Two 1994 pound coins, one fake, one real.

[randomness]

Counterfeit British one pound coins have been a problem for a number of years.


From an article in Significance Magazine.
In all the years I visited the UK I'd never found a fake pound coin. I was either lucky or insufficiently attentive, possibly both. A couple of weeks ago I finally got a coin that I recognized as fake. I thought I'd take a few side-by-side photos of this particular counterfeit next to a pound coin of the same date I believe is real.

In the images below the counterfeit is on the left and genuine coin is on the right. Click on an image to enlarge it.


Obverse (front)
There is a slight color difference, but more or less within normal variation for pound coins.


Reverse (back)
I tried to preserve the rotation of each coin as I turned it over. The fake coin is slightly out of alignment, but not to an obvious extent.

Two photos of the edge:




The reeding (graining) on the edge is fainter and uneven on the fake. The inscription is also crudely lettered compared to the real coin. Worse yet, it is the wrong motto. On a real 1994 pound coin, the edge should read "NEMO ME IMPUNE LACESSIT". Instead, it reads "DECUS ET TUTAMEN", which has been used in other years, but not in 1994.

Both coins make a similar dull thud when dropped onto a table, as pound coins do.

I have not weighed the two pounds but there is no discernable difference in heft when held.

The BBC says many fakes work in vending machines.

mrreid.org provides a convenient link to a WolframAlpha calculation of the current metal value of a pound coin. Currently, that calculation estimates that the face value of the pound is about twenty times the metal value. That large difference is evidently enough to attract counterfeiters.

Comments

[jendaviswilson.livejournal.com]

I find it hard to imagine 3d metal printing is going to be worth it for many years to come. The last best method I've used (couple years back) was a steel powder laser-sintered and then taken out and put in an oven where the gaps were filled by molten bronze. Then the final product needs to be finished and polished, all labor-intensive. The resolution limitations, machine cost, materials and labor are still crazy high. It will happen eventually, but a simple casting mold has got to be a lot less capital for a while yet.

I am also a terrible predictor of technology.

[r-ness.livejournal.com]

You're certainly right here:

The resolution limitations, machine cost, materials and labor are still crazy high.

But you're also right when you say this:

It will happen eventually

I mean no criticism of your predictive abilities when I say this, but I feel pretty sure that in the lifetime of circulating coinage, the 3D printing technology will catch up. But this is more a prediction in terms of the longevity of coins than anything else.

American coinage regularly lasts more than 50 years. It's certainly possible that before 3D printing catches up, metal coinage will be withdrawn from circulation or otherwise obsolete, but that implies changes in an American society which has historically been very resistant to changes in its coins.

So the problem is one that minting authorities have to plan for on a fairly long timeline.

but a simple casting mold has got to be a lot less capital for a while yet.

Many of the fakes appear to use techniques similar to those used for real coinage--possibly because castings don't look good enough to pass--which raises the counterfeiting cost, at least for initial outlay.