Fakes and what to do with them

[azda 979]

I'm just curious what the individual person would do, or will do if they purchased a fake coin, whether it be flea bay, an auction house or picked up at a car booty etc, will you throw it out, keep it, what will you do with one, especially if you paid a handsome price for it. I believe honesty is needed here.

A friend of mine sent me a Geo III HALFCROWN, a fake, i don't know what he wanted me to do with it, as we both determined it was crap, so basically i threw it in the bin when it came and i had taken a look at it, again it was just complete junk.

[Gary D 76]

I'm just curious what the individual person would do, or will do if they purchased a fake coin, whether it be flea bay, an auction house or picked up at a car booty etc, will you throw it out, keep it, what will you do with one, especially if you paid a handsome price for it. I believe honesty is needed here.

A friend of mine sent me a Geo III HALFCROWN, a fake, i don't know what he wanted me to do with it, as we both determined it was crap, so basically i threw it in the bin when it came and i had taken a look at it, again it was just complete junk.

A good fake can be worth some money. EF+ 1905 halfcrowns go for anything up to £250 at auction as identified fakes, mind you they go for much more on ebay, there's one on there now. I guess the problem with modern chinese fakes is there's just too many of them to be worth anymore than bullion, assuming there's any silver etc in them. Perhaps in twenty or thirty years even they will start to appreciate.

Gary

[£400 for a Penny ? 0]

Do you remember my first post when you joined ?

Why do you ask ?

[azda 979]

400, that was some time ago, my apologies, but i have forgotten.Alzheimers possibly :-)I am just curious what other people would do with them, personally, if it's junk i will bin them, dependant on where its came from, it it was from ebay, then i'd ask for my money back, then leave a negative feedback stating it was a fake, if like i have said, it was from a friend, then i'd throw it in the bin, simples......I don't have any personally, or at least i hope i don't, i tend to buy from dealers and the odd numpty now and again who thinks their coin is a UNC when clearly it isn't

Edited April 19, 2010 by azda

[Red Riley 2]

Contemporary forgeries have some historical significance and although not hugely valuable, should never be binned.

[1949threepence 3,367]

I think the first thing I would do is contact the seller, explaining that the coin was not as advertised, and asking for my money back in return for the fake.

If the seller failed to reciprocate in a reasonable manner, then assuming it was e bay, I'd raise a complaint with them, maybe through paypal.

This is why it's always a good idea to pay via credit card. Then you can start dispute procedures and you haven't actually parted with any money yet.

[scott 144]

depends, i dont mind them if they are of the period and marked up as so.

[Farmer Palmer 0]

I'm just curious what the individual person would do, or will do if they purchased a fake coin, whether it be flea bay, an auction house or picked up at a car booty etc, will you throw it out, keep it, what will you do with one, especially if you paid a handsome price for it. I believe honesty is needed here.

A friend of mine sent me a Geo III HALFCROWN, a fake, i don't know what he wanted me to do with it, as we both determined it was crap, so basically i threw it in the bin when it came and i had taken a look at it, again it was just complete junk.

Its a good question and one i suspect that begs a question , how many would flip the coin on ebay if as mentioned a handsome figure had been put out on it.

Its for sure a lot of seasoned ebayers have multiple id's , i think a lot more than would admit would get it on ebay pdq.Im speaking in terms of the modern chinese fakes only.Most of the contemporary fakes are pretty well known and avoidable.

[1949threepence 3,367]

depends, i dont mind them if they are of the period and marked up as so.

Oh sure. As long as we know precisely what is offered for sale. If that is a "contemporary" fake, then no problem.

It's the modern fakes offered for sale as the genuine article, that seriously worry me.

[£400 for a Penny ? 0]

It's the modern fakes offered for sale as the genuine article, that seriously worry me.

Yes, it should be of grave concern to everyone and technological advances are only going to result in better fakes, it's not something which is going to go away.

Dare I say it, it's another compelling reason to use third party grading services, as they guarantee the market price for anything that goes into one of their slabs if it subsequently turns out to be a fake.

[Red Riley 2]

Dare I say it, it's another compelling reason to use third party grading services, as they guarantee the market price for anything that goes into one of their slabs if it subsequently turns out to be a fake.

Yes, I appreciate that forgeries are a real issue for all of us, but speaking personally I think that if third party grading services remove some of the risk, they nonetheless effectively sterilise the hobby. Coins are very tactile things, after all that's what they were designed for and I would much rather run the risk of picking a duff'un or putting a fingerprint across a BU 1926 ME than be reduced to the custodian of a number of anodine chunks of plastic containing things that were once genuine coins. Has the much greater problem of forged artwork persuaded the likes of Christies to encapsulate genuine Monets or Modiglianis in polyethylene or whatever to prevent forgery?

Of course we must do all we can to root out these malicious fakes, but it must not be at the expense of turning our great hobby into a branch of the financial establishment with prices quoted in the Financial Times. I for one don't want to hear Robert Peston saying things like, 'Prices of coins slumped today on Wall Street as a report by Standard and Poore's slated the market as being overvalued...'. There are enough boring things out there that people call 'investments' without adding to the whole tedious list.

My coin collection is there for my own personal pleasure and for that of anybody else of a like mind. It is not an investment, it exists to satisfy my craving for something which is at one time relatively complete and of genuine historic value. I dare say that there is the odd coin in my collection which isn't all it might seem but hey, c'est la vie.

If third party grading services are the answer, then perhaps we asked the wrong question.

[Farmer Palmer 0]

Valid points RR , however for some , by no means all..but some collectors look on a collection as an investment.One really cant avoid doing so if the collection becomes considerable.Even more so perhaps when the bulk is Silver and Gold.

There have been a lot of hushed up reports about Gold being faked too , apparantly has been for some time.I think most people believe nothing is as heavy or as dense as gold , not even lead.

The reports i read were that Tungston fits the bill perfectly and with a quick electroplating , looks and feels like gold.

As you say , its a sad day if or when all coins will be encapsulated , i believe the top grading house slabs are already being faked long ago and it takes a knowledgable expert to spot the fake slab/authenticity.One would therefore imagine slabbing is not the answer.I dont know what is , but i firmly believe knowledge is our best defence in the meantime.

[DaveG38 405]

Valid points RR , however for some , by no means all..but some collectors look on a collection as an investment.One really cant avoid doing so if the collection becomes considerable.Even more so perhaps when the bulk is Silver and Gold.

There have been a lot of hushed up reports about Gold being faked too , apparantly has been for some time.I think most people believe nothing is as heavy or as dense as gold , not even lead.

The reports i read were that Tungston fits the bill perfectly and with a quick electroplating , looks and feels like gold.

As you say , its a sad day if or when all coins will be encapsulated , i believe the top grading house slabs are already being faked long ago and it takes a knowledgeable expert to spot the fake slab/authenticity.One would therefore imagine slabbing is not the answer.I dont know what is , but i firmly believe knowledge is our best defence in the meantime.

I was caught out by a couple of fake sovereigns a year or so ago. They weren't particularly well forged and the seller refunded promptly enough, so no problem. However, they were obtained by the seller from the middle east, via, so they claimed, a relative. They were the correct weight and size and as stated had to have been made by plating another metal rather than being made from 22 ct gold. The clue to them came from them being mildly radioactive!! What were they made of - almost certainly depleted uranium left over from exploded munitions from the Gulf war in Kuwait. Uranium is the densest of all metals so its easy to see why it was chosen. The moral of this story? Buy a geiger counter!! A must have for all coin collectors.

[choolie 0]

LOL

[1949threepence 3,367]

Valid points RR , however for some , by no means all..but some collectors look on a collection as an investment.One really cant avoid doing so if the collection becomes considerable.Even more so perhaps when the bulk is Silver and Gold.

There have been a lot of hushed up reports about Gold being faked too , apparantly has been for some time.I think most people believe nothing is as heavy or as dense as gold , not even lead.

The reports i read were that Tungston fits the bill perfectly and with a quick electroplating , looks and feels like gold.

As you say , its a sad day if or when all coins will be encapsulated , i believe the top grading house slabs are already being faked long ago and it takes a knowledgeable expert to spot the fake slab/authenticity.One would therefore imagine slabbing is not the answer.I dont know what is , but i firmly believe knowledge is our best defence in the meantime.

I was caught out by a couple of fake sovereigns a year or so ago. They weren't particularly well forged and the seller refunded promptly enough, so no problem. However, they were obtained by the seller from the middle east, via, so they claimed, a relative. They were the correct weight and size and as stated had to have been made by plating another metal rather than being made from 22 ct gold. The clue to them came from them being mildly radioactive!! What were they made of - almost certainly depleted uranium left over from exploded munitions from the Gulf war in Kuwait. Uranium is the densest of all metals so its easy to see why it was chosen. The moral of this story? Buy a geiger counter!! A must have for all coin collectors.

I must admit, I thought osmium was the densest (and heaviest) of the metals. But yu may be right, it's just an observation

and it certainly doesn't detract from your very interesting point

[Peckris 579]

Dare I say it, it's another compelling reason to use third party grading services, as they guarantee the market price for anything that goes into one of their slabs if it subsequently turns out to be a fake.

Yes, I appreciate that forgeries are a real issue for all of us, but speaking personally I think that if third party grading services remove some of the risk, they nonetheless effectively sterilise the hobby. Coins are very tactile things, after all that's what they were designed for and I would much rather run the risk of picking a duff'un or putting a fingerprint across a BU 1926 ME than be reduced to the custodian of a number of anodine chunks of plastic containing things that were once genuine coins. Has the much greater problem of forged artwork persuaded the likes of Christies to encapsulate genuine Monets or Modiglianis in polyethylene or whatever to prevent forgery?

Of course we must do all we can to root out these malicious fakes, but it must not be at the expense of turning our great hobby into a branch of the financial establishment with prices quoted in the Financial Times. I for one don't want to hear Robert Peston saying things like, 'Prices of coins slumped today on Wall Street as a report by Standard and Poore's slated the market as being overvalued...'. There are enough boring things out there that people call 'investments' without adding to the whole tedious list.

My coin collection is there for my own personal pleasure and for that of anybody else of a like mind. It is not an investment, it exists to satisfy my craving for something which is at one time relatively complete and of genuine historic value. I dare say that there is the odd coin in my collection which isn't all it might seem but hey, c'est la vie.

If third party grading services are the answer, then perhaps we asked the wrong question.

Hear hear. Well said.

[davidrj 194]

I must admit, I thought osmium was the densest (and heaviest) of the metals. But yu may be right, it's just an observation

and it certainly doesn't detract from your very interesting point

according to Tony Clayton's site metals used for coins there is a German medal in Uranium, Osmium much too hard & brittle

[DaveG38 405]

Valid points RR , however for some , by no means all..but some collectors look on a collection as an investment.One really cant avoid doing so if the collection becomes considerable.Even more so perhaps when the bulk is Silver and Gold.

There have been a lot of hushed up reports about Gold being faked too , apparantly has been for some time.I think most people believe nothing is as heavy or as dense as gold , not even lead.

The reports i read were that Tungston fits the bill perfectly and with a quick electroplating , looks and feels like gold.

As you say , its a sad day if or when all coins will be encapsulated , i believe the top grading house slabs are already being faked long ago and it takes a knowledgeable expert to spot the fake slab/authenticity.One would therefore imagine slabbing is not the answer.I dont know what is , but i firmly believe knowledge is our best defence in the meantime.

I was caught out by a couple of fake sovereigns a year or so ago. They weren't particularly well forged and the seller refunded promptly enough, so no problem. However, they were obtained by the seller from the middle east, via, so they claimed, a relative. They were the correct weight and size and as stated had to have been made by plating another metal rather than being made from 22 ct gold. The clue to them came from them being mildly radioactive!! What were they made of - almost certainly depleted uranium left over from exploded munitions from the Gulf war in Kuwait. Uranium is the densest of all metals so its easy to see why it was chosen. The moral of this story? Buy a geiger counter!! A must have for all coin collectors.

I must admit, I thought osmium was the densest (and heaviest) of the metals. But yu may be right, it's just an observation

and it certainly doesn't detract from your very interesting point

You are right that Osmium is somewhat denser than uranium, as are Platinum and Iridium. However, these are all rare metals and would hardly be used for counterfeiting gold. Uranium, on the other hand is quite close to gold in density, so that size/weight of a counterfeit can be got right without it being obvious. The other great advantage is that there is loads of it about. Basically, depleted uranium is a waste product from uranium enrichment and has virtually no other use than to make tank-busting shell casings - hence the reason why there are loads of fragments of this stuff all over parts of the middle east.

[1949threepence 3,367]

I must admit, I thought osmium was the densest (and heaviest) of the metals. But yu may be right, it's just an observation

and it certainly doesn't detract from your very interesting point

You are right that Osmium is somewhat denser than uranium, as are Platinum and Iridium. However, these are all rare metals and would hardly be used for counterfeiting gold. Uranium, on the other hand is quite close to gold in density, so that size/weight of a counterfeit can be got right without it being obvious. The other great advantage is that there is loads of it about. Basically, depleted uranium is a waste product from uranium enrichment and has virtually no other use than to make tank-busting shell casings - hence the reason why there are loads of fragments of this stuff all over parts of the middle east.

Thanks Dave. It makes you wonder if there might even be a health risk from such fakes, consisting as they do, of depleted uranium. Although it does look as though such risks would be extremely slight.

link

[Leviathan 0]

Just don't walk around with them in your pocket

[DaveG38 405]

I must admit, I thought osmium was the densest (and heaviest) of the metals. But yu may be right, it's just an observation

and it certainly doesn't detract from your very interesting point

You are right that Osmium is somewhat denser than uranium, as are Platinum and Iridium. However, these are all rare metals and would hardly be used for counterfeiting gold. Uranium, on the other hand is quite close to gold in density, so that size/weight of a counterfeit can be got right without it being obvious. The other great advantage is that there is loads of it about. Basically, depleted uranium is a waste product from uranium enrichment and has virtually no other use than to make tank-busting shell casings - hence the reason why there are loads of fragments of this stuff all over parts of the middle east.

Thanks Dave. It makes you wonder if there might even be a health risk from such fakes, consisting as they do, of depleted uranium. Although it does look as though such risks would be extremely slight.

link

The uranium used for shells is depleted from processing and thus has a lower radiation level than normal uranium, so its technically less radioactively hazardous. Close to the action, the danger posed by depleted uranium is from breathing in the dust from an explosion i.e. when a shell explodes against a tank. Then the uranium gets into the body and stays there!! Nasty.

Ordinary uranium is not especially dangerous - I've got some as uranium nitrate and acetate at home left over from my student chemistry days - and its perfectly safe in a glass tube. In the pockets? Well that's another matter, but I don't usually carry sovereigns or other gold coinage about my person, so I'm not too worried.

[Peckris 579]

The uranium used for shells is depleted from processing and thus has a lower radiation level than normal uranium, so its technically less radioactively hazardous. Close to the action, the danger posed by depleted uranium is from breathing in the dust from an explosion i.e. when a shell explodes against a tank. Then the uranium gets into the body and stays there!! Nasty.

Ordinary uranium is not especially dangerous - I've got some as uranium nitrate and acetate at home left over from my student chemistry days - and its perfectly safe in a glass tube. In the pockets? Well that's another matter, but I don't usually carry sovereigns or other gold coinage about my person, so I'm not too worried.

Talking about shells, has anyone heard the rumour that WWI shell cases were melted down and added to the alloy for bronze coins? I only ever heard about this once, in a Whitman folder of key date pennies I picked up at auction. Among the 'usual suspects', there was a 1920 and 1921 with what looks like brass flecks scattered through the planchet. The previous owner had added a note that this was due to "WWI shell cases". I've still got them and I guess if there is interest I could scan and upload pictures.

Edited April 24, 2010 by Peckris

[1949threepence 3,367]

The uranium used for shells is depleted from processing and thus has a lower radiation level than normal uranium, so its technically less radioactively hazardous. Close to the action, the danger posed by depleted uranium is from breathing in the dust from an explosion i.e. when a shell explodes against a tank. Then the uranium gets into the body and stays there!! Nasty.

Ordinary uranium is not especially dangerous - I've got some as uranium nitrate and acetate at home left over from my student chemistry days - and its perfectly safe in a glass tube. In the pockets? Well that's another matter, but I don't usually carry sovereigns or other gold coinage about my person, so I'm not too worried.

Talking about shells, has anyone heard the rumour that WWI shell cases were melted down and added to the alloy for bronze coins? I only ever heard about this once, in a Whitman folder of key date pennies I picked up at auction. Among the 'usual suspects', there was a 1920 and 1921 with what looks like brass flecks scattered through the planchet. The previous owner had added a note that this was due to "WWI shell cases". I've still got them and I guess if there is interest I could scan and upload pictures.

When I was in the midst of assembling my shilling collection, I read somewhere that the 1920 shilling was 50% spent shell casing. I thought I remembered where I read it, but when I looked it wasn't there. So it must have been somewhere else.

At any rate, the assertion, wherever it is, was totally believable to me, as my UNC 1920 shilling is definitely slightly darker than its peers of that era.

Edited April 25, 2010 by 1949threepence

[1949threepence 3,367]

The uranium used for shells is depleted from processing and thus has a lower radiation level than normal uranium, so its technically less radioactively hazardous. Close to the action, the danger posed by depleted uranium is from breathing in the dust from an explosion i.e. when a shell explodes against a tank. Then the uranium gets into the body and stays there!! Nasty.

Ordinary uranium is not especially dangerous - I've got some as uranium nitrate and acetate at home left over from my student chemistry days - and its perfectly safe in a glass tube. In the pockets? Well that's another matter, but I don't usually carry sovereigns or other gold coinage about my person, so I'm not too worried.

Talking about shells, has anyone heard the rumour that WWI shell cases were melted down and added to the alloy for bronze coins? I only ever heard about this once, in a Whitman folder of key date pennies I picked up at auction. Among the 'usual suspects', there was a 1920 and 1921 with what looks like brass flecks scattered through the planchet. The previous owner had added a note that this was due to "WWI shell cases". I've still got them and I guess if there is interest I could scan and upload pictures.

When I was in the midst of assembling my shilling collection, I read somewhere that the 1920 shilling was 50% spent shell casing. I thought I remembered where I read it, but when I looked it wasn't there. So it must have been somewhere else.

At any rate, the assertion, wherever it is, was totally believable to me, as my UNC 1920 shilling is definitely slightly darker than its peers of that era.

Got it ~ click here

Scroll down to 1921

About uncirculated from my personal collection. Will be shipped in an Airtite. This has the same alloy as the 1920. Interestingly, the nickel used was from spent shell casings. This alloy was changed in 1922, so coins dated 1923 onward looked more attractive.

Not that some bod on the internet is necessarily going to know more than you or I, but it does confirm the belief. Would have been useful if he'd given a source.

[DaveG38 405]

The uranium used for shells is depleted from processing and thus has a lower radiation level than normal uranium, so its technically less radioactively hazardous. Close to the action, the danger posed by depleted uranium is from breathing in the dust from an explosion i.e. when a shell explodes against a tank. Then the uranium gets into the body and stays there!! Nasty.

Ordinary uranium is not especially dangerous - I've got some as uranium nitrate and acetate at home left over from my student chemistry days - and its perfectly safe in a glass tube. In the pockets? Well that's another matter, but I don't usually carry sovereigns or other gold coinage about my person, so I'm not too worried.

Talking about shells, has anyone heard the rumour that WWI shell cases were melted down and added to the alloy for bronze coins? I only ever heard about this once, in a Whitman folder of key date pennies I picked up at auction. Among the 'usual suspects', there was a 1920 and 1921 with what looks like brass flecks scattered through the planchet. The previous owner had added a note that this was due to "WWI shell cases". I've still got them and I guess if there is interest I could scan and upload pictures.

When I was in the midst of assembling my shilling collection, I read somewhere that the 1920 shilling was 50% spent shell casing. I thought I remembered where I read it, but when I looked it wasn't there. So it must have been somewhere else.

At any rate, the assertion, wherever it is, was totally believable to me, as my UNC 1920 shilling is definitely slightly darker than its peers of that era.

Got it ~ click here

Scroll down to 1921

About uncirculated from my personal collection. Will be shipped in an Airtite. This has the same alloy as the 1920. Interestingly, the nickel used was from spent shell casings. This alloy was changed in 1922, so coins dated 1923 onward looked more attractive.

Not that some bod on the internet is necessarily going to know more than you or I, but it does confirm the belief. Would have been useful if he'd given a source.

Its certainly true that the silver content changed in 1920 from 92.5% silver to an alloy containing 50% silver, 40%copper and 10% nickel. This latter alloy is described by Davies as being from old shell casings - if this is correct then the casings were not technically brass as this is an alloy of copper and zinc, not copper and nickel. Davies also comments that an alloy containing 45% copper and 5% Manganese was used, but in 1923 the content was again changed this time to 50/50 silver/copper.

So far as the coins go, these changes show in the overall colour of the final finish, which is grey and relatively dull for the earlier alloys and brighter for the post 1923.