George III Half Crown - Chinese Fakes

[seuk 85]

Assuming this is a fake, I'd like to see Seuk identify the dies!!!

And that's leaving aside the wrong denomination attribution.

http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/GEORGE-III-DOLLAR-lot-9-/271022283218?pt=UK_Coins_BritishMilled_RL&hash=item3f1a2fd9d2

I like the idea that a bit of TLC would help improve it. The last rites and a vicar might be more appropriate.

I might have been able to ...but this must be a Spanish king George III and I have enough trouble with his Hanoverian namesake

But perhaps you can tell me if this beauty once looked like a Charles II halfcrown - which is my best guess at the moment...

[genova 0]

In attachment a fake from an italian auction!

[Peckris 579]

In attachment a fake from an italian auction!

That's quite convincing - where do you get that it's a fake?

[declanwmagee 122]

In attachment a fake from an italian auction!

That would fool me...

[Paulus 1,975]

In attachment a fake from an italian auction!

That would fool me...

And me ... maybe the weight's out ...

[Coinery 1,148]

Without a genuine image for quick reference, I'd still suggest most of the devices are terrible on the reverse, the angel on the harp especially so!

These G3 halfcrowns are such a viper's nest, that you really wouldn't attempt a purchase without running over seuk's site so, in all likelihood, you wouldn't get caught out...hopefully!

[Paulus 1,975]

At the risk of getting shot down in flames, on closer consideration/examination the coin in the OP is a very obvious imposter! The images below show the OP coin, above a (hopefully genuine) CGS finest known 1818 HC (choice UNC 82 believe it or not, but the the photo is one of their earlier ones):

• Among many many differences, the bust is totally wrong, there was only one obverse bust for the circulation 1818 Half Crown according to Spink - this one looks like a smaller than normal bull's head bust
• If CGS' grading is to be believed, the angel on harp (Stuart) is pretty poorly detailed even in choice UNC!
• and if both are genuine, on CGS' harsh grading the OP coin is BU!

But I may have missed something obvious and if so I will get my coat!

Regardless of the authenticity of either coin, I simply can't believe that CGS gave the coin below a grade of 82, even allowing for poor photography! Is there any evidence that their standards have become a lot stricter over the last 6-7 years??

Edited July 31, 2013 by Paulus

[Peckris 579]

At the risk of getting shot down in flames, on closer consideration/examination the coin in the OP is a very obvious imposter! The images below show the OP coin, above a (hopefully genuine) CGS finest known 1818 HC (choice UNC 82 believe it or not, but the the photo is one of their earlier ones):

• Among many many differences, the bust is totally wrong, there was only one obverse bust for the circulation 1818 Half Crown according to Spink - this one looks like a smaller than normal bull's head bust
• If CGS' grading is to be believed, the angel on harp (Stuart) is pretty poorly detailed even in choice UNC!
• and if both are genuine, on CGS' harsh grading the OP coin is BU!

But I may have missed something obvious and if so I will get my coat!

Regardless of the authenticity of either coin, I simply can't believe that CGS gave the coin below a grade of 82, even allowing for poor photography! Is there any evidence that their standards have become a lot stricter over the last 6-7 years??

The problem here is that the photos are not to scale, not exactly to the same plane, have different colour balance and tone, use totally different backgrounds, etc. I've tried to demonstrate this by drawing lines in Photoshop to illustrate how this affects the obverses :

You will see that aligning on the left and top, the CGS coin is a BIT wider, but it is a LOT deeper. If they were true circles, this would be impossible. The only way to explain it is the distorting effect of photographing a coin that's not absolutely in a parallel plane to the lens (which would not be a problem comparing two scans). Yet interestingly, if you place the two busts side by side and rotate one slightly so it's in line with the other, the width of them is exactly the same, however it appears on the two photos.

For me, the suspicious element is the complete lack of hatching in the shield quarters, top left and bottom right, on the non-CGS coin.

[Benny who 6]

This is one I picked up a few years ago;

[Benny who 6]

Hit the post button before adding the weight,which is 14g or there abouts,the scales tip between 13.9 and 14.This could be put down to wear on a nomal halfcrown,however I don't think there is enough wear for this to have lost 0.2g.

The reeding also looks more mordern similar to that of an old 10p.

[Coinery 1,148]

For some reason I can't access any of the uploaded images but, still without photographic comparisson, and purely a stab in the dark without evidence, the body of the harp looked broader, and details like the buckle, well everything, actually, just felt wooly, or 'weak'!

And I'm also stabbing in the dark, without die comparisons so, I too, could be shot down in flames (but I don't mind, I'll just go to my boating forum friend's instead)!

Edit: to learn all about getting me bottom blacked, and me stern gland sorted!

Edited August 1, 2013 by Coinery

[declanwmagee 122]

It look as if the buckle between DEF and BRIT is off-centre on the fake, but nicely centred on the CGS. Anyone else see that or is it my tired strimming eyes?

[Peckris 579]

For some reason I can't access any of the uploaded images

That's a shame - took me quite a while in photoshop. But to summarise, the CGS photo looks elongated in the vertical plane, which would make the bust look comparatively narrow ('squashed'). That would also account for the broader harp in the 'fake'.

None of this is to say it ISN'T a fake, just that the comparison with the CGS photo probably isn't much of a case.

[Coinery 1,148]

For some reason I can't access any of the uploaded images

That's a shame - took me quite a while in photoshop. But to summarise, the CGS photo looks elongated in the vertical plane, which would make the bust look comparatively narrow ('squashed'). That would also account for the broader harp in the 'fake'.

None of this is to say it ISN'T a fake, just that the comparison with the CGS photo probably isn't much of a case.

Makes very good sense, Peck, will dig the Laptop out tomorrow morning...probably just my I-Phone signal, we've just moved...EVEN closer to Declan!

[Coinery 1,148]

It look as if the buckle between DEF and BRIT is off-centre on the fake, but nicely centred on the CGS. Anyone else see that or is it my tired strimming eyes?

Strimming...OH, man, have I done my fair share of that! Watch out for slugs and dog excrement!

[seuk 85]

Hit the post button before adding the weight,which is 14g or there abouts,the scales tip between 13.9 and 14.This could be put down to wear on a nomal halfcrown,however I don't think there is enough wear for this to have lost 0.2g.

The reeding also looks more mordern similar to that of an old 10p.

Yes - it's fake like the 'Italien' one. Both seems to be of the high quality sort. You will probably find that its has coin alignment (reverse turned 180 degrees to the obverse) whereas the genuine coins has medal alignment (0 degrees).

[seuk 85]

My first 1817 Chinese fake. Low quality cast at 12.8 gr / 32.3 mm. for some reason most fakes are of the 1818 date. Likely because that was the year on the genuine coin used in the first place.

[Coinery 1,148]

My first 1817 Chinese fake. Low quality cast at 12.8 gr / 32.3 mm. for some reason most fakes are of the 1818 date. Likely because that was the year on the genuine coin used in the first place.

Keep us safe, seuk! Late G3 appears to be the golden age of counterfeits and fakes...to all web readers (and we probably underestimate the exposure), I personally wouldn't even consider the period without dealer knowledge, or a damn good read around seuk's website!

It's a period that's not for the faint hearted, in my opinion!

[Benny who 6]

Hit the post button before adding the weight,which is 14g or there abouts,the scales tip between 13.9 and 14.This could be put down to wear on a nomal halfcrown,however I don't think there is enough wear for this to have lost 0.2g.

The reeding also looks more mordern similar to that of an old 10p.

Yes - it's fake like the 'Italien' one. Both seems to be of the high quality sort. You will probably find that its has coin alignment (reverse turned 180 degrees to the obverse) whereas the genuine coins has medal alignment (0 degrees).

It has the 180 rotation,originally thought "great this is a bit different",but alas dispointment has a bitter taste.

I think the best pointer is above the P in PENSE.Tried out the ring test and it actually sounds the same as a real 1818,or at least I can't tell the difference.

[just.me 23]

These modern copies were available a few years back from an eBay seller in China for £2-£3 each. I collect contemporary and modern copies and I bought the set. The 1817, 19 and 20 are all pretty poor in hand, too white and clean and rough surfaces when looking closer but the 1818 is the most convincing and does actually look like silver.

[Edwardk64 0]

Hello my first post and thanks to a fellow member who advised me I had a George 111 Halfcrown fake on my Ebay site . I thought I could identify one of these but apparently not and have now taken off my site and will speaking to the Auction I purchased it from. I hope to learn from this forum and hopefully improve my knowlege of a subject I love . My coin site is classiccoins-uk.

Cheers

Edward

[Paulus 1,975]

Welcome Edward! Seuk pointed out I had a dodgy 1818 HC the other day, which I have just been refunded for - which reminds me, I must send him those pics I promised!

[Garrett 76]

Welcome Edward !

It is a great forum and you will probably enjoy it here.

[Chris Perkins 228]

Hello my first post and thanks to a fellow member who advised me I had a George 111 Halfcrown fake on my Ebay site . I thought I could identify one of these but apparently not and have now taken off my site and will speaking to the Auction I purchased it from. I hope to learn from this forum and hopefully improve my knowlege of a subject I love . My coin site is classiccoins-uk.

Cheers

Edward

This must be a first, surely. An honest ebayer with a thirst for knowledge! Perhaps there is hope.

Hello Edward.

[Colin G. 147]

Welcome to the forum