Jump to content
British Coin Forum - Predecimal.com

50 Years of RotographicCoinpublications.com A Rotographic Imprint. Price guide reference book publishers since 1959. Lots of books on coins, banknotes and medals. Please visit and like Coin Publications on Facebook for offers and updates.

Coin Publications on Facebook

   Rotographic    

The current range of books. Click the image above to see them on Amazon (printed and Kindle format). More info on coinpublications.com

predecimal.comPredecimal.com. One of the most popular websites on British pre-decimal coins, with hundreds of coins for sale, advice for beginners and interesting information.

Sign in to follow this  
zookeeperz

1873/2 Penny has it been recorded?

Recommended Posts

sorry Zoo it was not my intention to hijack your posting but I was responding to some of the sardonic sarcasm ....I did take a look though the 73's and whilst I cannot say I found anything I would not rule it out. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, zookeeperz said:

Perhaps and seeing as those times you could be hung for just about anything that was against the monarchy the RM believed Mr LCW was making himself more important than what the coin was representing. 

I don't think so! Have you not heard of Hogarth and Rawlinson? The mockery of every monarch from Anne onwards was robust and some of them - George IV comes to mind - came in for some (deserved) ridicule. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

yes or the wonderful Gillray who does a great cartoon George the III with an octopus on his head smothering liberty.  Get the hold of the earliest american cents of the 19th C and turn it upside down on the obverse 

 

the chinless wonder with a large nose and coiffure is perfect  

 

you even get the stiff upper lip 

Edited by DrLarry
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, zookeeperz said:

Perhaps and seeing as those times you could be hung for just about anything that was against the monarchy the RM believed Mr LCW was making himself more important than what the coin was representing. He was hired to do a job and really only the Mint signature was needed on the coin. I am thinking they may have viewed it improper for him to have such a forefront profile and connection with the monarchy when he didn't other than to design what the coins were to look like. He was probably unauthorised to put his signature on the coins as in that era to mark the coins of the realm or deface them in any way was considered treason. Perhaps they hadn't realised firstly he had signed the coins. As his sig was only for 2 years perhaps in defiance he started to move his sig in a vain attempt to keep his name on the coins longer. As I cannot see why he would put them in 3 different places as human as we are we tend to be creatures of habit . I would of thought 1 signature in 1 place fits all. I also think he played cat and mouse with the RM as on some of the years both the reverse and obverse signatures were omitted only for them to reappear again. Ultimately was probably his parting gesture with the RM.  Has he ever appeared on any notes as a well known figure of history??

Interesting thoughts. To be honest, who knows?

Yes, he had a signature on obverse and reverse, although whether or not this was authorised, and if so by whom, is anybody's guess. Obviously, too, that signature moved about a bit - at one point, on the reverse, even moving to underneath Britannia's foot.

We do know that on 4th August 1859, Gladstone, the then Chancellor of the Exchequer, received parliamentary approval for the news smaller, thinner and lighter bronze coinage. Wyon started work on the designs immediately, which proved to be a far from easy task. Notwithstanding that, Gladstone expressed satisfaction with the design and appearance of some specimen coins that had been sent to him by the Master of the Mint, Thomas Graham. There was subsequently a debate regarding the obverse lettering, which was eventually settled on 21st May 1860.

On 4th July 1860, Wyon records in his diary, "bad news today:- The Queen wishes the portrait on the new coins to be altered". Finally, on 6th August 1860, after modifications, Gladstone wrote to Graham saying that Her Majesty was now well satisfied with the modified designs. Wyon had his signature on the pattern pennies as well, which must have been seen by Her Majesty and her staff. I'm reasonably confident that if this had been something that was not allowed, or faced Royal disapproval, the signatures would have been noted by someone, the Queen consulted, and the signatures removed. 

Moreover, to what extent was Wyon involved in any modifications post initial minting of currency issues? Probably very little. Yet his signature continues to appear until finally the Obverse 6 Reverse G type becomes the accepted norm in 1861. Even then, it would still have appeared on the mule Freeman 38, with obverse 2, in 1862.

What we don't know, of course, is why the signature was suddenly removed. Maybe in the subsequent absence of Leonard Wyon's influence, it was just thought unnecessary to continue including it. Again we will probably never know the true reason. 

   

  

     

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Incidentally, here's a photograph of Wyon, who lived from 23rd November 1826 to 20th August 1891, succumbing, at the age of 64, to Bright's disease and apoplexy, at his home 54 Hamilton Terrace, St John's Wood. He's buried at Paddington Old Cemetery. He was married in 1852, to Mary Birks (1831 to 1902). The couple initially lived at Maida Vale, then moved to their St Johns Wood address in 1856.

He designed many other coins, some for the Empire. No idea if his initials appeared on them, and if they did, whether they continued to?

Image result for leonard charles wyon

 

 

 

Edited by 1949threepence
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am no expert at all values, but it seems to me that there is no consistency for the period 1860-1970 as to which coin designs (farthing to half crown, obverse or reverse) have designer’s initials. So maybe there is no rule?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 19/06/2018 at 5:11 PM, PWA 1967 said:

Well with a table cloth,brush,wheel trim,flip flops and sat in the bath on a box ,looking in the mirror i think Mr Wyon did a good job :lol:

Oh I would give this ten 'likes' if I could.

My wife also thinks this is brilliant......

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How long would it take to prepare a master die and all the other paraphernalia?

  There is reference that he also prepared the individual punches for the legend.  Two sets must have been prepared because the lettering changes from the curly bases on the half penny to the solid chunky letters and these changes seem intermittent during the 1861 and 62 issues.  My apologies I am still (steel) a little rusty on the  process.   

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, blakeyboy said:

Oh I would give this ten 'likes' if I could.

My wife also thinks this is brilliant......

well if she likes it that much ask her to set up the pose, (if she can) and you will be in stitches....or at least she will if you get it right get at least one stitch. 

Breathing deeply through the nose helps with the build up of lactic acid

Edited by DrLarry

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/19/2018 at 11:08 PM, Peckris said:

I don't think so! Have you not heard of Hogarth and Rawlinson? The mockery of every monarch from Anne onwards was robust and some of them - George IV comes to mind - came in for some (deserved) ridicule. 

here is my interpretation of the American early cents as a protest against GIII

_20180621_102206 (253x300).jpg

_20180621_102501 (290x300).jpg The octopus strangles liberty 

080cf8e9-8243-46cb-abf2-869fbdbce728-1657x2040 (244x300).jpg

Edited by DrLarry
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

this one works nicely too 

_20180621_102718 (290x300).jpg

DSC_1612 (237x300).jpg

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/20/2018 at 0:38 AM, davidrj said:

I am no expert at all values, but it seems to me that there is no consistency for the period 1860-1970 as to which coin designs (farthing to half crown, obverse or reverse) have designer’s initials. So maybe there is no rule?

I thought for a good chunk in the middle there were few or no initials (1870s to 1920s?) but certainly after that mostly there were initials.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Another possible reason why the LCW might have been dropped on pennies after 1861, is highlighted at page 422 of Peck. At the asterisked point 4, it reads:- 

Quote

"The signature gradually wore off these Rev C working dies, consequently specimens are met with, showing only C W or W, or sometimes only part of the W. Very occasionally, on specimens of No 1632 all three letters have entirely disappeared".     

We know this, for example, from reverse D, especially on Freeman 26's.

Although this apparently only applies to the reverse, maybe it was decided that it was just not worth the effort of keeping on with the LCW or L C WYON, because of the signature degredation issues.  

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/23/2018 at 5:29 AM, Mr T said:

I thought for a good chunk in the middle there were few or no initials (1870s to 1920s?) but certainly after that mostly there were initials.

All the old heads are signed I think 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, 1949threepence said:

Another possible reason why the LCW might have been dropped on pennies after 1861, is highlighted at page 422 of Peck. At the asterisked point 4, it reads:- 

We know this, for example, from reverse D, especially on Freeman 26's.

Although this apparently only applies to the reverse, maybe it was decided that it was just not worth the effort of keeping on with the LCW or L C WYON, because of the signature degredation issues.  

yes I am sure that is a possibility and yet the LCW on the half penny does not even arrive until 1861 however the lateness in the year by the the time they started apparently made them carry on minting 1860 at the same time as 61's no doubt I am sure in part to appease the public view on a pretty shambolic adventure.  Please forgive me if I am wrong but the toothed type of half penny with the rounded lighthouse is the same die modified for the 1861 LCW which suggests that the LCW went on after 1860 and the many examples I have show the movement of the LCW shifted slightly to the right for the W of WYON and the C is above the existing C 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think it may be a case of no policy regarding initials. W Wyon died in 1851, but obverses continued to carry the initials until in 1858 we have the appearance of no WW obverses. Presumably it became necessary to produce a new obverse due to the old ones wearing out and the lack of WW reflected the responsibility passing to another engraver. Given the lack of initials at this point, they were clearly not a required feature, and one might assume were an optional extra, which may account for the inconsistency of application. This is also suggested by the decimal patterns from 1857-9, where J(ames) W(yon)'s initials are the exception rather than the rule, despite him being thought responsible for many of the dies.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, DrLarry said:

All the old heads are signed I think 

Right you are - I should have qualified it by saying reverse dies.

I think besides the bun head obverse, every obverse after that had initials.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Mr T said:

Right you are - I should have qualified it by saying reverse dies.

I think besides the bun head obverse, every obverse after that had initials.

 

14 hours ago, Rob said:

I think it may be a case of no policy regarding initials. W Wyon died in 1851, but obverses continued to carry the initials until in 1858 we have the appearance of no WW obverses. Presumably it became necessary to produce a new obverse due to the old ones wearing out and the lack of WW reflected the responsibility passing to another engraver. Given the lack of initials at this point, they were clearly not a required feature, and one might assume were an optional extra, which may account for the inconsistency of application. This is also suggested by the decimal patterns from 1857-9, where J(ames) W(yon)'s initials are the exception rather than the rule, despite him being thought responsible for many of the dies.

James being the uncle? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 21 June 2018 at 11:15 AM, DrLarry said:

here is my interpretation of the American early cents as a protest against GIII

_20180621_102206 (253x300).jpg

_20180621_102501 (290x300).jpg The octopus strangles liberty 

080cf8e9-8243-46cb-abf2-869fbdbce728-1657x2040 (244x300).jpg

 

The Dunghill cartoon is Pitt, not George III.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

many  thanks ....  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

they all end up looking so similar 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, DrLarry said:

 

James being the uncle? 

Hmmm, you'd think so wouldn't you. That was my immediate reaction, and would be the case if James had been William's brother. But since James Wyon was William Wyon's cousin (presumably first cousin), that officially makes him Leonard Charles Wyon's first cousin once removed.

William Wyon being Leonard Wyon's Father.

 

 

Edited by 1949threepence

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×