The Dark Numismatist

I have a problem with your question. It's this : I can understand why people would counterfeit currency £1 coins, it's been an epidemic almost since the day they were introduced. But why, given the difficulty and costs involved, would anyone bother to fake a proof £1 coin? Remember - these proofs are struck using highly polished dies on specially prepared blanks. Wouldn't it be more likely that the Mint's quality control (which as we all know seems to have been declining recently) had an off day, and the occasional rogue proof escaped? As to the details you asked specifically about alignment etc, I'll leave that to others who know more about that. I agree with Peckris. Counterfeit pound coins are made by criminals who are only interested in the profit which comes with mass production. I know that there is a thriving trade in good quality counterfeits from the far east but these are for high value collectors' coins and the one pound coin has not as yet attained this status, not even the 1988 Gorringe 'rarity' (I use the term in the same way that it is used on eBay - tongue in cheek!). Looking at your excellent images I would say that the coin is definitely genuine, and from the pictures I would agree that it probably is a proof. The misalignment of the ends of the Bridges and Pathways motif is common on coins of that series and in particular the 2005 issue which, above the others, seems to carry more than its fair share of quality control issues. I would suggest that the coin may have been abused by a previous owner, resulting in the damage to the edges, there being no way of telling whether the coin had been removed from its capsule prior to your receiving it. I scrolled through your interesting series of fake pounds on Flickr, and found another 2005 with misaligned edges. Again, it is my opinion that coin is genuine, despite the misalignment of the Bridges and Pathways motif, and despite the weak strike on the obverse. I have seen a large number of genuine 2005 coins with these faults, all examples of the Royal Mint's poor quality control at that time.

Ive never seen either of the 2008 olympic varieties. So you were lucky to get them. Does anybody know if any 2009 £2 were issued for circulation ? I don't think I've seen any so far. Hi Scott, I can confirm that 2009 £2s were issued as I got a pristine example in my change on Saturday. Maybe they are only just seeing the light of day.

Hi all, Just picked one up in my change this afternoon - had to look twice at the date! Sure enough it is 2011.

I stand corrected on this, as I say my memory is a little faulty trying to think back so far! I remember I bought both sets by mail order from a dealer in Rutland, and they were separate issues with quite some time between them. Definitely very early seventies even if not the actual years shown. I would guess at possibly 1972, but I'm afraid it is only conjecture on my part. Try this Enough research. I'll shut up now No, that's excellent 1949 - thanks. That parliamentary Q&A is exactly the sort of authoritative source I was looking for. Yes I'm pretty sure that's the case - the Welsh Mint opened specifically to do the massive decimal recoinage, so Tower Mint would have handled the 1967 jobs. Though bear in mind that the halfcrown and halfpenny ceased production by 1969, no shillings were issued for 1967, florins ceased after 1967 with the issue of the 1968 10p, and the sixpence was scheduled for demonetisation before its reprieve, so my guess is that the only job they had to do from 1969 was churn out some pennies and 3d bits. I suppose all those 1967 pennies weren't actually needed, they just gave the Mint workers something to do ! Dark, I don't think you can be right about the 1970 sets - but I suppose it might be possible that the 1971 set actually did first appear in 1971, though it was minted continuously after that for a while. But equally I wouldn't be surprised if the Mint was so busy through 1971 that they deferred creating the 1971 proofs until 1972, when they had no regular issues to produce. And it now seems that 1972 - 1975 sets may not have been created until 1976!

I am not 100 per cent sure, but I did buy the 1970 and 1971 sets at the time, and I am fairly certain that they were first issued on the correct dates. I could be wrong, it was nearly forty years ago...

That is correct, Hussulo, the blanks are fed into the press with the edge lettering already in place so the orientation is completely random, and the law of averages would mean that they would be about 50/50 facing heads or tails.

Nice coin and excellent images! I would agree with Chris that it is most likely a mint error rather than a fake. At first glance at the obverse I would have said 'FAKE!!!' but the reverse is a different matter. I have seen several forgeries of the Matthew Dent design and they are generally lacking the fine detail on the reverse which is apparent on the coin in the photo. The edge lettering also looks reasonably good from what I can see - although some forgers can produce *almost* faultless inscriptions.

It is true that occasionally one pound coins are struck with a misaligned die axis, I have a number of them from various years, and the errors range between 5 and 15 degrees, so they do exist. Having said that, from the photo supplied I am not convinced that your coin is genuine and I would like to see more detail. Regarding value, such errors do not seem to be very highly sought after by collectors so I would suggest you don't hand in your notice yet...

I heard there is a gang in Ireland forging 20p coins by taking 50p coins and filing them down to size. They can be easily detected by the sharp, rough edges.

Those '98s are really remarkably good. When I found my first one I assumed it had been taken from a set and spent, then when the second one came along I looked closer at both and found that although very good copies they are definitely distinguishable from the real thing. There are others which may be from the same manufacturer, notably '92, '96, and even '83s which sounds fanciful, but I have seen several in the past few months with similar characteristics although I have noticed that some appear to have been artificially aged.

I've always liked this one-off 1988 reverse too and have always put them aside, and never knowingly spent one. I managed to amass quite a number in their early years and have a small bag of really bright ones, but of course over the years the ones in circulation have become really quite worn, but I still keep them to one side! About a month ago I picked one up in my change and was very surprised to find it was counterfeit. It is undetectable as a fake at a glance, and it even stands closer scrutiny. The legend around the edge is correct, but in the smaller typeface introduced in 1989 (although that legend (DECUS ET TUTAMEN) did not actually appear in that type style until 1991).

Hi Scott, from your photos I would say that both your coins are genuine, but they may look different in the hand. I haven't seen any fakes at all this week, but last week I got a wonderful 1988 coat of arms specimen which is quite worn and correct in every way except that the edge lettering is the smaller style introduced the following year, (although DECUS ET TUTAMEN did not appear in the smaller style until 1991), so I would date the coin as 1991 onwards. I still do not have my scanner working, but when I do I'll upload some images.

Perhaps it is a little overpriced, but fair play to the fellow, he is offering FREE shipping!

The white metal variety seem to be cast, rather than struck and look nowhere near as good as the 1992 example in your images (if that is the coin you are referring to). I understand they are cast in a white metal and then painted with car spray paint to give the impression they are genuine. Probably when new they are reasonably easy to pass off as most people do not check the quality of their change, only the quantity. Once the paint has started to flake off and they become discoloured they look awful, some turn black or brown. They are also quite soft, and therefore wear quickly which makes them even more obvious, and then people receiving them look at them quizzically and start scratching them to verify what they have already guessed - that they are forgeries! Therefore most examples seen are usually badly damaged. I have quite a nice example that has not been painted and it has the appearance of a silver proof (well, almost...). I intended to scan it and post it here today but I discovered my scanner is not working (the result of a computer rebuild last weekend), but when it is fixed I'll get those images posted.