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.

Recommended Posts

My New topic for consideration is this ship:  I use the term loosely simply because that if such a vessel set sail ...like the Mary Rose she would sink within hours.  For a few years now I have tried to make sense of this thing and I cannot.  Perhaps there are some sailors  or people that sail in the rooms.  I have spent spent two years excavating this ship in search of a solution and whilst I know you all think I am a little "challenged"  to some extent here are my thoughts and observations:

I initially could not understand the balance of this ship so I tried to understand it by reverse engineering it and notwithstanding the numerous comments I expect to get back from you re: artistic licence I think something is seriously wrong with it. 

Let me start by saying that I know absolutely nothing about large ships except for rudimentary common sense.  Before again the wolves descend may I please take a line or two of your time to tell you why it is important to me.  Of course the primary reason is that I do not think the reverse on the bun penny is as it was supposed to be.  The design I believe to have initially been prepared was a thing of beauty.  In truth it is stunning.  In these posting on the bronze reverse I am not trying to rubbish them but there are some incredible mistakes. I would like to be able to use the observations to ask for dialogue on the matter which again requires some leap of faith and your own observations.  I have around about 400 specimens, which show these features perhaps more of these early bronze coins from 1860 to 1863 and I have used the observations from these to unpick this riddle. 

A ship must be stable in the water and it is a delicate balance to ensure that the force of harnessing the wind in the sails must be evenly distributed in order to project the vessel in a straight line or to jibe zig zagging to catch less strong winds.  I used to be a windsurfer and new all too well that if my boom came over the mid point too much I would be lifted and thrown over the sail and the sail would descend on me ..an unnerving experience and as a rooky it happened hundreds of times.  Wind if captured must be controlled especially when you consider the size of the sails and rigging and the mast have to compensate. 

Well on this ship it rarely if ever does the balance is always wrong.  The central mast is rarely central and the worst character at the stern of the ship is so off centre that the net result that one gust of wind and either the mast would break or the ship would keel over. 

The rudder:  on some specimens a rudder has been added to the keel to try to balance the image.

The Stern has been chopped away on most specimens which often leads to a most bizarre thing.  Let us assume that the back of the ship if flat straight and if it is the Golden Hind (and yes I know there has never been proof) but let us imagine, then it should be tiered either it is or it isn't (but that comes later).  However what we get on this ship that is modelled is something that I do not believe any artist would do.  There are two pointed sections on the stern often separated by a large section which has been removed.  The frontal one which is the one we see first is a mm or two to the right of the mast at the stern. The jib sail I think this is and it can be used ( I think) to add to the directional movement of the ship.  But it is off centre.  and oftentimes just hanging in mid air.

Now of course many of you will know that on many the central sails to the left of the ship are often missing.  But I would like to draw your attention to something that at first I never even noticed. The sails that are there have each of them a small cross which appears darker except for the sail closest to us.  It appears to have some kind of emblem (later).  Also much of the rigging and the cross masts do not appear to work together. 

For those of you now screaming and swearing at me "ARTISTIC LICENCE" artistic license is a device which allows something to have a degree of artistic ambiguity but a great artist can simplify a scene whilst sticking to the rules of perspective , artistic licence is not as many seem to think an excuse to be lazy it requires the same level of thought to enable something within the constraints of the new material as it does to get it "fully artistically perfect".  

The keel of the ship is quite obviously deeper than the present one, there are on every penny and half penny a series of scars deep half way down in the sea.  The shape and form perfectly fits an alternative modelling I believe that the ship was originally much larger and originally the back of the ship was flat.  I have even found one some specimens the outline of the head of the hind at bother the bow and the stern.  This was a large ship and the sails originally went much higher and there is something very strange going on to the left of the ship.  I find it difficult to make sense of this scar that exists many of the early bronzes of the 1860's.  

Hidden but still plainly obvious on many examples are the crosses in the sails.. The Scars that these lost ships leave behind after they are "removed" can be seen down the side and into the left leg of Britannia and in the field between the extant ship and the leg.  Above the extant ship in the blank field remnants of the crows nests and sails can be found and eventually I will show you the images.  One of the most ridiculous parts of the extant ship is that silly streamer that drifts off the central mast. 

 

Let me look at this now If as the perspective shows it is fluting in the wind it must be away from us thinner but it really is , at one point I thought I could argue that if this is flitting off on a south westerly wind the sails should follow that which might mostly likely  make them bulge in the centre , but that need not be the case and allowing for artistic licence I cannot argue this as yet. 

The flattened back of the ship (which is lost) shows a clear reticulation or "castling" and there are a number of adornments that are often present which I presume are lamps of some kind and the Windows.  There is a removed plaque which I have tried to interpret over and over again and is some kind of animal. 

We have to look at the failing in extant ship and look at it with a critical eye or else this whole concept of discovery is lost to us.  If we accept without questioning the numerous pieces of evidence which point to an alternative then we sadly fall into passive and this to me seems a little mundane.  I am not trying to make the subject of collecting coins interesting I am simply trying to understand why a great artist gets it wrong. This is a man who spent 7 years at the Royal academy worked alongside his father and Pestrucci then shared the post of senior engraver.  This is not a man who gets it wrong.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm confident that what you say about the bun penny ship is nautically correct and well observed. As a counter argument I'd cite the "ships" on the 1797 cartwheels and 1799 coppers - they are very clumsy and poor indeed, and could not have stayed afloat for even one minute.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Another interesting article, but I think you need to be careful not to apply 21st century photorealism standards to artistic endeavour in 1860. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

and on the Freeman 14, the ship is floating above the surface of the water. An incredible feat.  

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, 1949threepence said:

and on the Freeman 14, the ship is floating above the surface of the water. An incredible feat.  

Like jesus LOL

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

no not at all It simply re-enforces the alterations that have been made that penny in particular gives some very interesting results. I dont think Jesus was ever said to have floated as far as I am aware perhaps you are thinking of Derren Brown. Like  the ship does below the level of the sea following the scar lines it sits on top of the water as did Jesus I think ...well if one is inclined to think that way 

13 minutes ago, copper123 said:

Like jesus LOL

I think the comment is in all other ways just a little predictable and will I am sure be repeated until the status quo is re-established and we can all eat jam and scones and have tea with the dormouse and the Hatter.  Of course if we decide that the return of the good old days of mindless sheep is the way forward then of course that will be right of all. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, davidrj said:

Another interesting article, but I think you need to be careful not to apply 21st century photorealism standards to artistic endeavour in 1860. 

I think you old fellas are willing to accept a substandard piece of art rather than question it.  Never mind photorealism and in truth we are much more likely to find realism as the staple of art in 1860 than we are at the present time.  I would say these days we are more willing to acknowledge the moment captured in a post impressionistic era than they were in 1860.  This is just a fundamental aspect of conservatism in art to reproduce with clear detail.  I would draw your attention to the art work of the late 18th C in coins and medals .  It seems you are more pre-occupied with accepting what you know already than to seek answers for serious artistic flaws.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Peckris said:

I'm confident that what you say about the bun penny ship is nautically correct and well observed. As a counter argument I'd cite the "ships" on the 1797 cartwheels and 1799 coppers - they are very clumsy and poor indeed, and could not have stayed afloat for even one minute.

I would disagree with entirely having spent many a month looking at the representation of the tiny ship on the 1797's whihc show in wonderful detail some excellent scale, proportion and perspective.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A cursory look even at the nasty little images in Peck is enough to assure you that they are well presented , even more so when you image them under the microscope with digital photography, in fact the detailing considering the size is well done and artisitcally and structurally sound.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, DrLarry said:

no not at all It simply re-enforces the alterations that have been made that penny in particular gives some very interesting results. I dont think Jesus was ever said to have floated as far as I am aware perhaps you are thinking of Derren Brown. Like  the ship does below the level of the sea following the scar lines it sits on top of the water as did Jesus I think ...well if one is inclined to think that way 

I think the comment is in all other ways just a little predictable and will I am sure be repeated until the status quo is re-established and we can all eat jam and scones and have tea with the dormouse and the Hatter.  Of course if we decide that the return of the good old days of mindless sheep is the way forward then of course that will be right of all. 

Perhaps not historicly acurate .

You also get many people how swear on their mothers lives that the bible says the animals went into the arc two by two as well

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

seems I was right - checked up on wikopedia

Jesus walking on water is one of the miracles of Jesus recounted in the New Testament. There are accounts of this event in three of the Gospels.

This story, following the miracle of the feeding of the five thousand, tells how Jesus sent the disciples by ship back to the "other side" of the Sea of Galilee (the eastern side) while he remained behind, alone, to pray. Night fell and the sea arose as the ship became caught in a wind storm. After rowing against the wind for most of the night, the disciples saw Jesus walking on the sea. They were frightened, thinking they were seeing a spirit, but when Jesus told them not to be afraid, they were reassured. After Jesus entered the ship, the wind ceased, and they arrived at land.

According to the version in the Gospel of Matthew, Peter walked on the water towards Jesus, but he became afraid and began to sink, so Jesus rescued him.[1]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, copper123 said:

seems I was right - checked up on wikopedia

Jesus walking on water is one of the miracles of Jesus recounted in the New Testament. There are accounts of this event in three of the Gospels.

This story, following the miracle of the feeding of the five thousand, tells how Jesus sent the disciples by ship back to the "other side" of the Sea of Galilee (the eastern side) while he remained behind, alone, to pray. Night fell and the sea arose as the ship became caught in a wind storm. After rowing against the wind for most of the night, the disciples saw Jesus walking on the sea. They were frightened, thinking they were seeing a spirit, but when Jesus told them not to be afraid, they were reassured. After Jesus entered the ship, the wind ceased, and they arrived at land.

According to the version in the Gospel of Matthew, Peter walked on the water towards Jesus, but he became afraid and began to sink, so Jesus rescued him.[1]

I am not getting on to the

 

2 hours ago, 1949threepence said:

and on the Freeman 14, the ship is floating above the surface of the water. An incredible feat.  

 

2 hours ago, copper123 said:

Like jesus LOL

of biblical mythology you said "like the F14 the ship floats above the horizon" I agree it does but walking on water is not floating in mid air above the water as in freeman 14 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am afraid that whilst I respect peoples religious beliefs I have no desire to use them as part of a debate or discussion on a topic based on an interpretation of empirical evidence,  whilst the interpretation may not be 100% and I have acknowledged that I do expect to have a discussion which has relevance to the topic and which once again ( and it is a little boring to have to say so, is not a matter of whether I have confidence in it or not I am seeking opinion that is considered and erudite and which at least attempts to look at the question rather than deferring to these somewhat meaningless petty ridicules. If you have looked at the question laid out in the hypothesis and sought to at least examine your own examples then it will be easier to have a meaningful and productive discussion.  It is afterall a place for exchange hence I presume why the word Forum was part of the descriptive purpose in the name. 

and also can it really be true that you just accept that the freeman 14 just floats above the water without looking for at least some explanation of why it does so?  I cannot believe learned people would do that without at the very least asking why.  OK you may not get the answer but there are if you put all these anomalies together just one or 12 too many of these strange occurrences.

The issue is not in the interpretation (which of course you can rubbish) the issue is if you look at your coins and search for a pattern of lines and crosses and other features do you also find them in the same place as I do.  If you have investigated then you have all the right in the world to critique a theory.  Jumping on the coattails using  silly and unconstructive ancient Judeo Christian mythologies shows a disrespect for that belief system and does nothing to aid with the discussion.   

Share this post


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

I'm confident that what you say about the bun penny ship is nautically correct and well observed. As a counter argument I'd cite the "ships" on the 1797 cartwheels and 1799 coppers - they are very clumsy and poor indeed, and could not have stayed afloat for even one minute.

so in the copper we are dealing with something that is much smaller further away and yet still manages to apply all the skills that Kutcher has that are no less than Wyon has you can see that in his wonderful medals which if you have not looked at are stunning. artistic licence yes of course any engraver would know that if you are trying model something far away and you want to show certain things , sails rigging and most importantly from the argument that is being suggested here the embodiment of national pride the union jack and the British ensign you do have to use artistic licence.  The meaning of which is not to do it badly but to emphasise something to the viewer you wish them to be aware of using some device.  Here the flag at the stern is 10 times the size is should be but you are trying to show a british ship sailing towards Britannia the fact that the flag is the same size a a mainsail is a simple but effective device ...artistic licence. all other details are accurate except the thickness of the rigging (artistic licence ) but even so the overall effect is a good one because the eyes on viewing the ship sees thin rigging because it is confused.  

I would happily set sail in any one of these safe in the security of them showing all the essential attributes of a stable solid craft...he even develops the perspective through the portholes with a thin line to show us the other side of the ship.  

DSC_1606 (253x300).jpg

DSC_1609 (253x300).jpg

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Baby Jesus at bath time.jpg

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

:D

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

May I remind everyone numismatics has been a popular hobby of quite a few men of the cloth and several large collections were made up by men of the clergy , so while the hobby does not have a direct conection to religion , it holds a conection  in that quite a few fans have a direct conection to religion itself

Share this post


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

I am afraid that whilst I respect peoples religious beliefs I have no desire to use them as part of a debate or discussion on a topic based on an interpretation of empirical evidence,  whilst the interpretation may not be 100% and I have acknowledged that I do expect to have a discussion which has relevance to the topic and which once again ( and it is a little boring to have to say so, is not a matter of whether I have confidence in it or not I am seeking opinion that is considered and erudite and which at least attempts to look at the question rather than deferring to these somewhat meaningless petty ridicules. If you have looked at the question laid out in the hypothesis and sought to at least examine your own examples then it will be easier to have a meaningful and productive discussion.  It is afterall a place for exchange hence I presume why the word Forum was part of the descriptive purpose in the name. 

and also can it really be true that you just accept that the freeman 14 just floats above the water without looking for at least some explanation of why it does so?  I cannot believe learned people would do that without at the very least asking why.  OK you may not get the answer but there are if you put all these anomalies together just one or 12 too many of these strange occurrences.

The issue is not in the interpretation (which of course you can rubbish) the issue is if you look at your coins and search for a pattern of lines and crosses and other features do you also find them in the same place as I do.  If you have investigated then you have all the right in the world to critique a theory.  Jumping on the coattails using  silly and unconstructive ancient Judeo Christian mythologies shows a disrespect for that belief system and does nothing to aid with the discussion.   

With the design flaw being 158 years ago, I think we realistically have to accept that no explanation will ever be forthcoming. If a reason was known, I'm pretty sure it would have been documented by now, given the amount of detailed research that has taken place over the last century or so.   

If I had to hazard a guess, it would be the mundane one of a design flaw not picked up before production, and not corrected because reverse E was dropped almost before it got going. 

So, here's a question for you to ponder regarding reverse E: why was the LCW moved from under the shield to under Britannia's foot for this reverse design only, and then dispensed with completely on all subsequent reverses? 

By the way, have you ever contacted the Royal Mint to discuss your various theories. Having access to many old contemporary documents and reports, they might be better placed than us to provide an answer, or at least a possible explanation. Just a thought.   

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
49 minutes ago, copper123 said:

May I remind everyone numismatics has been a popular hobby of quite a few men of the cloth and several large collections were made up by men of the clergy , so while the hobby does not have a direct conection to religion , it holds a conection  in that quite a few fans have a direct conection to religion itself

Indeed, there was a Reverend who assembled a noteworthy collection.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
51 minutes ago, copper123 said:

May I remind everyone numismatics has been a popular hobby of quite a few men of the cloth and several large collections were made up by men of the clergy , so while the hobby does not have a direct conection to religion , it holds a conection  in that quite a few fans have a direct conection to religion itself

I agree with you you seem to be correcting yourself in that statement I assume.  The decision to connect the F14 with Jesus was I think your own invention.  Which drew a response referring to the biblical reference that Jesus did not float on water he walked on water.  I am always happy to hear of stories of a biblical nature in this case the analogy and subsequent references to the Gospel did nothing but to illustrate the biblical "truth" that Jesus walked upon the water he did not levitate.  I assume in doing this as a personification of a deity that he harnessed the ability to utilise the surface tension between the two mediums, air and water liquid and gas.  There are many insects with this ability creating a meniscus at the point of connection.  As far as the miracle works and I am happy to accept that as a scientist I do not have to dismiss everything I do not understand he would simply have to make himself enlightened enough to achieve this.  I am a rare scientist I allow quite happily the boundary between religion and science to live in harmony.  Scientists are not a replacement for theologists we will look back and a myriad of things in our future which to our eyes are miraculous and think how silly we were not to consider x or y.  I love a good vicar and know a good number as friends. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, 1949threepence said:

With the design flaw being 158 years ago, I think we realistically have to accept that no explanation will ever be forthcoming. If a reason was known, I'm pretty sure it would have been documented by now, given the amount of detailed research that has taken place over the last century or so.   

If I had to hazard a guess, it would be the mundane one of a design flaw not picked up before production, and not corrected because reverse E was dropped almost before it got going. 

So, here's a question for you to ponder regarding reverse E: why was the LCW moved from under the shield to under Britannia's foot for this reverse design only, and then dispensed with completely on all subsequent reverses? 

By the way, have you ever contacted the Royal Mint to discuss your various theories. Having access to many old contemporary documents and reports, they might be better placed than us to provide an answer, or at least a possible explanation. Just a thought.   

yes I think I can make a suggestion and I admit this LCW by the foot fascinates me simply because I have never had a chance to study one, but would love to.  In the toothed reverse of 1860 in which there is a rounded lighthouse there is an area below the drapes which has something removed.  In the 1861 penny with the rounded lighthouse this area has a previous lettering removed then overstamped with the L C W however there is a suggestion of evidence that something is beneath it. This area near to the foot of Britannia is a difficult one there has been a change in the depth of the exergue this we know because it is recorded initially the area had the date using roman numerals in relief any signature that would have been along the previous line would have had to removed I think.  The moving of the signature is a fascinating and intriguing part of this study for me.  There are some tantalising areas of the reverse where the signature would fit nicely and there is almost always something removed leaving the exact same scars.  I have been looking at these for some time now but cannot as yet find the examples which help me validate this.  Time will tell I am sure but I think it has something to do with the remodelling of the area to create the foot removing the full name WYON leaving the W and removal of Lawrence C .....something that Keeping the W and using the W of Wyon.  In the same way the LCW on the other side is an afterthought  it seems at times on some of the reverses with some shifts in the lettering I believe (on this I may be wrong) .

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I did initially contact the Royal mint but they did not reply.  I contacted then Birmingham University, the British Museum and Cambridge.  The former replied saying they had record on the subject the latter again did not bother themselves with a response.  I am sure they perceived it as trivia . 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
39 minutes ago, 1949threepence said:

With the design flaw being 158 years ago, I think we realistically have to accept that no explanation will ever be forthcoming. If a reason was known, I'm pretty sure it would have been documented by now, given the amount of detailed research that has taken place over the last century or so.   

If I had to hazard a guess, it would be the mundane one of a design flaw not picked up before production, and not corrected because reverse E was dropped almost before it got going. 

So, here's a question for you to ponder regarding reverse E: why was the LCW moved from under the shield to under Britannia's foot for this reverse design only, and then dispensed with completely on all subsequent reverses? 

By the way, have you ever contacted the Royal Mint to discuss your various theories. Having access to many old contemporary documents and reports, they might be better placed than us to provide an answer, or at least a possible explanation. Just a thought.   

I am sorry I am a Geologist we can find evidence to reconstruct many "mysteries " even if they are 3 billion, 600 million or 8000 years gone, using empirical evidence and observation without referring to "The Flood" and other diluvian explanations.  The product of  these geological solutions is access to rare Gaii resources which sadly get exploited for our own use to make shiny metallic discs on which we credit each other for and make pretty designs on. Shameful human exploitation and I regret my past role. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, DrLarry said:

yes I think I can make a suggestion and I admit this LCW by the foot fascinates me simply because I have never had a chance to study one, but would love to.  In the toothed reverse of 1860 in which there is a rounded lighthouse there is an area below the drapes which has something removed.  In the 1861 penny with the rounded lighthouse this area has a previous lettering removed then overstamped with the L C W however there is a suggestion of evidence that something is beneath it. This area near to the foot of Britannia is a difficult one there has been a change in the depth of the exergue this we know because it is recorded initially the area had the date using roman numerals in relief any signature that would have been along the previous line would have had to removed I think.  The moving of the signature is a fascinating and intriguing part of this study for me.  There are some tantalising areas of the reverse where the signature would fit nicely and there is almost always something removed leaving the exact same scars.  I have been looking at these for some time now but cannot as yet find the examples which help me validate this.  Time will tell I am sure but I think it has something to do with the remodelling of the area to create the foot removing the full name WYON leaving the W and removal of Lawrence C .....something that Keeping the W and using the W of Wyon.  In the same way the LCW on the other side is an afterthought  it seems at times on some of the reverses with some shifts in the lettering I believe (on this I may be wrong) .

Another interesting (and intriguing) one is why the "L.C.WYON" on the obverse is so difficult to see on obverses 1,2, & 3, because it's partly in contact with the bust. Yet on obverse 4, it's very clearly in a space of its own, but really oddly with the L appearing as an I?

Leading on from that is another mystery. On obverse 5, there is still a recess for the signature, but it isn't there?

Thoughts as to why these variations occurred?

   

  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

yes I know these are mysteries and in the 62 with the signature removed in part  leaving a few metallic dots which I believe is a rare one. In the method I use it is often necessary to go beyond the surface into the metal I have to take great care to try to work out the difference between a scratch and a line which is not the result of random wear.  This is of course a subjective process.  So I tend to ur on the side of caution and underestimate the underlying lines as wear is so random it would be hard to fully comprehend the patterns created by this.  

I do not know the answers to these mysteries but they were the motivation behind why I started looking.  hence the need to understand the man himself and the history of the RM and its practice. I will persist and eventually I will suggest some explanation again based on the evidence from the coins itself as records and sources are often fragmented and biassed whereas the coins (yes they do tell stories of their circulation) the underlying evidence is there.  It is the assigning of a plausible explanation that will always be the problem and method to uncover the basis for such theories always with hazards (notwithstanding the onslaught from the non-believers) LOL

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  

×