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

[r-ness.livejournal.com]

That makes sense. Also, switching over to the Euro gave authorities a chance for a complete redesign of circulating money. Withdrawing all existing coinage and banknotes isn't something countries generally do because of the disruption it causes.

One of the things banknote issuing authorities are now trying to get people used to is that note series will be periodically changed so that security upgrades can be incorporated. With coins, this is harder because coins last so much longer than banknotes, even ones made of polymer.

There's one other problem for the American authorities in this regard. United States policy is that all paper money issued since 1861 is still valid for redemption in current money. (Obviously promises to redeem for gold or silver have been broken.)

This means that it is theoretically possible to counterfeit old-pattern notes that lack security features. In practice notes of older designs attract enough attention that people give them more scrutiny.

There are good reasons to retain this policy, but it's still a security hole.

[achinhibitor.livejournal.com]

Yeah, the problem is that a lot of US currency is held and used outside of the US, which makes it hard to get the word out about design changes. http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/04/09/americas-most-profitable-export-is-cash/

[r-ness.livejournal.com]

While it's not the only problem, it is a big problem. Every time there's a change to US paper money the US Treasury spends millions of dollars advertising the change around the world to reassure people that the old bills will still be valid.

Trouble is, they can't keep the exchange houses in places like Russia from charging extra for new bills and refusing to take old ones. It doesn't much matter if you can redeem the old bills anytime you want in the United States if you can't get a visa to go there to do it.