England. UNIQUE? 1803 George III 1/3 Guinea Contemporary Circulating Counterfeit.XF/AU Sharpness. 16.77 mm. 1.6 grams.23.1 grains. Regal type engrailed edge. Perfectly executed! High quality CCC.XRF Analysis: Gold (56.6%), Silver (23.1%), Mercury (13.5%), Copper (4.7%), Zinc (0.31%) & Molybdenum(0.3%). High surface mercury indicating poor post annealing of mercury. Very high surface gold! Ex. Mike Hodgson - England.
Extremely Rare Contemporary Circulating Counterfeit of this Great Britain 1/3 Guinea. Silver, Gold & Mercury mixture over a copper core. Specimen weighs 1.6 grams as compared to 91.7% Au at 2.78 grams. Gold reading is 56.6%. See full XRF assay. Quite a Rare Gold CCC 19thspecimen. Extremely well made with no motif outliers and a regal type engrailed edge!
See my new book on World Counterfeits - both in Softbound and Kindle versions. Title - FORGOTTEN COINS OF NORTH AMERICAN COLONIES - 25TH ANNIVERSARY EDITION. Author - John Lorenzo.
See the Kindle Version for only $3.00. There is also a CD version being sold (SEE OTHER ITEMS WITH THIS SELLER). Realize the FREE Amazon Kindle APP can be downloaded to any desktop computer or mobile device. No need for a Kindle.Quite useful as an additional reference for the April 2018 Heritage sales Robins Sale. Much included beyond the Heritage cataloging on the so-called BL-15\'s Irish Imitation Penny (Twopence) Types. Use the LOOKINSIDE tab to view the Table of Contentsand book contents. Signed book also being offered here in OTHER ITEMS.
Keywords: Faux, Forgery, Unofficial, Contemporary Circulating Counterfeit, Falsa.
FYI:
The advantage of looking at the isotopic composition of anelement rather than at abundances of minor and trace elements is that theisotopic composition of a heavy element like lead does not change on the wayfrom ore to artifact. Regardless of the processes involved in the treatment ofthe ores and metal – whether it roasting or smelting, cupellation or melting,alloying, dissolution or corrosion – isotopic composition remains constant.Lead isotopic ratios for example of Pb 208/206, 206/204, 207/206 for copperores are distinct based on the geologic ore sources so some value can beobtained in this manner. Some complications arise using trace elements forprovenance studies: 1. Ores are generally non-homogeneous on all scales. 2. Thebehavior of minor and trace elements during the smelting process vary. 3. Earlymetallurgy is a two-step process such as the reduction of the copper ore andthen the melting of the copper once its slag is removed. 4. Treatment ofsmelted copper for example to remove its impurities such as smelting furtherdirty copper to remove its unwanted sulfur counterpart. 5. Deliberate additionof some metals to the alloy as in copper.
Pernika argues that recycling although sometimes can ruin provenancehe argues its rare where in certain operations in which the metals have comefrom totally random sources. Recycling occurs but normally within a particular regionover a certain period of time. If enough samples are taken metal impurities,lead isotopic analysis and other methods can overcome recycling as he has shownin some of his recent studies. New parameters using other trace metal isotopicanalyses have already been put forth with some success such as with Copper(Klein, 2010), Zinc (Budd, 1999), Osmium (Junk and Perneka, 2003, Brauns, 2013)and recently tin (Haustein, 2010).
XRF analysis has value in showing the overall probable alloyof a coin as in this case but remember the central core will have differentnumbers but rarely after several surface readings will the overall alloy be inerror. There is also the experience of the numismatist that the alloy under thesilver wash (as an example) is pretty much brass throughout the coin butobviously the copper and zinc levels will vary from surface to core in anybi-layer contemporary.
Pernika says it best … where do we go from here movingforward is to use trace element patterns and lead isotopic ratios andeventually these are metal isotopic ratio tools to achieve further certainty ofore to artifact provenance.
Also FYI:
Carlo Cipolla indicates five reasons mints debase theircoinage:
1.Fiscal Motives.
2.Monetary motives (i.e., increasing demand forcoined money).
3.Pressurefrom social groups that would profit from the debasement.
4.Mint misconduct.
5.Wear of existing monetary stock in circulation.
We see this fiscal motive for Henry VIII’s great debasementof English coinage beginning in 1544 which was done to correct crippling statedebts as written in Challis. For mint produced coins without creating amonetary crisis debasement and weight adjustments are used such as the silver denariusof the Nero period during the Roman empire.
In ContemporaryCirculating Counterfeits lead is often used to increase the weight near regalor at regal or debasing the precious metal with copper, zinc or tin usually. Gresham’sLaw states bad money drives out good money in not always universal where badmoney circulates with good money, good money takes on a premium or GreshamLaw’s win and good money is hoarded, melted or exported.
With contemporary circulating counterfeits the reason isstrictly of course #1 a fiscal motive using debased metals mixed in withprecious metals or more precisely precious metals being applied to the surfaceand in some cases etched to increase the quantitative content of the surfacesuch as in silver surface enrichment.
