All Activity

Perhaps, but even the non-shiny one features the same/similiar hairlines across the fields - which could very well be a property of die polishing or even a treatment of the blanks before striking. I also would expect that polishing would cause damage to the design, creating weakness to fine features rather than just removing the matte texture, yet the design is fully intact and very sharp. I am trying to get my friend, who has a PhD in material sciences, to have a look to see if he can determine if this is a production or post production property, so fingers crossed he can find some time to do so.

"W&P, which adds to its uniqueness and can not find another example. " 😀 awww well there you go, knowing there's others is reassuring to know and that its not bogus, given enough time I guess the merchants name will become apparent, Many thanks for this its useful to know, 👍

If the coin to the right is the shiny version you speak of, you can’t rule out polishing or cleaning of some description? Your photos highlights hairlines running in multiple directions, seems odd for a museum coin, which was presumably taken into its collection straight from the press?

He's was certainly talented! Especially given his short life time too!

Another post from me AGAIN! Early September I went to the RMM to study the tooling and coins of 1887. Obviously, there were some weird things - that is why I am studying such pieces (and slight influence by Andrew Thorburn, he knows he caused this). I cannot, for the life of me, get this Sovereign out of my head that I saw. For context, the RMM had two proof sovereigns in gold (three if you want to count the reverse only uniface but not important). One sovereign had, the standard features you'd expect of a proof. Clear, shiny, reflective fields and muted matte design and legend. This was the same on both the obverse and the reverse - for those curious RMM 3785. The second piece, RMM 3786, had the same features on the obverse, mirror like fields, matte like portrait. The reverse caught me off guard though. The whole thing, shiny. Not just the fields, there was not a trace of matte-like features on the design or date! It was really uncanny, obviously not all proofs have matte-life features, but the fact that one side did and the other didn't felt weird to me. I don't know how else to describe it. It felt intentional, especially when compared to RMM 3785. You can find links to both coins at the bottom. Am I crazy? Is this normal? I will admit I am not the most experienced in proofs - but I will blame my lack of experience on my age (I'm only 18, I can only know so much!) It was such a striking distinction between the two pieces. Any insights, references or just comments would be GREATLY appreciated so I can get some proper sleep tonight instead of thinking about this damn coin! I've attached a photo, though not the greatest one - it is so hard to show what I'm talking about out of hand. https://royalmintmuseum.collectionsindex.com/object-rmm-3785 https://royalmintmuseum.collectionsindex.com/object-rmm-3786

I was just taking a look at this man’s Public Works on the drop-down on Wikipedia…this man was prolific, what a sculptor he was! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Edgar_Boehm

Very unfortunate. It would be fascinating to put the face to the name. Joseph Edgar Boehm, however, was photographed quite a lot at least! And by the looks of it he may have been a model at heart 😂

It's a shame photography just missed William Wyon - died 1851.

Stunning! I LOVE that! 🙌

Well, if you can find it on Amazon, I would highly recommend it! It’s looked at impartially, investigating both its positives AND downsides, with some unexpected discoveries/findings!

Benedetto Pistrucci, arguably the most famous coin engraver, was born in 1783 and died 1855. He was 56 years old at the time of the first photographic portrait. Only two years before his death he was photographed by Arthur R Hamilton. This is, to my knowledge, the only time he was photographed - and could reasonably be the first photograph of a British coin engraver! Most of the images you will find are later (1870-90) reproductions of the original photograph - identified by the black/gray card they are mounted on. I am fortunate enough to be the owner of the original photograph from 1853, signed by the photographer - to my knowledge it is the only one made from the negative and thus the true original piece!

But not as small as the 1 Kuna from Hum diameter 1.99 millimeters and a weight of 0.05 grams

I don't know who the merchant W&P was, but here's another one: https://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/135147031137?_trksid=p4375194.c102726.m162918 I found another one, but then couldn't find it again two minutes later...

Today I found this George IV Shilling 1826 has W&P stamped on it, I have the understanding this was done by company's as a way of advertisement its tidy job so I will be keeping it.👍

I gave up Netflix ages back, I just use Amazon Prime nowadays.

13 mm & 2.08 g. Smaller than even the current Mexican 10 centavos or my 1940 Netherlands 1/2 cent at 14 mm!

I watched it on my phone 😉

Just thought I'd share this image of a pattern five shilling piece in gold from 1853 which I handled in the RMM. Keep in mind, contemporary records show that there was discussion in parliament around this time that the half sovereign should be abolished for being too small a denomination to be made of gold, and of course the Royal Mint decided to make a smaller gold coin in response!

Not seen it. Thankfully our TV has been on the blink, losing signal sync recently and giving us both the opportunity to not bother filling our minds with garbage. Maybe a repair tomorrow.....

This will blow your mind, Rob, if you haven’t watched it already? Really worth a watch for everyone…a Netflix documentary!

How are you supposed to 'train' a system specifically designed by people whose companies want to rule world, even if using dodgy info to learn that WRL stands for a small niche in numismatics called COPIES. Fake news mostly exists in the minds of people involved in the dissemination of said 'sh**e'. When all info is legitimate learning material, misinformation is reported as accurate if more people say it's ok than call it out for what it is. It's called rewriting history. Sane members of humanity are encouraged to keep as much contemporary written material as possible to negate the anticipated rewrite courtesy of today's dictators/autocrats/snake oil salesmen who are doing things to benefit their control over the peasants. As the one balled former Chancellor of Germany showed a century ago, the people will accept lies if repeated often enough. A premise the current heads of 3 superpowers are using to this day. He did not have copyright on the technique.

Says sold but that could mean pulled as well. Nice work ! Thanks.

Thanks @Paddy I did see that forum when looking around yesterday after I posted already and thought the same. I'll re post later on and try my luck on there. Appreciate the quick reply :-)

I have messaged the seller - we will see how honest they are. I suspect the "Customer Service Person" at Ebay was an AI bot!

Welcome @Elmo to the forum! An interesting set and intriguing that it is so difficult to find on the net. Individual coins are mentioned on Numista: https://en.numista.com/182480 but they would not list full sets anyway. Not sure we have many members here who are into Chinese coins as our focus is on British issues. It might be worth posting your query on Cointalk at https://www.cointalk.com/forums/world-coins/ as I know they have quite a few Chinese and bullion coin collectors there who may be able to help you.