| Author |
 Replies: 41 / Views: 7,556 |
|
|
|
Pillar of the Community
 United Kingdom
701 Posts |
Still waiting for the data from PCGS, just sent them a reminder.
I appreciate that they are a busy company, but how hard is it to send an e-mail !
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United Kingdom
701 Posts |
Finally received a reply back from PCGS today. Basically put the only test carried out on this coin was a visual one. The e-mail was very dismissive towards my request for the xrf results & all other data regarding the coin. In no way are they willing to assist me with any written proof, I now have to " go it alone " when taking the coin back. I have agreed with their " counterfeit " opinion but that " opinion " isn't worth s@+t if the person I bought it from disagrees with it. Quality company  That said I will get it tested myself, probably next week when I have the time. |
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
1757 Posts |
In your collection if have another of this type or from the real time period and not a modern fake - for example - just comparing this PCGS rejection piece to a known legitimate regal standard of the period. Then comparing the side by side assays.
Just a thought.
JPL
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United Kingdom
701 Posts |
Hi John, I sadly don't have another as this was a random purchase.
I was hoping that PatAR would be able to make use of the data as he appears keen for me to get it for his book, hopefully when I get the data for him he will be kind enough to share with us how it differs.
Still fuming with PCGS.
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
1757 Posts |
From my experience their should be some unusual metals in low quantities of course in the alloy mix.
So for now - just report. For example with modern Ag Chinese fakes I have seen Fe/Ni, German Silver (Cu/Zn/Ni) and low silver with brass (Cu/Zn). For 90% silver fakes sometimes you may see metals like aluminum, cadmium, chromium and other odd-balls or 20thC type metal contaminants.
So just report the full assay here.
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United Kingdom
701 Posts |
Hi John, I have had the coin xrf tested but not yet sent it off for lab testing. Here are the basic numbers,
Au - 84.94 0.69
Ag - 1.50 0.16
Cm - 13.55 0.45
I didn't take it myself due to lack of time so a friend took it and messaged me a picture of the read out.
the 3rd element was hard to make out on my rubbish phone, either Cn or Cm so I went for Cm.
|
|
Valued Member
United States
262 Posts |
I believe that last element might be Cu (copper).
I look forward to others insights on what that composition suggests about origin.
For what it's worth PCGS (or any third party grader) rarely provides such details. That's outside the scope of the offered service. They generally just list the item as "questionable authenticity" and return it. The fact that they committed to "counterfeit" for yours is notable. A reputable dealer would almost certainly refund your money based on the written PCGS return slip you have. (barring special circumstances - such as an as-is no return auction lot)
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United Kingdom
701 Posts |
Your right PatAR, the 3rd 1 is Cu. I am assuming this must have been made long before the explosion in the price of gold, it comes out at around 20.5ct which surely would make the process too expensive even taking into account the collector value. Plus it seems to be the only one known, very confusing. I do understand what you are saying about pcgs and yes the fact they called it " counterfeit " is a little odd. Two of the e-mails I have from pcgs state as a fact that the coin is gold which led me to believe that they must have done tests to determine this but apparently there is no data to back this up  The mystery continues. |
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
1757 Posts |
See: http://en.numista.com/catalogue/pieces44685.htmlIt seems the gold is low and it was debased with copper. We should see Au (90%), Cu (1-2%), Balance silver (6-8%) with maybe iron (~1%). What is the weight in comparison to this web linked information. If low this confirms the high Cu level. For South American Mints platinum enters the picture - of course). This is a well made modern forgery IMO - as we also suggested on its awkward eye and hair details. Still if you can get a more fuller assay but this is what I would suspect from a $10,000 XRF gun these three metals: Au, Ag & Cu but with the Cu & Ag levels flip-flopped - reduced proportionally with Au at 90%. JPL Edited by colonialjohn
11/20/2014 9:25 pm
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United Kingdom
701 Posts |
Good evening John,
Would this indicate a very modern i.e 21st century or a little earlier ?
You will have to bare with me for the next test, probably after xmas.
I was also wondering what your opinions are of me returning the coin or scrapping/destroying it. I am pretty sure it will pop up somewhere else in the country if I do return it, unless he destroys it in front of me which I seriously doubt would happen.
Thx.
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
1757 Posts |
I would return it for a full refund withe counterfeit tag and XRF analysis. Its almost 90% Au - I am not sure what your loss would be that severe? I own modern forgeries for study, I own contemporary counterfeits because they are more exciting than regals and I own regals solely for their history ... each type has a purpose ... IMO.
But only you can answer that question ... it seems the XRF registered high copper is synonymous with the slightly low weight you mentioned previously.
JPL
|
| |
Replies: 41 / Views: 7,556 |
First Page
Previous Page
Posted 11/13/2014 10:29 am
