BI Contemporary Counterfeits

[Md. Shariful Islam]

Very skilfull forgery! the last digit of the date was carefully filed off (I think only a jeweller would have the equipment to do this) and replaced by a well shaped 1. I think the distance between the other figures in the date is just a tiny little bit longer than that between the zero and the last 1, but I am not even sure of that. The yellowish smudge (vinegar?) was probably made on purpose to hide the original figure, which was broader than a 1.

Fortunately, our criminal jeweller was not a good historian. In 1901, this portrait had not yet been created.

Peter

Though an old issue. If members don't angry on me would you please comment on the pictures.

Islam

[Figleaf]

Excellent pictures, Tanka. I may be imagining things here, but I think this coin started life as a 1904 rupee. Note how the black spots (oxyde and/or dirt) differ considerably between the two ones in the date. I thnk that after the older digit was filed away, very shallow "valleys" filled with dirt.

Peter

[MWM]

But if the origial digit was 4 then what about the gap betn last 2 digits '0' and '4' ?

[Harry]

Excellent pictures, Tanka. I may be imagining things here, but I think this coin started life as a 1904 rupee. Note how the black spots (oxyde and/or dirt) differ considerably between the two ones in the date. I thnk that after the older digit was filed away, very shallow "valleys" filled with dirt.

I agree with Peter, it looks like an altered 1904 Rupee. Yes, excellent pictures, loved them!  I wish my pics were half as good 

But if the origial digit was 4 then what about the gap betn last 2 digits '0' and '4' ?

Are you saying that the gap looks too narrow? Maybe someone should post an original 1904 Rupee so that we can compare the two.

[Md. Shariful Islam]

Distance of 1 to 1 and that of 1 to vertical line of 4 is not same. My analysis suggest that it is not an altered 4.

Islam

[Prosit]

Maybe it is a glued on 1 ?

Dale

Distance of 1 to 1 and that of 1 to vertical line of 4 is not same. My analysis suggest that it is not an altered 4.

Islam

[Md. Shariful Islam]

Maybe it is a glued on 1 ?

Dale

Please look at the pictures from different angles. Is there any sign that it is glued on? I don't find any clue.

Islam

[Vivek]

... and for your amusement here is my 1901 Edward counterfeit rupee .

Islam

Hello Islam da
Can you please mark points on your coin which makes it counterfeit? this will help others to identify coins in future...
Thanks
Vivek

[Harry]

Look at the year its 1901! The first Edward Rupee coin was issued in 1903.

[akona20]

Hi Sharif,

How much does that fake weigh?

[Md. Shariful Islam]

Right Harry. I bought this coin and paid the highest price compared to others. Funny that I got hooked to this coin knowing that it was fake. But looking at the coin I knew that it was contemporary coin either something amazing or counterfeit. I did not find any flaw in design. A perfect ping. After analysis I noticed the following:
1. The coin is not tooled from a genuine as it has thicker dates (all four digits) compared to official ones.
2. The reverse of the official ones have concave  shape while this one is flatter.
3. The coin is not modern but contemporary from look.

In aword, the coin is still something interesting to me. I look at it and still did not find answer.

[Md. Shariful Islam]

Hi Sharif,

How much does that fake weigh?

Dear sir, I took the weight during purchase and was within acceptable range that I recall. But did not find the record as I am less organized by nature. I shall take the weight ASAP and let you know.

[akona20]

Thank you Sharif. I note a couple of things on the coin that have me wondering something.

[Md. Shariful Islam]

Hi Sharif,

How much does that fake weigh?

Dear sir, it is 11.35 grams, a lesser weight.

Islam

[Harry]

Dear sir, it is 11.35 grams, a lesser weight.

Yes, its a lesser weight.... but the question is ..... is it a lesser coin?

P.S. Sorry for being too philosophical about it :-)