seuk

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.

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?

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.

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)

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!)

Thanks I never imagined that it was possible to avoid the selling limits just by making another user id (I must learn never to use logic in relation to ebay ) Now I've listed the first coin...and if I'm lucky perhaps in a years time I'll be alowed to open a ebayshop. Trees don't grow to the sky...

You expect more action from America? You may be right. Prices are normally better on ebay.uk - however it also appears on ebay.uk (at $0.10 extra cost) - I'm simply stuck with Canadian ebay. If I try to list on an European ebay site they want me to register as a professional seller since I've sold more than a certain amount - so much for private property I would much prefer to list on ebay.uk as I would be able to sell my duplicate contemporary counterfeits for what they are - Now I have to call them all kinds of silly things like non-regal or tokens. Which means that they have become more difficult to sell

If anyone is interested in the variation I've listed it on ebay: http://www.ebay.ca/itm/110914944708?ssPageName=STRK:MESELX:IT&_trksid=p3984.m1558.l2649

Perhaps one should start checking wikipedia when listing coins - he could have included Hitler in the description since Eva Braun was born 6th february... This guy is putting some more effort into it: http://www.ebay.com/itm/1830s-Mexican-real-Sonora-Hermosillo-forgery-unstruck-coin-and-artifacts-/190703135688?pt=US_World_Coins&hash=item2c66caebc8

After looking at it closely and comparing it with others, it appears like the "N" in SKILLING is weird, when compared to the others on eBay and the design on the reverse of the stars (or flowers?) on either side of the 1 looks interesting. So perhaps it is a rare die variety? I really don't know, I don't know the first thing about Danish coins and so I don't even know if they really have a thriving collector market for minor die varieties, but if so, then perhaps the N and the stars/flowers are the clue. Looks like you may be right = 1771 varieties CD must reexamine the several i have, David If you have any from the Norwegian Kongsberg mint they may be of some value! - The 1771 skilling exist in hundreds of variations and is a popular area for specialist collectors. Even our Chinese friends have made a copy The above coin is (likely) minted in Copenhagen round 1783 and is a common main type. However the rosettes are double and it may be a rare die pair - I know the collector who bought it and he sometimes pay quite high prices for such coins. I have an unfinished die study on my homepage which I'm working on from time to time: http://www.steppeulvene.com/index.1771_skilling.html - unfortunately in Danish.

and some comes with graffiti, chop marks etc... Two examples - 1st a WuZhu (probably Eastern Han 40-75 AD) marked Liu (six) on reverse. 2nd a small milled cash coin of Emperor De Zong 1906-08 with chop marks on reverse.

I don't know much about Chinese history but what was the purchasing power of a single coin? Surely it couldn't have been much since they were brass/bronze but were they an early form of representative money? Where you could cash them in and get X amount of silver or gold? Also, was there a point of the square hole in them or was it just decoration/counterfeit protection? I'm not 100% sure but as far I remember from reading - the coins in general were of low 'metal value' - often used in strings holding a 1000 coins. Roughly speaking the standard coin in China under the Western Han dynasty (206 BC - AD 9) were the BanLiang coin which were replaced by the WuZhu coin in 118 BC. However that changed under Wang Mang who perhaps were the first to issue fiat money in the form of round coins with value from 1 to 50 and spade coins worth 100 to 1000 plus knife coins of the value 500 and 5000 - The HuoQuan coins is a bit later issued after the failure of that system and it seems that it took the role of the old WuZhu coin as a new standard coin. Wang Mang were killed in AD 23 and the coinage system were likely in disarray. Later the WuZhu were reintroduced by the new Eastern Han dynasty but to some extent the HuoQuan continued to be minted and there's some very interesting examples of heavy HuoQuan coins weighting up to round 40 gr probably minted in this period, and double coins of even higher weight are also known. In 'my hoard' there's a 20 gr example but most are normal coins round 2-4 gr weight. Explanations of the square hole.

Just got this hoard of Chinese HuoQuan coins (of Wang Mang 9-23 AD and probably some time after) and am in the process of cleaning them using lemon juice

The only secure way to get a complete collection of anything is to produce it yourself...

I don't think its that bad. Its probably much like collecting Roman coins - You have to take your time to get the knowlegde of the coins and one can never be 100% sure but that's how the world is... This is an old list but still useful.

And a selection of various test marks found on George III period counterfeits. Cross marks are NOT common.

...a nice cross on the reverse of a Danish 1855 Rigsdaler (halfcrown sized silver coin)

Adjustment marks are different: http://www.vcoins.com/thalersofeurope/store/viewItem.asp?idProduct=96

I guess that's likely as an easy way to spot most counterfeit coins. However there's also the possibility that some marks were made for identification or accounting purpose.

Either there's some determined shilling going on (suspicious bidding pattern, yes?), or else someone desperately wants it for the date. But I agree, it's a weird one. You wouldn't raise that for a regular EF halfpenny of that series, so your guess is as good as mine. Richard is not a shiller, so we can put that to bed. Is it lost on you that the date does not exist and does not turn up among forgeries? The price is high because it is contemporary, rare and in good condition for a series that is regularly very poorly produced. No mystery just simple supply and demand. As you see John, that's what I said!! But on that basis, a unique date of a "To Hanover" gaming token or faked spade guinea, should command a similar value. All we're saying is that it's a weirdly high price - albeit a unique date - for what is, at the end of the day, a forgery. Though I collect George III counterfeits I know next to nothing about the copper series. However some of those were produced in America, and if that's the case the price will probably be much higher than an English counterfeit. Your latest was sent today with 5 shillings included

Is this hammered from dies (some of the letters look really sharp), or is this another cast? Its a hammered coin and for once a genuine one

And a Danish 2 skilling of Christian III. Minted in Ribe 1536 just after the civil war was ended and the reformation completed. Its slightly smaller than a contemporary British groat.

Nice Chinese HuoQuan 'cake' coin with remains of the casting sprue. Weights 12 gr. which is about four times a normal coin. These were probably produced at the end or after the fall of Wang Mang's regime 9-23 AD.

Either there's some determined shilling going on (suspicious bidding pattern, yes?), or else someone desperately wants it for the date. But I agree, it's a weird one. You wouldn't raise that for a regular EF halfpenny of that series, so your guess is as good as mine. Richard is not a shiller, so we can put that to bed. Is it lost on you that the date does not exist and does not turn up among forgeries? The price is high because it is contemporary, rare and in good condition for a series that is regularly very poorly produced. No mystery just simple supply and demand. As you see John, that's what I said!! But on that basis, a unique date of a "To Hanover" gaming token or faked spade guinea, should command a similar value. All we're saying is that it's a weirdly high price - albeit a unique date - for what is, at the end of the day, a forgery. Though I collect George III counterfeits I know next to nothing about the copper series. However some of those were produced in America, and if that's the case the price will probably be much higher than an English counterfeit.

Semirechie (Turkestan) Cash coin of ruler Wahshutawa, 8th century.