1917 London Sovereign In Upcoming London Coin Auctions December Sale -

[VickySilver 830]

I was looking through first the DNW catalogue, and then had a look at the LCA Highlights - which are all that are now available. The 1917 Sov looks, at least to me, to be an absolute fake. Sorry for the lack of linkage.

What say you other readers?

[Coppers 58]

[DaveG38 405]

Looks fake to me. Either that or somebody has done a good job of roughing the surfaces up and god only knows why you'd do that.

[Peckris 579]

Looks fake to me. Either that or somebody has done a good job of roughing the surfaces up and god only knows why you'd do that.

I'm not so sure? It could equally be a circulated specimen that's later been cleaned. Also, the photo doesn't inspire confidence - there appears (as so often) to be a colour cast.

It could also be a 'touch piece' that's been carried around in a wallet - which would explain the knocks and wear - and occasionally taken out and rubbed - which would explain the cleaned look.

I think a modern forgery would do a much better job than that.

[azda 979]

Lets not forget the supposed fake Cromwell in their last auction that sold for £3000+ We apparently got that wrong

[VickySilver 830]

St George looks in "bad form" as well. The bit of pecking and then possible smoothing on G5 obverse seems a bit suspicious. IMO, subtracting the wear, the die prep just does not appear up to snuff.

[Benny who 6]

It looks as if it might be from a ring.

[Coinery 1,153]

Lets not forget the supposed fake Cromwell in their last auction that sold for £3000+ We apparently got that wrong

I thought the general consensus was 'if that's fake, we're buggered for these too'?

[Coinery 1,153]

For me, the edge/milling looks too uniform, and the surface more bronze-like in its marks (instinct only, of course, no evidence at all)! Have to lay this edge on ya for comparison...sorry!

http://george-coins.co.uk/AU-George-V-1914-Sovereign-P3125759.aspx

[VickySilver 830]

Yes, look. St. George's face and helm are horribly done compared to what one would expect. Interesting thought about the ring - might have been one of those '70s style Beirut knockoffs that was then put in a ring - good gold in them thar bits....Just counterfeit!

[Peckris 579]

For me, the edge/milling looks too uniform, and the surface more bronze-like in its marks (instinct only, of course, no evidence at all)! Have to lay this edge on ya for comparison...sorry!

http://george-coins.co.uk/AU-George-V-1914-Sovereign-P3125759.aspx

Yes, good comparison. I've changed my mind now - it definitely looks suspect.

[Colin88 54]

Doesn't look good at all...it should be ok to hang on a Christmas (we can still say that I presume?) tree, then take the wrapper off and eat the chocolate.....

[Rob 3,152]

For me the clincher is in the tail detail. Compare with my 1918I for example. It simply doesn't have the right amount of detail.

[Coinery 1,153]

For me the clincher is in the tail detail. Compare with my 1918I for example. It simply doesn't have the right amount of detail.

Good spot, and also an odd 'die' flaw at the edge in that region too! Possible casting spur?

[Peter 615]

For me the clincher is in the tail detail. Compare with my 1918I for example. It simply doesn't have the right amount of detail.

Blimey.

That is conclusive.

London Coins/CGS on a known rarity.

Edited October 25, 2013 by Peter

[DaveG38 405]

For me, the edge/milling looks too uniform, and the surface more bronze-like in its marks (instinct only, of course, no evidence at all)! Have to lay this edge on ya for comparison...sorry!

http://george-coins.co.uk/AU-George-V-1914-Sovereign-P3125759.aspx

Also, the beard under the cheeks looks very rough and lumpy and not at all like a George V obverse.

[Colin88 54]

Is it me or is the date slopping down bottom right and the numerals look out of alignment??

[Rob 3,152]

I spoke to Steve Lockett at Wakefield on Sunday about this and he was adamant that a few people had looked at it and confirmed it as genuine. His reply was 'have you ever seen another to compare?' I for one am still not convinced. If you compare with the example in the Bentley collection sold at Baldwin last year, the shape of the ear is different, the tail is much fuller on a normal sovereign as I noted previously, the date is misaligned unlike the Bentley coin, the beard is lumpier than the Bentley coin and the edge milling isn't visible on the LC coin. Bentley image below for comparison, with apologies for the foreshortening on the RHS.

Edited October 29, 2013 by Rob

[Peter 615]

Why isn't it in a CGS slab?

London Coins grade VF...I wonder what grade it would be slabbed at?

Is the Bentley coin snide?

Should be interesting.

[azda 979]

Lets not forget the supposed fake Cromwell in their last auction that sold for £3000+ We apparently got that wrong

I thought the general consensus was 'if that's fake, we're buggered for these too'?

Apparently he was told the day of the auction that LC had got it wrong and it was kosha. But i asked the question if anyone else was told in the auction room about their "mistake"

[Coinery 1,153]

I spoke to Steve Lockett at Wakefield on Sunday about this and he was adamant that a few people had looked at it and confirmed it as genuine. His reply was 'have you ever seen another to compare?' I for one am still not convinced. If you compare with the example in the Bentley collection sold at Baldwin last year, the shape of the ear is different, the tail is much fuller on a normal sovereign as I noted previously, the date is misaligned unlike the Bentley coin, the beard is lumpier than the Bentley coin and the edge milling isn't visible on the LC coin. Bentley image below for comparison, with apologies for the foreshortening on the RHS.

If Steve runs with this sale, I'll lose a lot of respect for LC, there is no way that isn't a suspect coin! I wouldn't mind betting it's a cast date-change myself! The tail and date are so out of character, it can be nothing else IMHO! Unless of course, the rarest sov. is about to kick up the greatest numbers of varieties for any of the series!

It may even be cast in 22 carat gold, and why not, I would if I wanted to do a good job! Not that they have!

[azda 979]

Raising a red flag as Rob has with Steve lockett you'd think they'd give it a good going over, we as hobbyists have raised several plausable Problems with the coin yet all he can say is "have you ever had one in the hand" does'nt seem very good ethics to me

[Peter 615]

Lets not forget the supposed fake Cromwell in their last auction that sold for £3000+ We apparently got that wrong

I thought the general consensus was 'if that's fake, we're buggered for these too'?

Apparently he was told the day of the auction that LC had got it wrong and it was kosha. But i asked the question if anyone else was told in the auction room about their "mistake"

I hope the seller was suitably re-compensated.

[Coinery 1,153]

Lets not forget the supposed fake Cromwell in their last auction that sold for £3000+ We apparently got that wrong

I thought the general consensus was 'if that's fake, we're buggered for these too'?

Apparently he was told the day of the auction that LC had got it wrong and it was kosha. But i asked the question if anyone else was told in the auction room about their "mistake"

I hope the seller was suitably re-compensated.

Interesting point, that! I wonder whether the Cromwell was bought in as fake? Or sold for the vendor?

[azda 979]

Something else bothering me about this Sovereign is the initials on the REV. The top of the BP seem Level with the top of the date, but comparing others of George V the bottom of the initials are level with the top of the date, might just be me or the picture. Anyone else, Stuart, can you compare yours?