SohoMint

Does anyone have contact with Verene? Trying to get some details on one of the lots for my research

Agreed, though I do presume there is some bias in our views. Taylor restrikes are over a hundred years old by now and have their own history in their own right. Similiarly, Tanner pieces for Cromwell coins are desireable for it. It is possible that the Edward VIII fantasy pieces in some a hundred years or so are viewed in a similiar light - though I am uninclined to think so as the Taylor/Tanner pieces were derived from original tooling and modern fantasy pieces are pretty accessible nowadays. Only time will tell their desireablility I suppose, though I am doubtful they will be as loved. TLDR: Maybe as they get their own history they'll be interesting.

Do you have the 1805 twopence? I know they are all restrikes but I still love them

WOW that is a gorgeous one!! I love Soho Mint pieces. And... a tray of patterns you say? 👀

Often when Una and the Lion's are mentioned, you first imagine gold! For me, it will always be this gorgeous silver pattern piece I had the chance to photograph. Stunning rainbow toning, never seen anything like it.

Nothing super special about this piece, but I like how my camera caught it. Some good details for a circulation coin no doubt. Unfortunate small scratch on the beard, but barely noticeable admist the texture. This was my first good quality Edward VII that I bought, since then I've gotten a lovely 1904 Sovereign and a gorgeous 1902 matte proof shilling (alongside the long-set case, which I will complete in due course)

Wait are you The Coinery, as in, the one that sold that Edward VIII penny and who currently has the 1808 Unique Penny???

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.

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

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 😂

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!

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!

I am in the midst of doing exactly that in fact! I requested it ~5 days ago and got a response this morning saying they can forward a message!!

I am very well acquainted with him! In fact, I worked with Sovereign Rarities on his auction last year, and have since remained in close contact with him! He did almost purchase the plaster model in 2010, but alas decided against it!