They both measure just under 24mm in diameter and 6.5 and 6.3 grams respecively. They have some matching features that don't appear to match a genuine coin. Images of the 2 on the left and a genuine example on the right. And then, the 2nd example has much of the obverse design bleeding through the reverse... Thoughts? I will take to my LCS for XRF next week. Best, Jack.
I don't think there's crispness of detail anywhere one either of those 2 examples . . . letters or otherwise.
Measure the thickness too if you can. It should be 1.75mm according to Numista (https://en.numista.com/6695). Counterfeiters make them thicker to get the weight close to a match (which you probably already know). They look like they might be silver plated - I don't know how that might affect the XRF results. Weird that one seems to be double struck, first with the obverse then with the reverse? They flipped it over and struck it again?
@KBBPLL , they measured 1.73 and 1.72 in thickness respectively. XRFed at 92 and 94% silver, 1% iron and the balance copper...
I'm curious if XRF can see through silver plating or only reports the content of the plating (if any). I have seen Morgans on the Chinese site advertised as real silver for $80 when the usual ones are $2, so I suppose these could actually be silver? Clearly fake to my eyes.
Fake to mine as well, but the unit they use penetrates deeply to tell them if "silverware" is plated.
Interesting anomaly with the date. I did a quick look at Error-ref and Maddieclashes to see about conditions where the date would not be in reverse. I seem to recall reading about conditions that might allow that to occur. But, not readily available to me. Makes me wonder if the coin was struck...found not to meet even a counterfeiter's standards, and restruck. Only, the original coining wasn't obscured.
