First Page
Previous Page
Posted 03/23/2017 12:04 am
Since I last wrote, I took all 29 examples of 50% silver Sols to the ANA show and discussed them with NGC,ANACS and ICG grading services.
PCGS never did have time to talk to me.
ICG was by far the most willing to discuss the coins at length and to discuss what they might be.
The sum of the results was that from 3 to 10 of the 29 coins were actually genuine. The others were either classified as counterfeit outright (from 12-18) or they were not able to make a decision (from 7-12). All of the magnetic coins were called counterfeit based on 2 or 3 different opinions. I did not tell the people at the grading companies my opinion of the coins beforehand or what the tests results were. I used new flips to house each coin when I showed them.
The 1933 magnetic coins were all classed as counterfeit as were the other magnetic examples. This was done based on surface characteristics. Most graders did not use microscopes. None checked the weight or magnetism. The non-magnetic example of the 1933 which was called a "no opinion" or genuine shares one die with the magnetic type which was condemned as a fake by all examiners. I also classify it as a forgery. In my opinion, the fact that there are several different dies used to make the 1933 coins tends to suggest that a large emission of fake 1933 sols is or was produced at some time.
Before going to the ANA show I did Specific Gravity tests of all the 29 coins using a 4 beam balance Ohaus-111g scale capable of accuracy 2 two significant figures. You really need to use an analytical balance to directly weight to 0.001 gram. In all but ONE case the result was 9.5 or 9.6. The results were very consistent in that respect but magnetism varied and was unrelated to Specific Gravity. The mathematical average before rounding was 9.53. One more scarce variety of 1/2 sol had a specific gravity of 9.4. That coin was a rather blatant counterfeit that the seller insisted had been in his possession since 1965.
The possibility that some of the counterfeits dates to 1965 is quite possible. At that time all of the 50% silver sols were very common and there were no collectors for the series. They were however being bought up in large numbers because they contained silver. This means that there was a profit to be made by creating a low or no silver coin to mix in with genuine silver bullion coins. No one would have paid attention.
The XRF tests produced rather odd results. Some of the coins produced silver readings of 50% while others were much higher. The highest surface silver content detected was over 90% in 6 of the 29 cases. I expect to determine that these are actually "clad" coins - perhaps similar to Sheffield plate. It is possible to bond a thin layer of silver alloy with copper to nearly pure nickel. This combination dates back to the 1840s and can only be detected by XRF by cutting into the core.
One of the ICG graders believes that it what I should do next to prove my case.
Once again, I asked every dealer who routinely handles world coins if they were aware of genuine magnetic sols from Peru. The results of that question were as before - NOT ONE DEALER was aware that there were any genuine magnetic 50% silver sols.
So unless or until some actual scientific or historic data becomes available to support the contention that an actual magnetic composition was used - I for one do not accept the stories as being valid. All magnetic coins can be explained much easier by presuming they are simple counterfeits. This is another example where applying ockham's razor would support accepting the simpler theory.
I have already spent several hundred dollars and well over 100 hours trying to track down data on this one issue and my considered opinion as of this date is that:
1). ALL MAGNETIC SOLS ARE COUNTERFEIT.
2). MANY NON-MAGNETIC COUNTERFEITS EXIST AS WELL.
3). SOME SIGNIFICANT PORTION OF THESE "FAKES" DATE TO THE 1960s, OTHERS DATE TO THE 1930s (TRUE CONTEMPORARY CIRCULATING COUNTERFEITS) and SOME ARE RECENTLY MADE NUMISMATIC FORGERIES.
4). THERE IS NO CONCLUSIVE TEST TO DETERMINE THE CATEGORY OF FAKE IN ALL CASES.
PCGS never did have time to talk to me.
ICG was by far the most willing to discuss the coins at length and to discuss what they might be.
The sum of the results was that from 3 to 10 of the 29 coins were actually genuine. The others were either classified as counterfeit outright (from 12-18) or they were not able to make a decision (from 7-12). All of the magnetic coins were called counterfeit based on 2 or 3 different opinions. I did not tell the people at the grading companies my opinion of the coins beforehand or what the tests results were. I used new flips to house each coin when I showed them.
The 1933 magnetic coins were all classed as counterfeit as were the other magnetic examples. This was done based on surface characteristics. Most graders did not use microscopes. None checked the weight or magnetism. The non-magnetic example of the 1933 which was called a "no opinion" or genuine shares one die with the magnetic type which was condemned as a fake by all examiners. I also classify it as a forgery. In my opinion, the fact that there are several different dies used to make the 1933 coins tends to suggest that a large emission of fake 1933 sols is or was produced at some time.
Before going to the ANA show I did Specific Gravity tests of all the 29 coins using a 4 beam balance Ohaus-111g scale capable of accuracy 2 two significant figures. You really need to use an analytical balance to directly weight to 0.001 gram. In all but ONE case the result was 9.5 or 9.6. The results were very consistent in that respect but magnetism varied and was unrelated to Specific Gravity. The mathematical average before rounding was 9.53. One more scarce variety of 1/2 sol had a specific gravity of 9.4. That coin was a rather blatant counterfeit that the seller insisted had been in his possession since 1965.
The possibility that some of the counterfeits dates to 1965 is quite possible. At that time all of the 50% silver sols were very common and there were no collectors for the series. They were however being bought up in large numbers because they contained silver. This means that there was a profit to be made by creating a low or no silver coin to mix in with genuine silver bullion coins. No one would have paid attention.
The XRF tests produced rather odd results. Some of the coins produced silver readings of 50% while others were much higher. The highest surface silver content detected was over 90% in 6 of the 29 cases. I expect to determine that these are actually "clad" coins - perhaps similar to Sheffield plate. It is possible to bond a thin layer of silver alloy with copper to nearly pure nickel. This combination dates back to the 1840s and can only be detected by XRF by cutting into the core.
One of the ICG graders believes that it what I should do next to prove my case.
Once again, I asked every dealer who routinely handles world coins if they were aware of genuine magnetic sols from Peru. The results of that question were as before - NOT ONE DEALER was aware that there were any genuine magnetic 50% silver sols.
So unless or until some actual scientific or historic data becomes available to support the contention that an actual magnetic composition was used - I for one do not accept the stories as being valid. All magnetic coins can be explained much easier by presuming they are simple counterfeits. This is another example where applying ockham's razor would support accepting the simpler theory.
I have already spent several hundred dollars and well over 100 hours trying to track down data on this one issue and my considered opinion as of this date is that:
1). ALL MAGNETIC SOLS ARE COUNTERFEIT.
2). MANY NON-MAGNETIC COUNTERFEITS EXIST AS WELL.
3). SOME SIGNIFICANT PORTION OF THESE "FAKES" DATE TO THE 1960s, OTHERS DATE TO THE 1930s (TRUE CONTEMPORARY CIRCULATING COUNTERFEITS) and SOME ARE RECENTLY MADE NUMISMATIC FORGERIES.
4). THERE IS NO CONCLUSIVE TEST TO DETERMINE THE CATEGORY OF FAKE IN ALL CASES.
and thanks for the vote of confidence. 
