seuk

Seems more fakes has started to surface: 1 2 And a 3rd one - cancelled for some reason: 3

Interesting. Does look like a William IV bust. Weight and diameter? Could be either an advertising counter or token. Perhaps you can find more information here.

And a French counterfeit which only cost me about €9 shipping included

I thought you were going to say you got this from Warwick & Warwick! No - but it's Danish found ... in my drawer

They comes as contemporary counterfeit also

Christ! Were they making these back then? In that case the Royal Mint was a few hundred years too late getting its own version to market - but then institutions are always reluctant to change. I hope Seuk is going to reappraise the dates of his forgeries. Well - at least it now seems possible for me to get rid of my ever increasing bag of unidentified washers ...like saxbys-coins selling cheap Hungarian coins etc. as British found

1787 is uncommon for the imitations - more likely its a sixpence or shilling. Let's hope it not stamped WRL

I wrote him yesterday and informed him that the gold guinea is a contemporary brass counterfeit of a shilling (variation B701o/G701r). To which he replied: "if it is i refund the buyer his nmoney back as i brought it in a auction that sells coins ROB- werewolf2359" Both reported! BTW - this tread on Coincommunity give some information on how ebay deals with fakes.

Pages on the other denominations (than the shilling) are now uploaded These are simply rough pages with no detailed information. But perhaps some will find them of interest and help keeping the site alive until I can get around to group the other counterfeits.

The same volume even has an article on the reducing machine in regard to the recoinage of 1816 which I had forgotten all about until now

There's a slight difference in the chin and mouth profile, but that could just be the lighting. Looks good to me. Doubtless Seuk will be able to quote chapter and verse about the different copies or false countermarks in existence. I saw one about 9 months ago that could be identified as dodgy because the truncation was straight but the rest looked ok. Presumably the weight and edge are ok? The countermarks are not really my area though I have a few examples of contemporary counterfeit 8 reales with or without. However there's a great article on the countermarked series by H.E. Manville in BNJ vol. 70, 2000 pp.103-117+plates which can be downloaded here

In this case the lettering on reverse is much to large and the 'silver' has a yellowish tone. Weight is 4.8 gr. (genuine shillings are 5.3 gr.)

Another year has passed and I've just finished sorting all the counterfeit 1816-20 shillings which I've bought within the last half year or so. The result on the basis of 405+ counterfeit shillings is 133 different obverses and 143 reverses. However the numbers especially of the reverses may be reduced when I get the time for a more throughout study. Best counterfeit shilling in 2012

Haven't had much time for coin study for a while. I was about to start dividing the halfcrowns into groups like the shillings, which should be fairly easy since the number of halfcrowns variations are much lower than the shillings. However taking a look on the first bust halfcrown its interesting to note that the shield on reverse are of nearly same size as on the shillings due to the room taken up by the collar and badge of the order of the Garter which surrounds the garter itself on the first halfcrown reverse designed by Wyon. So with a design of nearly same size there's a change that a counterfeiter would use the same punches for both shillings and halfcrowns where possible. Of the 1st bust counterfeits; only three obverse and two reverses are known to me and these clearly come from the same engraver. As it turns out the engraver being the same as for the Group A shilling counterfeits. Perhaps it will also be possible to link the 2nd bust halfcrowns + sixpence and perhaps even some of the bank token counterfeits directly to the various groups of counterfeit shilling and thereby getting a more complete picture of the operation. However before doing that - I fell I need to complete a more throughout study of the shillings by going through all the punches used for each known die within the various groups. Hopefully that will outline the groups in a more definitive way and perhaps even reveal the sequence of the various counterfeits which will be all-important in dating them more precisely. ...and it will only take a few years

1792 countermarked dollar 1763 Northumberland shilling 1763 Northumberland shilling II 1864 florin 1893 sixpence

He hasn't learned yet...Link

forgery? Coohhh, I should say! Will leave it to the expert though! Yes - its in my watchlist as I don't have this variation. I did inform him about it being counterfeit and got this lengthy reply: "This original" And he has now added "100% Genuine & guarantee - COINS - sorry this coin not silver" to his description...

It turns out that the medalet is connected with the Columbia 'farthing' tokens. The lettering on the Columbia tokens are slightly larger than on the medalet+shilling counterfeit, so the engraver of the Columbia tokens can't be proven the same person as the one who engraved the medalet. - Will have to check the other counterfeit shillings though. But with only O, B and I to compare any evidence will be extremely thin...

Here's another one

Don't think you will find it in Dalton & Hamer. As far I can see its an advertising token made by punch marking a regal penny. Here's two similar sold on ebay: 1 2 I'm a bit suprised by the low prices - seems like an interesting collecting area and a cheap one as well

I guess this would be another example of how a web resource cataloguing as many of the dies as possible would be useful. Because finding a matching obverse die with a '62 reverse would provide the answer, and maybe this is the next natural line of enquiry. I think the use of drawings have their place, and for the most part are excellent in BCW, though I still think a quality photographic equivilent would be better. Just imagine a resource where you could find say 5 different rose 9's in varying grades and states of break-up! And then with another click, pop up 5 rose 5's to view alongside! And re the orientation, they are not consistent, though I will know a great deal more when I start poking around with the dies. I've been playing with the shillings up until now, so no roses involved. A matching obverse won't be needed - I was mainly thinking about the letter punches as it would be unlikely that only the rose punch were changed during the period.

The 62 and 64 roses are certainly identical - What about the other punches? It is possible to rule out an old obverse being used at a later date and confirm that the die were cut in 64? When it comes to comparing punches I distrust drawings so I guess one will not be able to conclude anything untill a #9 shows up. BTW are the rose punches normaly in the same position or turned randomly?

Just found that one of the tokens I were listing on ebay has clear lathe lines on both sides. The lines originates from the production of the blank die and would normally have been removed when polishing the die before coining. But in a few cases that did not happen or wasn't done properly. I also have one example of a contemporary counterfeit with lathe lines on reverse: Have any of you noticed lathe lines on other British coins? Also it seems that similar lines could be left by the pantograph reducing machine used from the late 19th Ct and I was wondering if these would look different from the lathe lines? Interesting thread on the subject on Cointalk

Think the problem of the portrait is solved. Its from one of the (official?) coronation medals - Portrait signed H (Thomas Halliday).

Same die pair as mine. Would have been nice if the engraver was known - but I didn't expected it.