Gibraltar - 1 crown - The battle of Ypres - 2017

Started by Growl62, December 09, 2024, 05:13:43 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Growl62

Hello,

What do you think about this 1 crown ? (27.91 g / 36 mm)

Only 25000 ex only in proof, with the lack of weight and this poor quality i think it's a fake one.

Thanks for the feedbacks




eurocoin


Figleaf

I tend towards eurocoin's opinion. A fraudster would have done a much better job. It looks a bit like the coin lived in a pot of pickles or died in electrolysis, but why would anybody do something like that? The best I can think of is a horribly failed attempt to revive a damaged proof.

A good talking piece on why electrolysis should be done without adding salt to the water and why you should experiment with cheap coins before attacking an expensive one. :-\

Peter
An unidentified coin is a piece of metal. An identified coin is a piece of history.

Growl62

Thanks Eurocoin and Peter.

Here are 3 reasons why i'm perplexed

1) The edge is plain at 6 o'clock (1.5 cm) but i can't compare it


2) I've got 3 other coins like this one (in regards with 25000 ex it's a lot )


3) Same poor quality and edge for a 2018 (never listed)




JohnI

What looks like a raised section beside the queen's nose on the first coin looks like a casting defect to me.

Quite a few older tokens have incomplete edge graining. This tends to be because the diameter was wrong, so what is there is weak with a gradual tapering off. The coin is too modern and is supposed to have been a proof so, apart from the appearance, a defect like this from an official issue is unlikely. The edge of the flat part also indicates a casting effect.

The first coin in the group of three looks like it has casting porosity on the front. The back of the second coin indicates casting defects on the angel's right wing.

The significant amount of dirt/clay on the coins would suggest that they have never had significant cleaning.

If you look at the thread below you will see a cupronickle 50p that has been buried for probably something like 20 years and has had fairly rough/basic cleaning.

https://www.coincommunity.com/forum/topic.asp?topic_id=446350 


Regards;



John   

Growl62

Quote from: JohnI on December 12, 2024, 03:59:31 PMWhat looks like a raised section beside the queen's nose on the first coin looks like a casting defect to me.

Quite a few older tokens have incomplete edge graining. This tends to be because the diameter was wrong, so what is there is weak with a gradual tapering off. The coin is too modern and is supposed to have been a proof so, apart from the appearance, a defect like this from an official issue is unlikely. The edge of the flat part also indicates a casting effect.

The first coin in the group of three looks like it has casting porosity on the front. The back of the second coin indicates casting defects on the angel's right wing.

The significant amount of dirt/clay on the coins would suggest that they have never had significant cleaning.

If you look at the thread below you will see a cupronickle 50p that has been buried for probably something like 20 years and has had fairly rough/basic cleaning.

https://www.coincommunity.com/forum/topic.asp?topic_id=446350 


Regards;



John   

Thanks a lot John.

My first idea was the right one.....

Best regards

Jerome


Growl62

Quote from: Figleaf on December 10, 2024, 09:15:48 AMI tend towards eurocoin's opinion. A fraudster would have done a much better job. It looks a bit like the coin lived in a pot of pickles or died in electrolysis, but why would anybody do something like that? The best I can think of is a horribly failed attempt to revive a damaged proof.

A good talking piece on why electrolysis should be done without adding salt to the water and why you should experiment with cheap coins before attacking an expensive one. :-\

Peter

Thanks a lot Peter.

It seems to be fake unfortunately (or not in regards with the poor quality !)

Best regards