Message:

<p>[QUOTE=&quot;teh_admiral, post: 3258699, member: 99788&quot;][USER=66]@Conder101[/USER] Honestly, that statement confuses me: how can anyone be a coin collector without caring about the metal content? By that logic, well-produced fakes are ok? Because even a pro is gonna miss a well-produced fake now and again, otherwise other numismatists wouldn&#039;t have written the US Mint about the prevalence of fakes like in a link I linked. If you were to say, &quot;It was difficult to control quality when Britain was minting sovereigns, and they are known to vary from 18k-22k&quot;, then I might take you seriously because there must be some historical references or tested coins that led to that conclusion. But the fact that thickly-plated fakes will pass most tests only reinforces the need to know with 100% certainty. Again, you wouldn&#039;t buy a car without starting the engine, would you? [USER=77976]@Nathan401[/USER] And that&#039;s what I&#039;m attempting to ascertain: whether or not my sovereign is genuine even tho it&#039;s +18k and not 22k. Is that just normal variability with 100-year old casting methods? Or were they not even cast and instead stamped and cut like old cobs? (I honestly don&#039;t remember from my research...) Because my escudos are 22k; was Spain just &quot;better&quot; at minting coins? And again, the car analogy: any coin that&#039;s not uncirculated is &quot;damaged&quot; by definition. And by definition, the same thing APMEX says about returns, no one knows with absolute certainty that it didn&#039;t pass through the hands of an expert forger / pirate / Alibaba buyer-re-seller. It&#039;s just the unfortunate truth that people refuse to believe could possibly happen to them......[/QUOTE]</p><p><br /></p>

Your name or email address:

Do you already have an account?

• No, create an account now.
• Yes, my password is:
• Forgot your password?

Stay logged in