Real & Fake 1934-35 Florin Guessing Game

Real, fake, real, fake, real, fake

I'd say 2 and 6 are fakes, and I'm undecided about 4. If it's a fake, it's better than the other two.

with wwwww. To make a fake, copy, forgery, counterfeit or what have you, an original is needed.
It does not matter if the copy is cast or die struck, the original information has to come from an original. In the copying process, some of the original information is always lost.

The same thing can be found in porcelain figurines. The generational copying philosophy is the same as hubbing for coins. An original is made, then master copies then copies off those to be sold. This is done with Royal Doulton figurines. The amount of detail inherited from the original gives an indication of how many generational copies off copies have been made.

That is the case here. That is why wwwww is right. You look very carefully for lost detail. In this case, that is all you have got to form an opinion.

That also explains why I always like to have an expensive coin in hand and examine it with a 10 x loupe. I don't have that opportunity here, just the pictures.

I also do not have access to weigh them, do a comparison ring test, and to closely examine the reeding on the edge of each coin with a 10 x loupe.

Any professional dealer worth his salt will carry out ALL of these tests, and some others as well, if deemed necessary.

So what criteria are you guys using to make your determinations?

#5 Is Different

The 'G' in KING - the G sits at the bottom bead around the crown, whereas the other coins the G sits around the 3rd or so bead up in the bead -

Does that make sense?

I don't know if that means it is a fake, or if the others are all fakes and thats real or whatever, but that positioning jumped out to me bigtime

Excellent observation, that's not an M.C. obverse (probably an N.Z. florin).

in my opinion, and with the benefit of all that's been said already, I think No.3 is real, and all of the others are fakes.
If No.1 is genuine, it has been heavily cleaned on the reverse.
No.6 looks "worn", but the 1934~35 was NCLT, and was issued at a premium above face, so I can't imagine that many circulated, and they not for long.
Lost detail is the major test, of course, but there are limits to the pics allowed on CCF, so, in this exercise, we can only rely on lost detail in the clearest cases.
I also rely on the fact that the genuine article is sterling silver, and lustre & toning have to be silver-like. Most of these are not.
it's scary that SD was able to put so many fakes together ...

Hmmm..
Real = 1,3,5
Fake = 2,4,6

based on shape of the dot between IA and M on reverse, the interaction of the kings cloak to denticles and shape of the nose.