Hello, As I am sure you all can see, I am new to this forum. I am really in need of help in trying to understand whether these error coins are genuine or not. I have two British India brockage 1/2 rupees on the way. Here are pictures of them. http://i43.tinypic.com/35kqzx5.jpg http://i39.tinypic.com/2r7vfie.jpg The coins seem very well struck on both sides, including the error side, which is surprising compared to the other brockage rupees I have seen. Please let me know your thoughts. Would be very much appreciated. Thank you very much for your time.
From what I am seeing they are NOT well struck. Full brockage piece typically are very well struck because of the double thickness of the metal between the dies. I would be rather suspicious of these coins.
Very interesting perspective you brought up. You may have a point compared to some years and mints. I did look around after you pointed that out. Look at the strike of the 1893B rupee in the link posted. Looks VERY similar in quality of the strike. It may be possible to somewhat date that coin based on the depth of the strike and also figure out where it was minted. http://www.ebay.com/itm/India-silve...725?pt=LH_DefaultDomain_0&hash=item33726bfc8d 1893C has a deeper strike. http://www.ebay.com/itm/India-silve...935?pt=LH_DefaultDomain_0&hash=item337154ccb7 It seems safe to say the Victorian half rupee, if genuine, came from the Bombay mint. The Calcutta mint seems to always have produced a deeper strike (showing through the outlines of the head) for the post-1873 Victorian-era rupee. More comparisons: http://www.ebay.com/itm/India-Briti...609?pt=LH_DefaultDomain_0&hash=item58926d7b71 http://www.ebay.com/itm/1879-b-Indi...415?pt=LH_DefaultDomain_0&hash=item1c24bb8547 Based on all these examples, if genuine, the Victorian half rupee probably comes from Bombay during the 1880s or 1890s. The other one seems comparable to the strike of a 1939 half rupee. 1938 half rupee seems to have a more well-defined head. http://www.ebay.com/itm/1938-INDIA-...848?pt=LH_DefaultDomain_0&hash=item588f527508 http://www.ebay.com/itm/British-Ind...923?pt=LH_DefaultDomain_0&hash=item3cc34634d3 Any thoughts? Thank you VERY much for replying.
I think both specimens are questionable. Perfect impressions of the denticles and design rim are seldom, if ever seen in genuine examples.
I have noticed that. How can I figure out if these are genuine? I know I can weigh and measure the coins, at least. Perfect impressions seem to be quite rare. Here's an example I was able to find. http://hermes.csd.net/~coneca/image/GBYoungHead1cBrockageWtBg600W.jpg
the george VI is not struck as good as the vic. Something about the softness of the middle of the george VI don,t look real.
I'll have to see when the coins arrive and will likely make better pictures and share. The 1939 half rupees seem to have a "soft" strike, compared to 1938.
The coins have arrived. I took them to a reputable coin dealer and they said they are not genuine. Their best numismatist said they are not silver coins. They weigh what they should weigh (5.8 grams) and have the correct size (24 mm). The brockage sides seem to be near perfect incuse strikes of the obverse side. However, the Victorian era rupee coin, at least, has errors in the strike on the obverse side. The lower pearl necklace is not even correct. It is actually a line, rather than pearls, in a very good percentage of the necklace. Nor is the hair in the back of the head even complete. Any thoughts? I can take pictures if anyone is interested.
ill need pics side by side not 2 different pics before i can give an opinion. but i warn you 9 out of 10 so called brockage are not so
I will try to do that as soon as possible. But I looked closely at both coins' obverse designs using a loupe and they are definitely fakes. There are "errors" in the designs in both busts and the font of the coin with George VI on it.
It'll be resolved when I get a full refund. Not surprised the seller did not take pictures close up of the coins. Had he done that, it would have been obvious they are fakes. The lower necklace on Victoria looks like a linear necklace for a good portion instead of being fully a pearly necklace and the hair on the back of her head is far from correct. The crown on George VI is incorrect. If anyone wants better pictures posted, please let me know.
