Possible counterfeit sovereign?

Keevan

I got a batch of A-22 air-tites in today and started putting some gold sovereigns inside, and I noticed that one of them (1911) would not fit into the direct-fit airtite (22mm), it would not lie flat in the circular indentation in the plastic holder. I got a few other comparable sovereigns and they fit fine in the same airtite that the 1911 wouldn't fit into.

I started thinking that the 1911 was possibly fake because all other sovereigns fit fine in the airtite holder.
I took some measurements as best I could and there's nothing that really sticks out in comparison with the others I measured.

Am I unnecessarily worried about a 110+ year old coin that didn't get struck with the exact right dimensions to make it fit into a plastic holder? Perhaps it's not perfectly circular or flat.
If the coin in question fit in the airtite fine, I would have no reason to consider it as possibly suspect since it passes all my tests (sigma, magnet, dimension weight, ping test, etc).

Year Diameter Thickness Grams Sigma Fits in A22 airtite?
1911 22.26mm 1.58mm 8.0 mid - 2 No, won't lie flat inside unless I force it in
1928 22.07mm 1.52mm 8.0 mid - 1 Yes

Pictures available at
https://imgur.com/a/dtvCG2z

7Jaguars

Hmm, wonder what an analytic scanner or preferably an XRF would say. The increased width or depth appears to come from more flare at the rim. The reeding looks a bit irregular. It seems odd that the coin is apparently larger also in diameter and yet the same weight.
As I understand it, the middle Easter counterfeits of 50 or so years ago were of correct weight but sometimes were of even greater than standard 22k fineness. I couldn't on my monitor make out device details of the King's bust or George et Draco. They usually look relatively mushy or wrong in detail.

Keevan

Yeah an XRF is on my list of things to get access to. Sigma says it's within the normal range of 91.7%

Some other people have said it could have been ex-jewelry in which case it got a bit deformed.

krueger

please explain your Sigma test. I presume its a probability test of some kind.

thanks

coinkat

So have you compared it to another 1911 Sovereign struck at the same mint?

Exbrit

I suspect it's a counterfeit. There are some very good and some not so good counterfeits - by your measurements - it's diameter and thickness are not correct. Known counterfeits of the 1950-60s from Italy and Syria. In the 1970s from Bierut. Not to mention China or recent counterfeits.

The British standards where consistent in 1911. What mint is it suppose to be from?

Keevan

This 1911 is supposedly the Sydney mint -- I don't have an equivalent one to compare against. Closest I had was a 1928 sov

Kliao

It's such a small difference that I wouldn't worry about it. I have a couple sovereigns that are ex-jewelry that are slightly wider like yours.

Weiss

I've had a few counterfeits pass through my hands. The main tell is the color, and then the presence of ANY irregularities in strike--especially fine details and denticles. If you see anything out of the ordinary, it's likely fake. Fortunately, even the fakes are typically good gold--or platinum!

@krueger , the Metalytics Sigma tester:

Exbrit

@Weiss said:
I've had a few counterfeits pass through my hands. The main tell is the color, and then the presence of ANY irregularities in strike--especially fine details and denticles. If you see anything out of the ordinary, it's likely fake. Fortunately, even the fakes are typically good gold--or platinum!

@krueger , the Metalytics Sigma tester:

I have a couple old counterfeit detectors, but that sigma verifier is pretty neat.

Kliao

@Weiss I don't have one of those machines but if that little bar is to the left of the brackets that means the coin is of higher purity than the selected purity. Please correct me if I'm wrong.

Weiss

@Kliao said:
@Weiss I don't have one of those machines but if that little bar is to the left of the brackets that means the coin is of higher purity than the selected purity. Please correct me if I'm wrong.

The manufacturers phrase it like this:

"The further the black cursor is outside of the brackets, the more likely it is that the sample is not made from the selected metal."

The Sigma won't tell you what something is made from. Rather, you adjust the Sigma to one of its pre-set settings, such as sterling silver, or pre-1940 US 90% silver, or in this case, 91.7% 22k gold. Then the Sigma will tell you if the object you're testing falls within a narrow range corresponding to that pre-set. Inside the brackets means high confidence you're inside that tight range. Immediately outside of the brackets means the object is outside of that tight range, or possibly too thin, too heavily engraved, or too hot/cold. Far outside of the brackets, or the dreaded "<-" or "->" (so far outside the brackets that the cursor has fallen off the edge of the globe), your object is fake, with a pretty high degree of confidence.

But if I recall correctly, sovereigns read dead center of the brackets for the 91.7% setting nearly every time. Seeing one outside of the brackets is unusual. That coupled with the pale gold color means the above example is almost certainly fake.

Exbrit

@Weiss said:

@Kliao said:
@Weiss I don't have one of those machines but if that little bar is to the left of the brackets that means the coin is of higher purity than the selected purity. Please correct me if I'm wrong.

The manufacturers phrase it like this:

"The further the black cursor is outside of the brackets, the more likely it is that the sample is not made from the selected metal."

But if I recall correctly, sovereigns read dead center of the brackets for the 91.7% setting nearly every time. Seeing one outside of the brackets is unusual. That coupled with the pale gold color means the above example is almost certainly fake.

Sovereigns are pretty tight on their tolerance range for weight and fineness, when minted.

Weiss

@Exbrit said:

Sovereigns are pretty tight on their tolerance range for weight and fineness, when minted.

Exactly. And design and execution. There is a reason for all that fine detail. It's my understanding that the British were sticklers for flawless dies and finished sovereigns. So when you see a weak element, perfectly described by those who know what to look for as "mushy", it should raise alarms. They didn't do "mushy", like ever.

Exbrit

@Keevan said:
This 1911 is supposedly the Sydney mint -- I don't have an equivalent one to compare against. Closest I had was a 1928 sov

The 1911 S sovereigns that I have measured all conform to the mandated standards and are not oversized.
What exactly does it weigh?

Keevan

@Exbrit said:

@Keevan said:
This 1911 is supposedly the Sydney mint -- I don't have an equivalent one to compare against. Closest I had was a 1928 sov

The 1911 S sovereigns that I have measured all conform to the mandated standards and are not oversized.
What exactly does it weigh?

Pics available at
https://imgur.com/a/dtvCG2z

8.0 grams according to scale

Exbrit

@Keevan said:

@Exbrit said:

@Keevan said:
This 1911 is supposedly the Sydney mint -- I don't have an equivalent one to compare against. Closest I had was a 1928 sov

The 1911 S sovereigns that I have measured all conform to the mandated standards and are not oversized.
What exactly does it weigh?

Pics available at
https://imgur.com/a/dtvCG2z

8.0 grams according to scale

Would need to see it in hand to compare.
This is timely because I'm preparing a presentation on sovereigns and am looking for my tolerance ranges that I have misplaced.
Without my specs - I know that the weight is within the acceptable range. The diameter and thickness is another matter and I believe both may be outside the acceptable range - but I cannot be 100% sure without my specs. I don't believe it is an error and I cannot comment if it was damaged somehow.
The bottom line is that it still is worth it's spot gold content.

7Jaguars

Like Exbrit, I have seen a sov or two and they are not always so pristine. Some of the dies were used well past their probably useful life. Examples would be the earlier 1859 Ansell (speaking of which, there were alloy issues with this year and coin much of which has been written about) type and the 1874 London mint Shield type, not to mention other even earlier dates such as the 1839 currency and 1841. At the RM, they just were not always as fastidious as people have claimed.

On second viewing, the denticles, which are rather boxlike on sovereigns look alright on the 1911 - the diameter does not bother be as the milling on the 1928 looks not well impressed or possibly worn - this might greatly affect diameter in the tenths and hundredths of a millimeter; also on a couple of your edge shots the thicknesses appear very similar.

The device details look alright, but again this is a coin I must beg off on and IMO best seen in hand.

Keevan

@7Jaguars said:
Like Exbrit, I have seen a sov or two and they are not always so pristine. Some of the dies were used well past their probably useful life. Examples would be the earlier 1859 Ansell (speaking of which, there were alloy issues with this year and coin much of which has been written about) type and the 1874 London mint Shield type, not to mention other even earlier dates such as the 1839 currency and 1841. At the RM, they just were not always as fastidious as people have claimed.

On second viewing, the denticles, which are rather boxlike on sovereigns look alright on the 1911 - the diameter does not bother be as the milling on the 1928 looks not well impressed or possibly worn - this might greatly affect diameter in the tenths and hundredths of a millimeter; also on a couple of your edge shots the thicknesses appear very similar.

The device details look alright, but again this is a coin I must beg off on and IMO best seen in hand.

Well said. The only marks against the 1911 sov in my uneducated opinion are
1. Doesn't fit into airtite properly (other sov does fine)
2. On some portion of the edge, it looks larger than the comparable 1928 sovereign

Things in favor of it are:
1. Details on reverse, obverse look ok
2. Weight is ok
3. Sigma says it's within the range of 91.67% gold
4. Measurements aren't too off despite pictures