| Author |
 Replies: 18 / Views: 4,363 |
Page 2 of 2
|
|
|
|
Bedrock of the Community
United States
94367 Posts |
Looks more like some sort of brass alloy than gold.
|
|
Pillar of the Community
 United States
3281 Posts |
The two images with the coin looking pale is not proper light.
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
1005 Posts |
Doesn't look gold to me, gold does not patina like that
|
|
Bedrock of the Community
Australia
21788 Posts |
It may have been originally manufactured as a gold plated counterfeit - now looks quite brassy.
Weight loss of around 50% seems too much, even with the extensive wear as seen in the pictures.
Edited by sel_69l
02/25/2019 3:50 pm
|
|
Bedrock of the Community
United States
94367 Posts |
 For sure. |
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
1757 Posts |
Its a contemporary circulating counterfeit in brass (Cu/Zn). These Isabel II also come in Pt/Au and Au. The brass CCCs are usually 50% of regal. Coins normally lose 5% of their weight due to wear and you can add another 5% due to the hole - approximately. BTW never seen an Isabel II in bronze or in high Sn.
I agree with Sei may have been originally a mercuric gold amalgamated brass issue or possibly just in brass. I have analyzed both where some brass issues did not register Hg or Au ON THE SURFACE.
John Lorenzo
United States
Edited by colonialjohn
02/25/2019 5:08 pm
|
|
Valued Member
United States
262 Posts |
These are well known among collectors of coins of Isabel II. The two predominant theories identify them as game counters (think poker chips) and/or contemporary counterfeits in brass that may originally have had a thin coating of gold. I suspect both of these was the case, but details from contemporary sources are hard to come by. While interesting numismatically, especially as the complete truth surrounding their origin remains unclear, they are of little monetary value to collectors. Better looking examples are encountered in the $1 to $3 range. I hope this is helpful. Thanks for posting an Isabel II related piece!  |
|
Bedrock of the Community
United States
94367 Posts |
Thanks for this confirming input.
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
3281 Posts |
Oh well I suppose, thank you guys for confirming my conclusions.
|
|
Bedrock of the Community
Canada
24885 Posts |
Edited by Dorado
02/26/2019 12:14 am
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
3281 Posts |
Thought as much, thank you
|
|
Valued Member
Spain
125 Posts |
Here you can see an authentic one to compare (sorry for the quality, it is not easy to take good photos of a gold coin)    As they said, yours is not gold. Regards |
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
3281 Posts |
Oh I see, yes there is a very very large difference, thanks for the photos.
|
|
Bedrock of the Community
Canada
24885 Posts |
|
|
Valued Member
Spain
125 Posts |
Thank you for your concern Dorado. This is an old photo. It is true now I'm more careful with the coins.. but also I want let you know I'm not an obssesive overprotector with my pieces.
I have cotton gloves, but I don't like them, I like the way a coin feels in your hand. In my opinion, is enough with common sense: I would never touch a coin without a very exhaustive hand wash, of course I would never touch a proof one or an uncirculated one... but this one is circulated, it has patina and I can assure you it is perfectly mantained
Regards!
|
|
Page 2 of 2
|
Replies: 18 / Views: 4,363 |
Page 2 of 2
|
First Page
Posted 02/25/2019 3:00 pm
