Testoon and Phillip&Mary shillings - fake or real?

[Doctor]

Hi everyone.

Both shillings are belong to the same ebay seller and both looks a bit suspicious. Your opinions are highly appreciated.

[Nick1697]

I have been watching those, and wondering the same thing.

[Coinery]

I don't feel happy about the testoon. Take a look at the lettering, FRA especially! Would love to get a close-up view inside that split, to determine whether it's a hammered split, rather than a cast one.

[Coinery]

Nothing leaps out with the shilling, but I'm unfamiliar with the shield details on this series and would want to check that out if I was buying.

Also, I'd definitely be checking it for weight and silver content if it was me.

[Rob]

I would have my doubts about the Testoon. My main concerns are the stops, which seem too bulky and the obverse has what appears to be a crack. The fact it is not fully formed and effectively filled in makes me suspicious.

FWIW, I've only got a grotty pellet in annulet testoon, but the stops are much clearer, and even if worn down would not have the same size footprint.

Not looked at the P&M yet. Do that later.

[Rob]

Shilling doesn't look very good either with reference to the jewels on the crown cushion and Mary's necklace.

Edited November 25, 2015 by Rob

[Doctor]

Thanks, Rob and Coinery! Think I will not bid for these coins

[Nick1697]

Thank you both for the warning.

[Coinery]

Shilling doesn't look very good either with reference to the jewels on the crown cushion and Mary's necklace.

Goodness, this one looks more suspect than the OP coin? Apart from the general 'look' of it, the pinholes on the reverse 4 o'clock lions and lettering, the poorly formed II of XII. I've only taken a cursory look at the image in Spink, but the OP jewels seem correct, when comparing to that crown cushion?

I know you're now going to tell me your coin has provenance going back 200 years, and it's been in the hands of endless collectors...

[Coinery]

The rusty dies are a plus, though!

[TomGoodheart]

Personally, I don't see anything that really shouts fake at me.

However, assuming they even are genuine, neither is a particularly nice example. I think you'd tire of them and want to upgrade eventually. I know I've regretted some of my lower grade purchases, even when the coin in question has been quite rare.

Sadly, it's sometimes necessary to go beyond our normal budget to buy better examples. And if you can get the reassurance of buying from a reputable dealer or established provenance for such coins, all the better.


.

[copper123]

yer, they look ok to me in fact they are ok specimins IMO .(both coins are only found in low grades)

Would have to have them in hand to be sure of course

[Rob]

I think the basic problem is the number of dies that were made. Unless you have a definitive study of the coinage, then there will always be differences which you have to try an differentiate between kosher and suspect. The shilling jewels just looked too bulky for my liking. This however, may be a timing difference because the Spink plate and OP coins are 1554, whereas the one I posted is 1555. Also, copies tend not to embellish detail. The P&M was from DNW 10 or 12 years ago but I don't have anything before that. The surfaces weren't very nice in any case - it had clearly been dug. I don't have this any more as I couldn't live with the scratch etc. The weight was ok.

The testoon was ex Noble sale 1973 and one of Ras' lists.

As you said, ideally you need them in hand.