GB 1/2 Sov - authentic?

Walter

I have this half sov here, came back 'Questionable Authenticity', looking for some GB experts to confirm.

It's the correct weight and is certainly gold, but the strike is very weak for a London mint strike. It's a common coin and its gold so the only motive would be a jeweler's copy but seems to have minor bag marks and light scuffs which would seem to contradict this.

The main unusual thing is the reverse rim, not sure about the London mint but this is the rim of the Melbourne mint:

and the Perth mint


What are your thoughts?

MacCrimmon

Here's an 1894 London.

7Jaguars

Looks bad to me. I can not accept the details esp on the reverse device nor the edge.

Walter

Hmm, strike is too shallow, guess it's a Jeweler's copy then.

TokenTinker

There's a similar extrusion or fill at center top at the edge of the rim on both obverse and reverse. There are other similar aberrations along the edge of the rim and notably one transecting the upper limb seraph of the "E" in "REX" all the way to the "X". These would speak to a scratched die or mold, the apparent depth suggesting material softer than steel was used for the dies or mold halves. I'm prone to think this was either cast or that the dies were cast inferiorly. Perhaps this was a test "strike" by a counterfeiter using pure or reasonably pure gold and that there are other examples out there with the same aberrations of inferior alloys. If I were a counterfeiter I'd make my first gulls all the right weight and content to see if they fly by the taker's eye.

MacCrimmon

British sovereign counterfeiting

lordmarcovan

Here's a 1901 half-sov from London.




I can sorta see some of the stuff TokenTinker pointed out, but only because they were pointed out to me. The flat strike would have been my only clue that something was amiss, but the greyish looking stuff along St. George's sword hand and the back of his leg and the horse's foreleg caught my eye. What is that? Looks like the horse has a dab of it on his chin as well.

I must admit, there's about a 90-95% chance this one would have fooled me had I been offered it, raw in hand.

Walter

Thanks for the link, I've encountered a number of these counterfeit sovereigns, sometimes they're more obvious with mis-matched bust/date combination, etc, I wasn't aware that they made half sovs. This one weighs 4.0g +/- 0.05g

With a half sovereign weight of 3.993g ignoring weight lost to wear and assuming it's alloyed with copper or something with a similar atomic mass, it's purity will be between 0.9068 and 0.9298, unfortunately I don't have a better scale to increase the accuracy there .

Oh well, it cost me bullion, nothing lost, a lesson learned.

lordmarcovan

Well, at least it's good gold.

CaptHenway

FWIW, I find that half sovereigns are generally not struck as well as sovereigns.
I would not say one way or other without seeing the piece in person, but I am inclined to say that it is genuine.
TD

7Jaguars

Actually half sovereigns are my specialty, although I have concentrated on London Mint and mainly young head. However, this has (does not have) qualities that I would accept as genuine when it comes to strike and edge detail. Handling, jewelers, etc. may alter post strike characteristics but this has problems not just with the soft strike, but also the device details and the edge is simply not acceptable.

TokenTinker

Though if they're from the Syrian mint...

SYRACUSIAN

<< <i>Here's a 1901 half-sov from London.




>>





A Terner pedigree I presume?