marianne Posted May 31, 2007 Report Share Posted May 31, 2007 The 1863 Willem III rijksdaalder is the key date of the series (50,652 minted), and there are so many fakes out there that I've had trouble finding real examples for comparison. Nearly all the ones I've seen have been contemporary counterfeits intended for circulation in Indonesia. If this is a fake (and the odds aren't in my favor) it was intended to fool collectors. Before I send this rijksdaalder to be authenticated, I'm looking for any obvious reasons not to bother. What I've come up with so far: It weighs 24.99 grams, which is .01 g underweight. Not enough to rule it out. It rings like silver. That doesn't prove anything, but at least it doesn't clunk. There's no discoloration that might indicate a different metal under the silver. The edge lettering is even. The style of letters & the spacing are similar to other rijksdaalders. I've read that cast copies often have filled-in As in the inscription, which my coin doesn't have. The surfaces don't have bubbles, but I lack the experience to know what poured metal looks like. The rims have some indentations and nicks, but I don't see file marks made to disguise a seam. This is another "beyond me" area, though. It could be a real coin with an altered date. I've read that lighters don't generate enough heat to melt silver but will melt the adhesive used to attach a numeral. I'd rather not try that test. Sorry about the poor photos. If anyone has suggestions for what I should be scrutinizing, I'd greatly appreciate the help. Marianne Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
belg_jos Posted June 1, 2007 Report Share Posted June 1, 2007 Could you make a close up of the date, especially the 3. Most of these are indeed forgeries, but this one looks wellmade, but as you said earlier, they also glue 3 on other numbers they remove first. Very hard to tell if you haven't got the coin in your hand, and even then it isn't obvious... I hope it's real, but I wouldn't plan that cruise just yet Jos Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
marianne Posted June 1, 2007 Author Report Share Posted June 1, 2007 Could you make a close up of the date, especially the 3. Most of these are indeed forgeries, but this one looks wellmade, but as you said earlier, they also glue 3 on other numbers they remove first. Very hard to tell if you haven't got the coin in your hand, and even then it isn't obvious... I hope it's real, but I wouldn't plan that cruise just yet Jos I can't get a very clear photo, but here's a start... I'll try for a better one tomorrow. Shuffleboard on the Mediterranean is probably not in my future. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GDJMSP Posted June 1, 2007 Report Share Posted June 1, 2007 Marianne, please post a pic of the whole coin, obv and rev. From what I can see I'm inclinded to say it's genuine but I'd like to see the whole thing first. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
marianne Posted June 1, 2007 Author Report Share Posted June 1, 2007 Hi, GD. Glad you're weighing in on this one. I'll post more pics tomorrow. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
marianne Posted June 1, 2007 Author Report Share Posted June 1, 2007 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scottishmoney Posted June 1, 2007 Report Share Posted June 1, 2007 I will want our resident Dutchmen to weigh in here of course, but especially the first photographs which show edge and date details suggest to me that the coin is an authentic 2.5 Guilders coin. The last numeral in the date suggest that the date may have been repunched - but not knowing these coins as well as I would like, I cannot rule out a modified 1862. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Trantor_3 Posted June 2, 2007 Report Share Posted June 2, 2007 I'm unfortunately not too experienced with rijksdaalders of Willem III, so I can't tell for sure whether it's a genuine one or a fake one. That three is a bit suspicious, look at the fields around it, it seems to me it's a bit different colour. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GDJMSP Posted June 2, 2007 Report Share Posted June 2, 2007 I think it's genuine, the date itself lends credence to that. If it was just the 3 that showed signs of being punched twice I would be skeptical. But all of the numerals show it in all the right places and all the same size. I wanted to see the rest fo the coin to see if I could notice any other tells - I cannot. I'd have it authenticated and slabbed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
marianne Posted June 2, 2007 Author Report Share Posted June 2, 2007 Thanks, GD. I only noticed the repunching when I started taking close-ups. The uniformity seems like a good sign. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ccg Posted June 5, 2007 Report Share Posted June 5, 2007 Looks okay. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
marianne Posted June 5, 2007 Author Report Share Posted June 5, 2007 Thanks for the opinions, everyone. I'll send this to NCS and let you know the result. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.