounted and worn as jewellery. I think it would need an expert eye to look at it carefully. It could be quite an old fake from what you say, but it isn't necessarily a fake, though the 'unknown' legend error is a bit of a poser.

I did see a Edward VII gold two pounds that had been worn as a jewellery item, it's edges were very much erroded and rounded. It did have obvious mount-marks however. For the edge of this coin to be rounded, it couldn't have been protected by a ring mount.

You absolutely can't write it off, it could have spent some time in a sandy/beach environment, anything's possible, the weight's in your favour. I think, as peckris said, that it needs an in-hand appraisal unfortunately.

What we need is a good die-study of all those coins with known fakes haunting them. Where 'modern' milled is concerned, we are back to the provenance thing again. If I was ever to buy a Gothic Crown again, it would have to come with some substantial paperwork and/or catalogue history that predates these arses who are bombarding us with all this tat!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry, I don't know very much about the Middle East "problem" except that it was rife in the 70s, but as Peter says it pre-dates that even.

The coin has a 'blurry' 'rubbed' look about it, which could be an indication of a fake. Or it could simply be that it was mounted and worn as jewellery. I think it would need an expert eye to look at it carefully. It could be quite an old fake from what you say, but it isn't necessarily a fake, though the 'unknown' legend error is a bit of a poser.

I did see a Edward VII gold two pounds that had been worn as a jewellery item, it's edges were very much erroded and rounded. It did have obvious mount-marks however. For the edge of this coin to be rounded, it couldn't have been protected by a ring mount.

You absolutely can't write it off, it could have spent some time in a sandy/beach environment, anything's possible, the weight's in your favour. I think, as peckris said, that it needs an in-hand appraisal unfortunately.

What we need is a good die-study of all those coins with known fakes haunting them. Where 'modern' milled is concerned, we are back to the provenance thing again. If I was ever to buy a Gothic Crown again, it would have to come with some substantial paperwork and/or catalogue history that predates these arses who are bombarding us with all this tat!

Thanks for all the feedback.

I think that I would like to get an in hand appraisal. I live in macclesfield, but spend alot of time in Scunthorpe and Newark-on-Trent. Can anyone suggest a reputable place I can get the in hand evaluation?

Regards

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry, I don't know very much about the Middle East "problem" except that it was rife in the 70s, but as Peter says it pre-dates that even.

The coin has a 'blurry' 'rubbed' look about it, which could be an indication of a fake. Or it could simply be that it was mounted and worn as jewellery. I think it would need an expert eye to look at it carefully. It could be quite an old fake from what you say, but it isn't necessarily a fake, though the 'unknown' legend error is a bit of a poser.

I did see a Edward VII gold two pounds that had been worn as a jewellery item, it's edges were very much erroded and rounded. It did have obvious mount-marks however. For the edge of this coin to be rounded, it couldn't have been protected by a ring mount.

You absolutely can't write it off, it could have spent some time in a sandy/beach environment, anything's possible, the weight's in your favour. I think, as peckris said, that it needs an in-hand appraisal unfortunately.

What we need is a good die-study of all those coins with known fakes haunting them. Where 'modern' milled is concerned, we are back to the provenance thing again. If I was ever to buy a Gothic Crown again, it would have to come with some substantial paperwork and/or catalogue history that predates these arses who are bombarding us with all this tat!

Thanks for all the feedback.

I think that I would like to get an in hand appraisal. I live in macclesfield, but spend alot of time in Scunthorpe and Newark-on-Trent. Can anyone suggest a reputable place I can get the in hand evaluation?

Regards

Someone once posted here about a guy who you send coins to, he appraises them, then sends them back to you with his opinion - for a fee. I couldn't remember the details, still can't, but someone recently reminded us who it is. He has a website, and is completely independent. No connection with TPG companies. Remind me again?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Is it possible that if it were a contemporary counterfeit (don't know enough about early milled gold to make that decision!) that it could be made with lower purity gold and the remainder made with platinum? Because I don't think platinum was very valued in the 18th century and its got a weight similar to gold. Of course now its as valuable if not more so no one is going to fake a modern coin like that!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Is it possible that if it were a contemporary counterfeit (don't know enough about early milled gold to make that decision!) that it could be made with lower purity gold and the remainder made with platinum? Because I don't think platinum was very valued in the 18th century and its got a weight similar to gold. Of course now its as valuable if not more so no one is going to fake a modern coin like that!

Platinum has a very high melting point, and was not a common metal in the early 18th Century perhaps putting it out of the counterfeiters' reach. Its also much harder than gold which has made it recognized as a difficult metal to coin. Its an intriguing puzzle - the coin is the right diameter and about the right weight, given its apparent state of preservation loss of 0.1g from the anticipated range of 8.3 to 8.4g is not unexpected if the coin was indeed genuine. Its colour is not unlike some shipwreck gold, but if the coin has been in the family for a long time - which shipwreck might it have come from that didn't require modern techniques to recover it. If the coin is genuine, perhaps submersion in seawater could be responsible for the loss of much detail. But I don't think that's the answer. Given its dimensions and weight, that suggests that it is at least gold. I would think any pawnshop could verify whether or not it is gold and what carat fineness - should be just less that 22k (and recheck the weight). The rim is wrong, not bearing milling, but could be like this due to having been filed down for its miniscule amount of gold. The top right sceptre is interesting in that it is clearly broken in the middle. Seems an odd detail for a counterfeiter to bother with. Also, interestingly, there seems to be something going on under the U of DUX. Again, why would a counterfeiter bother? And yet the general presentation of the coin, with its clumsy detailing and textured looking fields gives the overwhelming impression of being a low quality copy. If you are going to get a reputed coin dealer to have a look at it, I'd suggest a personal visit rather than sending the coin through the post.

Interesting - please do let us know how you get on with verifying the coin.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Is it possible that if it were a contemporary counterfeit (don't know enough about early milled gold to make that decision!) that it could be made with lower purity gold and the remainder made with platinum? Because I don't think platinum was very valued in the 18th century and its got a weight similar to gold. Of course now its as valuable if not more so no one is going to fake a modern coin like that!

Platinum has a very high melting point, and was not a common metal in the early 18th Century perhaps putting it out of the counterfeiters' reach. Its also much harder than gold which has made it recognized as a difficult metal to coin. Its an intriguing puzzle - the coin is the right diameter and about the right weight, given its apparent state of preservation loss of 0.1g from the anticipated range of 8.3 to 8.4g is not unexpected if the coin was indeed genuine. Its colour is not unlike some shipwreck gold, but if the coin has been in the family for a long time - which shipwreck might it have come from that didn't require modern techniques to recover it. If the coin is genuine, perhaps submersion in seawater could be responsible for the loss of much detail. But I don't think that's the answer. Given its dimensions and weight, that suggests that it is at least gold. I would think any pawnshop could verify whether or not it is gold and what carat fineness - should be just less that 22k (and recheck the weight). The rim is wrong, not bearing milling, but could be like this due to having been filed down for its miniscule amount of gold. The top right sceptre is interesting in that it is clearly broken in the middle. Seems an odd detail for a counterfeiter to bother with. Also, interestingly, there seems to be something going on under the U of DUX. Again, why would a counterfeiter bother? And yet the general presentation of the coin, with its clumsy detailing and textured looking fields gives the overwhelming impression of being a low quality copy. If you are going to get a reputed coin dealer to have a look at it, I'd suggest a personal visit rather than sending the coin through the post.

Interesting - please do let us know how you get on with verifying the coin.

Hi just thought I'd give you an update.

I took the coin into a dealer in Manchester, he took the coin in it's bag and felt the weight in his hand and declared it was the wrong weight and not gold. Now I may sometimes not look the brightest but he was actually claiming that he could tell the coin isn't the correct weight when it's only 0.1 of a gramme light!!

So off to another Manchester dealer who was excellent - he could not help with authentication of the coin but he did a 'touchstone' test and delared the coin to be pure gold.

I now believe I may have a rare coin that is a 'good un'.

I've since contacted a chap who used to work for the Royal Mint and advertises on the net as doing authentications - unfortunately he's not doing them at the moment,

Any ideas where I should go?

Regards Kevin

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Send it to CGS in London (Coin Grading Services) it will come back in a slab and you'll have definate Peace of mind that its authentic or not

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×