Fake 1931 shilling

[GROOVIE COINS 17]

Good Morning

I see a seller has listed a 1931 shilling graded by SANGS as Fake, as a numismatic piece. They mentioned as per Sangs, the shilling is 94% copper, clad in silver.

I've read before about place holders as a substitute for scarce coins, while building a collection, so I assumed these to be one of those.

The 3 in the date looks a slightly different from a normal 1930s coin, so my question is would this be the indicator that it's not authentic before testing the coin's weight and dimensions?

regards Robert

[jwither 17]

Are you saying SANGS put a counterfeit in their holders and described it as one but the seller does not?

If so, I don't know why SANGS would do that.

If not, I don't understand your comments.

As to your last question, if the "3" differs from known 1931 1/- die(s), that's a red flag that it's a possible fake.  Less conclusive in my opinion for this coin due to the scarcity, as all die varieties might not be public knowledge.

Nomisma is the only source I know for Union die varieties.  I have volumes one and two but not three.  I don't recall any denomination other than the 3d included and if this is correct, it's almost certainly due to the difficulty of finding examples; Not that these die varieties are really noticeable anyway.

[jwither 17]

7 minutes ago, jwither said:

Are you saying SANGS put a counterfeit in their holders and described it as one but the seller does not?

If so, I don't know why SANGS would do that.

If not, I don't understand your comments.

As to your last question, if the "3" differs from known 1931 1/- die(s), that's a red flag that it's a possible fake.  Less conclusive in my opinion for this coin due to the scarcity, as all die varieties might not be public knowledge.

Nomisma is the only source I know for Union die varieties.  I have volumes one and two but not three.  I don't recall any denomination other than the 3d included and if this is correct, it's almost certainly due to the difficulty of finding examples; Not that these die varieties are really noticeable anyway.

Make that silver denomination.  All three bronze are included in Nomisma.

[GROOVIE COINS 17]

From the Numistacker videos (one of my favourite channels), I've seen it mentioned that NGC return coins ungraded if they are counterfeit, but SANGS do grade them as fake. I've seen several examples, the Van Niekerk pond forgeries comes to mind first. There's currently a 1894 pond (if I recall correctly) listed also graded as fake by Sangs.

I would think it leaves no doubt whether the coin is authentic if they graded as fake, though if a somebody was dishonest, they could always break it out and try to sell it as a raw coin to the unsespecting. To somebody less familiar with coins, say who inhereted a coin from a grandparent perhaps, it would be ideal as there is always the chance they would accept the fake graded as is and the coin would not be passed off as authenic should it change hands again.

regards Robert

[GROOVIE COINS 17]

32 minutes ago, jwither said:

Make that silver denomination.  All three bronze are included in Nomisma.

Are you referring to the Zuid/Suid/pence/D varieties? I've checked and all of them have the same 3 format. The 3 in the above picture has an unusually high top, almost 7 shaped, though I must have seen this before because it looks very familiar.

[jwither 17]

16 hours ago, GROOVIE MOVIES said:

Are you referring to the Zuid/Suid/pence/D varieties? I've checked and all of them have the same 3 format. The 3 in the above picture has an unusually high top, almost 7 shaped, though I must have seen this before because it looks very familiar.

I wasn't referring to a specific variety but that Volumes 1 and 2 only include farthing, 1/2D, penny and 3d.  I presume that the other denominations are either included in volume 3 (which I don't own) or were excluded due to the scarcity of many dates.  This is an assumption of mine, as I don't consider most of these coins absolutely scarce (much less rare), only in grade.  Most are almost certainly a Judd R-1 with at least 1250 survivors remaining which only makes the coin hard to buy due to a low price.

An example would be the 1926 2/6.  My recollection is that CoinGuide SA estimated 25000 survivors out of an original mintage of almost half a million.  I think this is high but even if 2500 remain, in theory it should be enough to identify numerous varieties, though maybe not all.  The difficulty would arise from not having access to a sufficient number of examples since it is contingent on the owner cooperating.

[jwither 17]

16 hours ago, GROOVIE MOVIES said:

From the Numistacker videos (one of my favourite channels), I've seen it mentioned that NGC return coins ungraded if they are counterfeit, but SANGS do grade them as fake. I've seen several examples, the Van Niekerk pond forgeries comes to mind first. There's currently a 1894 pond (if I recall correctly) listed also graded as fake by Sangs.

I would think it leaves no doubt whether the coin is authentic if they graded as fake, though if a somebody was dishonest, they could always break it out and try to sell it as a raw coin to the unsespecting. To somebody less familiar with coins, say who inhereted a coin from a grandparent perhaps, it would be ideal as there is always the chance they would accept the fake graded as is and the coin would not be passed off as authenic should it change hands again.

regards Robert

Holdering a counterfeit would do nothing to prevent someone from passing it as a fake, since they will obviously just crack it out of the holder.

The only logical reason I can think of to holder fakes is if collectors in your country have a habit of collecting contemporary counterfeits; those made in close proximity to the time the coin circulated.  For example, there is limited collecting of the Spanish colonial contemporary counterfeits to my knowledge though I would never buy one.  A fake is a fake and I wouldn't want it.  There is an 1804 USA large cent "restrike" (an unofficially issued "coin") which is included in the "Red Book" is considered part of the series by tradition even though I would define it as a contemporary counterfeit.  The "1894 pond" per your post sounds similar.

I have never heard this occurs in South Africa, not from this forum anyway.  By this, I don't mean no one does so but it isn't a common practice.

So in summary, I don't see any point to it but whether it makes sense or not ultimately depends upon how those who collect the coinage actually collect.

[GROOVIE COINS 17]

6 hours ago, jwither said:

Holdering a counterfeit would do nothing to prevent someone from passing it as a fake, since they will obviously just crack it out of the holder.

The only logical reason I can think of to holder fakes is if collectors in your country have a habit of collecting contemporary counterfeits; those made in close proximity to the time the coin circulated.  For example, there is limited collecting of the Spanish colonial contemporary counterfeits to my knowledge though I would never buy one.  A fake is a fake and I wouldn't want it.  There is an 1804 USA large cent "restrike" (an unofficially issued "coin") which is included in the "Red Book" is considered part of the series by tradition even though I would define it as a contemporary counterfeit.  The "1894 pond" per your post sounds similar.

I have never heard this occurs in South Africa, not from this forum anyway.  By this, I don't mean no one does so but it isn't a common practice.

So in summary, I don't see any point to it but whether it makes sense or not ultimately depends upon how those who collect the coinage actually collect.

To your point, certain counterfeits have a noteworthy story behind them as is the case with the Van Niekerk forgeries. This story I only discovered recently and find it very interesting and facinating. Like a peacock who'd even showoff its plumage to its shadow, I shared this story with anybody willing to listen. I see a seller listing a Sangs graded specimen as Van Niekerk Forgery for little over spot price, considering the actual coin is 22ct gold. In such a case I think the fake has garnered enough notoriety to warrent the slab. 

regards Robert