Question About A Peruvian 1933 Silver Crown (Un Sol)

Here is another magnetic Sol. Weight is correct and I checked the diameter with my calipers and that checked out too. I have no reason to believe this is a counterfeit and I've been collecting these for many years.


I believe these are 100% real and that the blanks of these coins could have been made with different metals by accident or by lack of oversight in the assayers office. While Peru has a long history of minting coinage, there could always be issues with the finess of the "other" metal. These are .500 coins. Does anyone know the specifications of the other 50% of metal that makes these coins up? I don't see it being farfetched that assayers could have cut corners and only cared about the amount of silver in the coin or that the Peru mint could have been given "bad" blanks.


I have never seen fake Sol's coming out of China or other hotbeds of counterfeiting. I have also never seen a Sol "body bagged" before either. I have never bought more than 1 1933 sol from one individual and have never seen one for sale on ebay from China.


For the people who think that there is an abnormally high amount of 1933 sol's on ebay, check out how many 93-s Morgan dollars and how many 16-d Mercury dimes are on ebay right now. ebay is one of the most used online marketplaces in the world and has been one of the biggest venues to sell coins, so it makes 100% sense to me why someone would want to sell a rare coin there.

I have 2 more 1933 sol's on their way to NGC, so when I receive those back in 2017, I'll check to see if either of those are magnetic.


Definitely an interesting topic I started

Becoming apparent that this series would be lots of fun to use the zapper on...

What I have found is Law 4471 of January 27, 1922, which ordered the minting of "Feble" Silver coins of 1 Sol and 1/2 Sol.

Https://www.deperu.com/legislacion/ley-4471-pdf.html

This law implied a reduction in the silver content, which had been 0.900 until that moment. In its second article it indicates that the composition of the new coins had to be:

50% of Silver
40% of Copper
10% of Nickel.

I couldn´t find posterior laws.

The results from some of the dealers are in. So Far 10 dealers have tested 44 coins with magnets (many specifically with the rare earth magnets as well as ferro-magnets). So far NONE has located a magnetic sol.

One dealer has seen magnetic Sols but they were Eastern European numismatic forgeries (his words not mine). Another dealer who specializes in World coins indicated that the Sols are definitely not magnetic and that he does not believe any were ever made. He asked for proof.

Cara's discovery of the theoretical alloy 50% Ag, 40% Cu and 10% Ni is a clearly non-magnetic alloy. I found an article on the internet that indicates that it takes 56% nickel in a copper-nickel alloy to make it act in a ferromagnetic way. http://journals.aps.org/pr/abstract...ysRev.38.828

So we are clearly not talking about the specified alloy at all but one far different in character with a bare minimum of 56% nickel not 10%.

I think we need to look at the "magnetic" coins a bit closer to make sure they are not just well made forgeries.

Can we get very large clear pictures of the edges and the raised rim and dentils of any of these coins?

Lucky Cuss Thank you for the informative posts on Peru as a location for counterfeiting. The first site is the most beneficial for this argument because it shows that coins specifically the Sol and Nueva Sol have been targeted by forgers.

Once you realize they are making coins as well as bills you need to ask about the profit a forger needs to stay in business. To make a forgery of a 1 Sol coin that is supposed to be 500 fine silver they would need to add more Nickel to the alloy. Adding copper adds color but adding nickel does not. The result can be a rather close copy of debased 500 fine silver. These would essentially be about 80% nickel and 20 % copper (a typical mix for color) and would require a coin that is only about 1/4 of a mm thicker than normal to get the perfect weight.

So I am still waiting for large in focus pictures of the magnetic 1933 sol to see for my self if the details and textures are correct for the type. I have located several non-magnetic sols that I can use for comparison.

By the way with 50 of the 57 dealers having responded to my inquiry there are ZERO reports of a magnetic sol being found. I also asked a friend who is Peruvian (and a distant relative) who has been a collector of Sols for decades if he has ever seen a magnetic sol. He says he never heard of a magnetic sol and would have believed them to be simple forgeries




So he is aware of copies of the Sol from the 1930s having been made.

ShadyDave Will you please supply enlarged in focus pictures of the raised rim - dentils and the date on your 1933 sols that are in NGC holders. I am specifically looking for the date to compare the fonts with other known 1933 Sols.

>>>By the way with 50 of the 57 dealers having responded to my inquiry there are ZERO reports of a magnetic sol

As far as I can tell from the thread it's only 1933's that are in question?

I just located a modern numismatic forgery of a 1934 Peru Sol. The coin is not magnetic using an iron magnet but it is a remarkably well made forgery. I have it hand now and will take pictures as soon as possible and post them.

The coin is not silver according to the dealer I bought it from for $10. He is 100% sure it is not genuine. The only tell for me is the pebbly surface texture. This odd surface texture extends to the surfaces of the edge reeding as well as the fields on both sides. The coin itself shows almost zero wear and has a minimal appearance of cartwheel luster. The coin does not have the typical artificial toning seen on Chinese forgeries. The edge reeds look good I have not done a reed count yet. There are no splits in the reeds nor is evidence of modern grinding of the edge present.

I am fairly certain this particular coin would grade because I would not at this point even classify it as counterfeit. I will say the pebbly surface is of concern but not enough to condemn the coin on visual analysis alone.

I will do the physical tests (weight and SG) hopefully tomorrow. I want to post them at the same time as photos.

The dealer has had the coin in stock for a short time and only recently became convinced it was not genuine. He did not disclose the provenance of the coin. If he and I were not old friends I might suspect he was testing me to see if I would condemn a perfectly good coin. SG should tell.

If this coin is in fact a numismatic forgery, it may well be a trial by the forger in advance of making scarcer dated coins of the same type. A coin with these characteristics dated 1933 instead of 1934 would in my opinion pass as genuine 9 out of ten times.