1917 London Sovereign In Upcoming London Coin Auctions December Sale -

[Rob 3,152]

It looks like you also have one extra 'tooth' spacing on the LC coin across the date compared to the Bentley coin.

[Nick 329]

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?

There also seems to be detail missing from the cape between the LC and Bentley examples. The Bentley example has more folds. The streamers behind the helmet seem a little different too.

[Rob 3,152]

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?

There also seems to be detail missing from the cape between the LC and Bentley examples. The Bentley example has more folds. The streamers behind the helmet seem a little different too.

I thought that there was missing detail too, but when you have wear it is possible to explain away any missing detail as a result of this even if you are still sceptical. Design differences are not so easy to dismiss.

[VickySilver 831]

I really can't see defence of this coin as genuine. "Have you ever seen another?" doesn't make it. Yes, I have seen another and it looks nothing like this coin. I don't have one personally because I feel they are overpriced.

How about outting those that have thought it genuine. Several? I would hope that is a bit of exaggeration.

PS - Bruce Lorich has nice photos of one on his site.

Edited October 29, 2013 by VickySilver

[Coinery 1,156]

We should all buy it and get CGS to slab it!

[Coinery 1,156]

Sorry, Azda, the 1 AND the 7 appear/are dropped! Not sure why the 1 would be tampered with if it's a date change, though?

[Rob 3,152]

I really can't see defence of this coin as genuine. "Have you ever seen another?" doesn't make it. Yes, I have seen another and it looks nothing like this coin. I don't have one personally because I feel they are overpriced.

How about outting those that have thought it genuine. Several? I would hope that is a bit of exaggeration.

PS - Bruce Lorich has nice photos of one on his site.

In fairness, that wasn't the main line of defence, but part of the conversation - so could be taken out of context. The reasoning for it being considered genuine was that a few people had looked at it and voiced their opinions that it was.

[Rob 3,152]

Sorry, Azda, the 1 AND the 7 appear/are dropped! Not sure why the 1 would be tampered with if it's a date change, though?

1925?

[Nick 329]

We should all buy it and get CGS to slab it!

I bet they'd reject it then though!

[Coinery 1,156]

Spink's warn of forgeries for this date! Would be good to see some examples of it!

Wouldn't it be easier to doctor an Aussie 1917coin?

'25 would be the cheapest British coin to butcher I suppose?

[Nick 329]

Sorry, Azda, the 1 AND the 7 appear/are dropped! Not sure why the 1 would be tampered with if it's a date change, though?

1925?

The streamer seems to match that of a 1925 sovereign.

[VickySilver 831]

Yikes, the die work reminds me, as I said, of Beirut issues counterfeits circa 1970s. Perhaps those more gifted than me might post matching pictures of 1925, 1917C or others side by side with this one (not to mention the ex-Terner coin). Please, I am quite shocked by anyone even considering an altered date....

[Peckris 579]

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

Especially when you consider the minutiae they use to reject coins for slabbing, after giving them the ultimate thorough going over. "Oh wait guys, I'm wearing my LC hat today, not my CGS hat. They are different sizes, you know."

[Rob 3,152]

Sorry, Azda, the 1 AND the 7 appear/are dropped! Not sure why the 1 would be tampered with if it's a date change, though?

Is anyone technologically gifted enough to copy the image of the reverse into a program that can adjust the contrast etc. I have tried to copy the jpg file off the screen, but it doesn't want to paste into another jpg file.

On my screen it looks as if there is an ascending 45 degree line right off the bottom LHS serif of the 1 and a slight disturbance by the top serif, both of which would be commensurate with a 2

[Coinery 1,156]

Can have a look later, Rob, when I get in!

[azda 979]

Sorry, Azda, the 1 AND the 7 appear/are dropped! Not sure why the 1 would be tampered with if it's a date change, though?

Is anyone technologically gifted enough to copy the image of the reverse into a program that can adjust the contrast etc. I have tried to copy the jpg file off the screen, but it doesn't want to paste into another jpg file.

On my screen it looks as if there is an ascending 45 degree line right off the bottom LHS serif of the 1 and a slight disturbance by the top serif, both of which would be commensurate with a 2

Davidrj is good with photoshop

[Peckris 579]

It's not highest quality image to start with, but here is a blow up of the date:

The upper portion of the 7 could easily have been the top of a 5 too.

Edited October 29, 2013 by Peckris

[Paulus 1,975]

It's not highest quality image to start with, but here is a blow up of the date:

1917 sov date.jpg

The upper portion of the 7 could easily have been the top of a 5 too.

There is a VERY clear ghost of a 2 behind the 1 !!!!

[Coinery 1,156]

Unfortunately, I couldn't do much with the contrast to investigate Rob's point but, whilst I was playing, I thought I might as well post the following, just to make comparison a little easier. All images are top to bottom...Bentley Collection Coin, Bruce Lorich's piece (http://www.brucelorich.com/archives.html), and London Coin's item. The Dates and Tails are all scaled and orientated to 90 & 180 degree lines, so as best as can be achieved given the pixelation! What are your thoughts now?

[Coinery 1,156]

[Coinery 1,156]

As Nick mentioned, I think the cape is a massive giveaway when viewed 3 in a row!

Edit: the missing pleats are below the area where you'd first expect to see wear!

Edited October 29, 2013 by Coinery

[Peckris 579]

It's not highest quality image to start with, but here is a blow up of the date:

1917 sov date.jpg

The upper portion of the 7 could easily have been the top of a 5 too.

There is a VERY clear ghost of a 2 behind the 1 !!!!

Yes, I thought that too.

[Coinery 1,156]

Another note: The profile of the bust is different! There is a 90 degree, or greater, angle beneath the nostrils where it meets the mustache in both the collection coins, giving the appearance of a slightly turned up nose...unlike the LC coin! I think the angle of the eyebrow to socket angle differs too!

Edit: I retract the above...I've just been overlaying the busts using transparency, they are a pretty good match!

Edited October 29, 2013 by Coinery

[Hastur 0]

I have this one that came from a mount. It is the one on the left. OK with a sovereign scale test

[Rob 3,152]

I have this one that came from a mount. It is the one on the left. OK with a sovereign scale test

The one on the left is larger in diameter than the one on the right. Only a mm or so on the screen, but perceptible.