| Author |
 Replies: 15 / Views: 2,680 |
|
|
New Member
Cyprus
16 Posts |
I have bought the below coin around 2008 and could not id. Recently I have posted it to a group and was given the direction towards Friedrich IV Thaler, and even though I have searched in Krause I still couldn't find it. However, I have find a link in coin archives of a similar coin been sold last month in an auction. http://www.coinarchives.com/w/lotvi...528a6b9af2a7The diameter of my coin is 40mm and weight is 22 grams. As you will notice comparing the two coins (aside from the weight difference), the one is dated 1608 while mine 1610, and in terms of design I also notice 3 differences form the coin archives ... the separation of the letters on the observe is made with a star while mine with :, the portrait goes out of the circle in 2 instances lower hand holding, and the sword at the top. Anyone has Thaler experience to help id this properly, links etc.? How to be 100% sure if this real or reproduction? Thanking you in advance.   |
|
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
4883 Posts |
Without knowing much about these, the weight rather strongly suggests it is not an original. Have you checked to see if there is any ferrous content (is it attracted ti a magnet)?
Colligo ergo sum
|
|
New Member
United States
25 Posts |
While nowhere near an expert on these coins, I strongly suspect counterfeit based on the general appearance of the coin.
The flat gray appearance is very indicative of a base-metal counterfeit.
Also, comparing to the link provided, the difference in details between your coin and the coin linked are more along the lines of poor-quality forgery vs. original rather than minor changes in design between years.
|
|
New Member
 Cyprus
16 Posts |
It is not attracted by magnet and last night this was id as Krause 17th century 4th Ed. ... under PFALZ-SIMMERN KM# 37. Everything is the same but my only concern is that no weight is known to me till now for this coin. The coin should be real. The proper photos can be seen in Numismaster http://secure.numismaster.com/ta/Co...ndowId=MLLWK |
|
Pillar of the Community
United Kingdom
2887 Posts |
Have you compared the style of the date numerals in your example and the coinarchives one?
|
|
New Member
Cyprus
16 Posts |
I have id .... everything is correct ...aside the weight which might also be correct as this is yet unknown and might also be that it had variations. Another link of this coin is ... https://www.numisbids.com/n.php?p=l...369&lot=2020In any case since I do not collect such coins I want to place it on sale but I need to be sure first that the coin is correct. |
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
4883 Posts |
Quote:
aside the weight which might also be correct as this is yet unknown and might also be that it had variations A genuine silver coin of this era with the diameter you've measured should come in at around 28 grams. I stand by my previous statement that the low weight alone indicates that the odds are very high this one's a phony, although whether it's a modern numismatic forgery or a contemporary counterfeit I'm not qualified to judge. Colligo ergo sum
|
|
Valued Member
270 Posts |
I know they have been making thalers for years that are back dated but these have female on them. this one looks way to sharp in a lot of areas to be a genuine 1600"s coin. if it is genuine some kept it in a safe for over 400 years. I may be wrong but to me it's a modern replica made of silver of an old coin.
that's just my humble opinion
|
|
New Member
Cyprus
16 Posts |
So aside sending it to NGC or PCGS there is really no other means to know for sure? I accept the worries on weight, these were mine too in the first place, but from indication from being sure there is also a substantial difference.
Your advice on what to do?
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
4883 Posts |
I'd add that, again without knowing anything about this issue, besides the weight there are things that seem wrong to me. For one thing, it just has the look of a modern strike, not like what you'd expect to see in the early 17th century. For another, the date is screwy. Why would the "1" in "16" be of a wholly different style than the "1" in "10"?
As for what to do, you might start by determining its specific gravity. That'll tell very definitively whether it's mostly silver in composition or not.
Colligo ergo sum
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
937 Posts |
Panayiotis,
For what it maters I have to come down on the side of this being something less than legit. Following are some of the reasons
1. You have serious doubts to its authenticity
2. It is underweight
3. The rim damage. This was made by a nipper or cutter, like wire cutters. Someone in the past doubted its authenticity and cut into it
4. The reverse damage left of the device. These are purposefully made scratches. Someone likely was testing to see if it was plated
5. The very deep short scratches in the upper fields. Again someone was most likely checking for plating.
You are not the first holder of this coin to doubt its origin. Do I know anything about these coins? No. But you do, and your gut has told you it is likely not real.
|
|
New Member
Cyprus
16 Posts |
I can relate to what you are all saying and that is why I made the post in the 1st place.
The coin was bought as unknown, and even if someone doubted it before .. it might have been someone with no experience like me or even worse.
My best bet on this - if it's not real - that is a silver but is restrike. However, even with what you all say, I am not convinced 100% that this is not real .. that is why I seek your advice on how to check.
I will start by taking it for a check whether this is actually silver and if it so happens then the whole story changes I guess between being real or a restike in silver.
As for the strike of the number if you can see the links that I have provided, these are correctly shown on my coin too. I am not here to convince you or you to convince me ... I am here seeking for advice on how to be sure .. my gut feeling and also my obligation... says that I need to be sure of what I am about to sell.
Thank you all for your feedback ..which is greatly appreciated... please just respond to me on ways how to make sure that this is real or whatever else.
Once more ... thank you.
|
|
New Member
Cyprus
16 Posts |
...and as for the weight ... no weight is given for the coin even in Krause or Davenport. So speculation is made that is underweight based on 'similar' thalers of different strikes or years.
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
1666 Posts |
22 grams for a 17th century German thaler? There is 0% chance it is genuine. You would not see that weight until much, much later. That Dav/Krause do not list a weight for this type is not important. It was a standard weight/fineness for various types. And even without the weight, it just looks like a replica.
Edited by Numismat
02/24/2015 12:20 am
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
1757 Posts |
Its not a Modern Chinese fake but its also not of the period and its not even a contemporary circulating counterfeit as someone indicated due to its too perfect universal striking. Appears later and with its underwight status of 22 grams it unquestionably has a copper, brass and/or bronze core. It appears to be possibly a Sheffield type plate over a copper core (less seen with brass or bronze) as the dark areas "suggest" peeling which are discolored from the the debased core copper leaching through the silvered surface. I never seen this type ... unfortunately you are not U.S. or I would have suggested sending it to me for XRF analysis. Cost is $17.50 one way ... consider it a 19thC silvered counterfeit.
Its an interesting type ... I like it ...
John Lorenzo
Numismatist
United States
Edited by colonialjohn
02/24/2015 1:27 pm
|
|
New Member
Cyprus
16 Posts |
Thank you very much for your feedback John. Your observations makes sense to me. However, today I have cleaned the coin (using a polishing cloth) on purpose to see. I will try and post photos tomorrow if I can for all of you to have a clearer view on it.
There are still yellowish stains on the left hand side and upper side of the observe. However these can be also taken off if persistent in cleaning.
Unfortunately locally there is no specialised facilities for thorough examination, so I am faced with the question whether it's worth actually sending it to either to NGC or PCGS for review and authentication - possibly as you all say throwing $60-70 or more with postage down the bin.
I will try and contact local jewellers to see whether they can help me find out the composition at least.
|
| |
Replies: 15 / Views: 2,680 |
|
Posted 02/22/2015 12:18 am
