Navel Gazing - Are we selling (trying to sell) a fake?

Hi, We are currently listing an old British coin, and are now unsure whether we should ...

We read a very long thread (actually just me, Gill had “better” things to do) about a US coin listed on eBay UK, that someone thought suspicious, and that caused a real storm of 10 pages of comments & ‘helpful’ thoughts. The situation being complicated, by the seller being communicative, but from what I understood, not enough … An extra photo or two would have (maybe) resolved some questions. And the weight, may have sorted another question, etc. Please excuse the aside: But, why don’t sellers include the weight as standard?

It’s a 1707, Queen Anne Half Crown. It weighs (by our primary scales) 14.59 grams, and Slater kitchen scales 15g , is approximately 33mm diameter, and an average 1.5 mm thick. There are lots of edge markings and text, most of which is decipherable, including ‘sexto’.

Because of our experience with the ‘seated liberty’ and ‘peace’ dollars (another thread), we bought some N52 nyodimium magnets ... and one slowly slides down this coin when slanted at 45 degrees, so it seems to be silver. (It’s a nice satisfying test to do, thanks Juris)

To be as complete as I can think of, there is no real provenance, only that it was owned by someone who travelled around the world, mostly during WWII plus a few years after, and collected coins & notes and other stuff that interested him, but that didn't cost too much. He continued collecting up until about 1990. Unfortunately his memory is ‘shot to pieces’ now, and he can’t remember whether he bought it in a coin shop, a souk, or won it playing cards …

Anyway, there are things that maybe look wrong, such as the gap at the top of the R in GRATIA, and the seriph? missing off the top of the I, and other text quality things ...

But, we've also looked at a ‘top’ London coin dealer who sold one 5th Dec 2016 which looks very similar. And, there’s another being sold (I am starting with the premise that it is legitimate) that has other text bits missing, inferring that this sort of error was not uncommon back in the day.

So we are throwing ourselves on your collective opinion(s).

We’ve done the same thing on Coinquest, which seems to have a much limited group of vociferous contributors to see what they have to say. Coinquest have referred to CoinTalk as a proven source of experienced & respected opinion, which convinced us to join your forum. Is there another site that you feel it would be worth asking for their 3rd opinion on this coin?

I hope we can contribute in a positive way one day, to repay this forums help to us.

Thanks in advance for your thoughts.

Alan & Gill

PS. I had problems adding large photos last time but I’ll try again, if not in the initial post, immediately afterwards, which I can delete and try again, if I do it wrong, again!

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

Bigger versions ...

 

it looks real. I looked it up in my 2002 Krause world coin catalog. 1707 1/2 crown KM#525.2 , metal-silver, E below bust = Mint- Edinburgh mint,
grade/value
VG-$17 F-$30.00 VF-$100 XF-$425 UNC-?
not sure what grade you coin is ? I am certain the prices are higher now. wait for more experienced opinions. cool coin.

 

Thank you SpiritYoda, that's encouraging. But the grade issue is a minefield. I know Mr Bellman who contributes, always wants to have it in his hand to assess, and though I haven't yet started to use gloves which I think would be a hinderance anyway, I sense the photo makes it look a little better than it feels ...

 

It looks alright to me and you have done all the tests that are likely to throw up a fake. In it's (relatively) low grade and being Silver it would seem unlikely to be a wrong 'un.
Grade - on UK standards the reverse is probably Good Fine, the obverse Fine or just under. On current pricing in the UK I would expect it to make £40 to £60 but maybe more in the US.

 

Thank you PaddyB, I should have tried to create a poll. That's '2 for' so far.

As you clearly have the knowledge, what's your understanding from Dorset, why the British grading system is so brief, whereas the US system is so huge. I appreciate they're both subjective, and I'm not trying to do down any professional assessors, but I'd like to ensure the chap looking at my coin was happy and smiling, and not having a bad hair day.

Thanks again. Alan & Gill, Perranporth, Cornwall

 

That's a short question that opens up one of those never ending debates!

I think the short answer is to do with the coins we have to grade. In the US they only have a couple of hundred years of their own coins to assess and a lot of collectors are focused on pretty modern stuff, so being able to distinguish the finer points of Uncirculated and Mint State coins became important. In the UK we have 2000 years of coins to work with, the majority of which would never be found even close to uncirculated so our emphasis has been on Fine/VF and EF coins. If a coin was good enough to be graded Uncirculated any finer differentiation seemed irrelevant.
The Sheldon system for coin grading started in the US in 1949 (with later adaptations). See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sheldon_coin_grading_scale
There have been attempts to introduce a more precise 100 point system in the UK, with mixed reactions. Other coin fora have endless debates back and forth on the relative merits of different systems and also the reliability or otherwise of the different grading houses.
The whole grading situation is made much more difficult by the general vast over-grading of coins by non-experts (and some unscrupulous experts) on Ebay and other sites.
I collect mainly British coins for myself and do not get them graded or encapsulated, so the simple old UK system suits me fine. I am no expert on grading but try to be fairly strict. You should always get more opinions and hopefully some others will chip in here.
BTW I am now in North Devon, so if you are passing through from Cornwall, let me know!

 

I am not an expert in this series.

The weight, diameter, and overall appearance suggests a post union 1707 half crown struck at Edinburgh (Spink 3605). There are two types and also several varieties not listed in Spink.

I would be inclined to call it authentic, but must admit that the G R and the artifact near the G are odd. Comparing to photos of other Edinburgh HC did not reveal any similar pieces, but I only found a few pieces against which to compare.

If you can match dies between this and a known authentic coin of the same issue and mint and they both exhibit the oddities mentioned while not sharing exact replication of dings/marks (as you would find on a family of forged pieces), I would certainly say you’ll have done due diligence.

 

Thank you PatAR, there's where I don't know the practicalities of producing coins in 1707 ... The coin that I thought similar, was sold in December 2016, and I've borrowed a copy of their photo (here) - The G and R are so close to having a 'gap', and the I has almost lost its seriph - do you mean the artifact near the G is the point where 2 or 3 of the 'denticles' are merged and bigger than the others? Is that a potential one off?
I don't want you to explain too much, but how were coins 'struck' back then? One at a time, using machines or by hand? In my ignorance, all I have to go on is period films where the blacksmith beats hell out of a an old horse-shoe and in the next scene, he's got a bright shiny sword (if you know what I mean - I am that naive). Could you or someone please point me at a book or web page - thank you.

 

I used to collect shillings. They're a different denomination, obviously, but I see nothing about the texture and fabric of this coin that feels wrong. It looks perfectly original.

However, it appears to have hairlines from cleaning. I'd probably grade it a strong VG, or in British standards they'd call it aF (about Fine). I don't think the obverse makes F.

 

My general recollection is that screw presses were in use in Europe and England at this time. There were other types of machinery such as roller presses that saw use in what is now Germany, in Spain, and even in Edinburg, but I believe they had fallen out of favor by Queen Anne's time. Presses with automatic feed and other significant advancements did not occur until the mid to late 1700s. So, authentic coins of Queen Anne were likely made on a manually powered screw press using hand made dies. They were struck one at a time, though it was feasible to produce a fair number per minute.

An understanding of minting machinery and techniques (which differed by region and changed over time) is certainly worthwhile for any devoted numismatist. The best book on the subject, in my opinion, is The Art and Craft of Coinmaking by Denis Cooper. The Soho Mint and the Industrialization of Money by Richard Doty is focused on the era of significant advancement of minting techniques from the late 1700s into the 1800s.

Knowledge of England during Queen Anne's reign with respect to the general condition of the country, its economy, and the particulars of its minting practices are what would enable an expert in Queen Anne's coins to more definitively identify them as authentic, contemporary counterfeit, or modern forgery. Ideally, someone who specializes in this series will come along and help us out.

Comparing photos of the subject coin with photos of known authentic and known fakes is the next best thing. If you find at least two other examples of known authentic or known fakes that precisely match the subject coin (accounting for die states, etc) you'll have a high confidence as to what it is.

While I have extensive images and information for items in the areas of my specialty, I am limited to photos online or in printed catalogs for this particular coin. In addition to online auction photos I looked through a few printed St. James' and Baldwins catalogs in my library, but did not find any coins suitable for comparison.

You might be also consider using the name of the engraver of the obverse, John Croker, to search for information about the dies used for this coin.

I hope this is of some help.