DrLarry

Oh yes most likely if you are in Dorset I get one or two of mine from a seller in parkhill. I miss Dorset so much sadly I had to move back to the miserable North East because of illness I couldn't work so had to use my house in Durham. I do dislike the north east I feel a bit like a southern fish out of water lol

that little event that took place on the first saturday of the month in the community hall, I think it was £20 and in the end I never sold anything except four leaf clovers so I gave up. I had thought it might be a way of making some money for the charity. Sadly not but it was as I say a social event.

I am aware that you think my observations to be somewhat annoying and trivial but I make them for no other reason than to investigate what I consider to be wonderful and beautiful things. If they disclose hitherto unnoticed things I dont do it to upset anyone I do it because something confounds me , I see small blackened lines which fit together to form patterns they are not (categorically) random and so I have a duty to investigate. Bringing up the topic of Britannias arm is not to rubbish the design but to question the history surrounding the design itself and the artist.

in that statement you sum up my whole position on it the eye is, somehow through constant awareness subconsciously of registering, when something just looks a tiny fraction "wrong". In itself it is remarkable and I have only noticed myself in the past three years since starting all these "forensic" studies. I will load up the pictures of the variation in the copper from 1825 to 59 which I think will help. I have just got a little carried away imaging something else and so this debate has forced me to look very carefully at the copper series again so thank you everyone for enabling that.

the other important thing to note is that there is a significant difference in the Britannias on the copper coinage, each of which allows for a naturalistic pose that is in balance the Britannia of William IIII is Ornate trident ish and the hand is lower on the shaft, and the shaft reaches the lap in front of the pleated area, it is noteworthy that the arm is showing the weight of the trident with a slight bulge in the bicep in this position the hand is rendered in a realistic pose. Britannia is looking forward and up. The foot shows the toes as because the heel is in perspective angled slightly back from the saltire. whereas in the Britannia of G IIII the profile shows her looking a little down as in picture 3. The Victoria early 40's ornate pic 4 the hand is lowered, pic 5 is a 43 , The plain trident has the hand higher with the arm thinner the weight of the trident is less obvious in the bicep but then again the trident is plain and thinner so it would make sense for it to show lighter in the modelling of the arm. The hand in the later years in the ornate is lower but the balance by the thumb behind can be seen once again allowing the trident to be gripped naturally. I am afraid I do not have a 60 copper to compare but by this time William Wyon was dead for some years but still out of respect the portrait is signed w.w for many of the later dates.

I have hundreds of 1861's paddy so I will take a look for you it is one of the most exciting half penny years so full of errors and changes but even after looking at it for three years now only one seriously, I find it really hard to get good information apart from Peck and freeman. I will compare it with mine if I get time today.

I think it is nice doing it for no other reason than it's quite a sociable event I'm sure. Coins are often a nice conversation starter as people wander around. I used to do one once a month in Bournemouth well Canford cliff and never sold anything but I just saw it as a social event. Oh I do miss Dorset. Good luck paddy.

yes of course you do need to have a good understanding of the almost imperceptible difference to make out the differences hence the question . At home in his home he had a studio with magnifying glasses and reducing machine the furnace to harden the dies these were the master dies. Someone with such glorious skill at anatomy ( the man won prizes for his artwork from the Royal Academy School ) would have been easily able to do whatever he wanted and played with whatever he wanted there were no longer any artists kept in house to make a serious check on this tiny details. When I first looked at her for a year I did not notice them myself only with the microscope and a lot of experimentation did I begin to notice the slight changes. I bring up the posting because I wanted to see if the room feels there is an academic reasoning behind the problem that balances the artist the circumstances , the technical difficulties and the personal history of the family and the RM. Yes there were many many alterations I am just trying to work my way back to see if we can get a different idea what was or could have been presented before alterations. in 1860 in 61 and eventually 63 after which it settles until someone perhaps also looked at it ...note the position in later britannias as well the forward thrusting of the arm or the holding upright in the florin. Coins are tiny historic canvases and in the same way that a great painting may be painted over and only just seen because of X ray photography so I would like to think we might be able to have some "forensics" as Jerry puts it. it was a call to ask you to experiment with you wife, her table cloths ( or nightie) the wheel trim and your broomsticks ...

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

well you all seem to get so serious on here I was simply replying in kind

quite easily the shaft of the trident passes through the elbow in the bronze the shaft the copper passes in front of the elbow. the position of the naval insists on the Britannia being more upright on the copper. and the left knee is forward of the Bronze. The extension of the shoulder joint creates in the bronze a lowering of the upper arm and the shoulder joint. The upper arm in the bronze shows the shaft to pass in front of the arm much lower and hence when you attempt to bend the arm around at the wrist the wrist is twisted in such a way to make it extremely painful near impossible the trident is in the copper in balance and so it allows the fingers to provide the resting position and requires little or no force to keep it balanced . In the bronze by thrusting the shoulder down and forcing the shaft over the lower arm arm acts to force the trident forward this is overcompensated for by the twisting of the fingers is a very tight pose . THe model in the copper is more slender in copper as is the rendering of the peplos or chiton. Oh and you have cheated a little and used one of the later bronzes which is significantly remodeled from the 1860 to 63 in which the shaft is very high on the forearm. The head in the early pennies is looking down at a deeper angle I think . In your example if you compare the 91 with the 63 as a common example the rendering of the many of the elements is much heavier and Britannia sinks down into the back slant in order to reach down for the shield aka. "The wheel trim" as you gentlemen like to call it. May I ask is that a copper penny or one of the smaller denominations

I guess, but of course cannot verify this that in heraldic terms the Lion depicted sitting like that would more than likely have been derived from observation of a cheetah. The length of the legs is and that particular stance is a very common one for a cheetah to pose in and considering the the access to real live lions would have been limited for a "realistic " pose" Cheetahs on the other hand are readily tamed in captivity and I myself have spent time with them when as a young man I worked at Windsor safari Park with the Lions, Tigers and the big cats bears and wolves. Kept as pets by many middle eastern nobles these animals would have been seen at close hand and hence I can imagine that as an heraldic emblem the addition of the mane of a lion would have been a more survivable portrait in the wild than direct observation of a lion. I of course have no idea if this is true but the stance is much closer to a cheetah or some of the smaller cats ........ In my experience sitting with Lions for many hours in my youth the male lion will raise itself up if something alerts it. The weight is distributed for a short time in the hind quarters and it will raise to a higher than normal pose in a similar way to the depiction on the shilling....usually when there is another male lion or action which it first hears rather than sees. we are, of course, talking the 13th C here when the college of arms brings over the french custom of using heraldic symbols. As you say heraldic forms are not always life like although unicorns dont seem to be represented in the fossil record .....but after the flood maybe Noah sexed them up wrong and we ended up with two males or females....

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.

no I dont think so apart from in the coins and medals world I doubt many would remember him or recall him. Although he did design some very beautiful medals for a series of events as well as numerous coins for india and canada and Jersey , some of which like the newfoundland penny I think it is are beautiful. I think many of his early works are versions of copies of his fathers work but he won a number of prizes when studying sculpture at the Royal academy for life drawing (importantly) and he was expected to spend several years at the school learning his trade whilst also second engraver to his father. In the early 1850's after the death of his father the family were asked to vacate the house they had at the Royal Mint and they then moved out to the suburbs of London (Maida Vale) from that point on artisans had to provide many of the services that would have been once the role of workers within the mint and this led to a few disputes through the 1850's. Signatures are interesting and I have also looked around a lot for any evidence of the removal of signings the most obvious paces are in the region under the portrait and the in the exergue on the reverse. if is intriguing in respect to both reverse and obverse that the sig is removed after year 2 but it was this that first got me interested in the penny in the first place. ( just here to show that it is not always the same old thing that everyone else likes about collecting that make some of us start). There are a series of repeated intriguing scars within the exergue on the left side of the reverse which occur over and over again it is always the same scars and takes two forms one just below where the rock is left of the shield and the other goes alongside the inner circle running down from where the sea cross the inner circle. The second interest is the extension to the right side of the portrait I have alluded to before which would extend the portrait out to between the F D within this area something looks to have been removed close up to the inner circle and the same scar occurs between 1860 to 1863. After which time I have not sought to plot it. But even with a weight of evidence I have collected I am sure the "powers that be" would not allow for a debate. I do not know why or even if alterations would appear in any way or form because the idea of evidence of changes always get firmly squashed by the old guard I am not even sure if anyone has ever bothered to investigate. What does exists then? well there is persistent existence of "scaring" in a number of areas and definite marks which appear to suggest that there may have been numerous alterations of the master dies perhaps (as a cost cutting exercise) by inexperienced artists who were the workmen at the mint and therefore cheap. Not that any British government of course would cost cut and leave inexperienced staff doing the jobs of those who spent years training for their roles.....surely such a thing would NEVER !!! happen to GREAT Britain then or at any time. The artist was now a paid outsourced commodity once you have your artwork I am not sure if the artist had the protection of the Intellectual property right to insist or expect any changes or alterations to be their sole duty.

The engraving of the dies he seems never really happy with himself , alterations and changes and numerous " in house changes" led him to have to,almost, to argue over the payment, which was questioned by officials, two trips to the sit for three days with the queen, an alternative upright britannia which appears to be in some ways a favoured choice by him because he wanted to do something "different" was then dismissed by the politicians who wanted to stick to the old model of the seated Britannia. It made him sick and he himself remarks in his diary that he was essentially glad to be done with the whole affair. So whilst collectors 180 years later may be happy with the "whole affair" I am not 100% convinced that he was. I would draw your attention to the numerous medals which illustrate the Britannia and look at the lightness and delicacy of the form. and the relationships with the other elements of the works.

if he did such a good job why does he never put his name to it ever again ?

so did you manage to twist into the exact same position then?

"Correct" or otherwise that really was not my point in the other post . What I am trying to understand is the politics within the RM at this very important transition point. I am simply seeing if there might be some mileage, or KM distance, in approaching it from the extant evidence we do have to see if there are any clues. When you look for example at the parthenon frieze or the metopes it is possible to see the hand of individual artists, historical events and changes in style from early classic to later full classical style . By studying the anatomy and comparing with other works by the same artist I am trying to answer a riddle that I have never been able to fully understand which is why does LCW only ever sign the work for two years and never again? is this a change in policy of the mint at this point? what if anything can it tell us about the relationships with its artists? I simply act to try to understand things that make limited sense when compared to past and future attributions. I think he is a wonderful artist and it intrigues me why such an iconic piece of art is denied his right. Please tell me why there would be such a dramatic change in policy perhaps you have come across explanations I am eager to learn.

are you saying that if someone purchased and on noting something asked about prior to it being sent out you would think it quite acceptable behaviour to rescind the contract of sale?

I am saying that this does not have to be the end outcome it would have made no difference to allow the hand to be naturalistic to the overall outcome of the coin you simply need to drop the finger at the diagonal rather than trying to upturn them. The slight withdrawal of the shoulder as we can see on the copper makes no difference to the pose she can still be presented bodily at 3/4 even with the full profile of the head. It is simply a question of balance as an artist with a slight shift of the arm and elbow. By pulling in the trident the balance is restored or by raising the arm by 2 mm. I think this may have some significance in the history of the design. Many of you seem to get very personal about the ownership of these iconic images on coins. They are after all pieces of metal with a design on them that stimulate a response from the viewer but most never look at things in any particular detail. History is scattered with examples of generations that have viewed things one way until some questions are asked and then changes occur rapidly and the culture changes its outlook and discovers a multitude of new and exciting finds. Surely it is not the wish of you collectors to just collect because something looks as it's always looked ....it would of course be so easy to accept the status quo but it does no harm at all looking for new ways of seeing something. Or perhaps you do all prefer to let things follow their old natural flow ...but were you all not just worrying for the future of coins...well the value of your collections simply because you could see no interest from younger people. I would find it tedious just collecting pretty things so I take up my own path and ask questions of the room simply to see if anyone has an opinion themselves. for example when I paint I have to understand how a cloud works as well as what it looks like, or I must understand the geology to paint a landscape. If not then I will have used some paint and it would not stimulate me personally I dont paint for anyone else I paint for me. They sell so artistic licence I am sure plays some part as it seems to bring people pleasure to own them, more so if there is a story attached.

no I never said I bought it from him it sold and I asked him to look and it appears to have cropped up again now. So it is also very possible that it was seen to be just a die run finding the weakest point between the two stems of the R. I have a few now that do the same. It is possible that the R has been punched several times I have one that arrived today R over R some part having been cut away leaving that pokey out bit at the top of the tail of the R on many examples. The weakness is also perhaps the existence of the B over the R (removed) in the 62

I have had a good look and whilst I have no way of confirming anything yet I can say what I have seen. Of course you all know I'm the new nut job in the room... So take it with a pinch of salt. I can see on some a discolouration diagonally down from the central spike. This could of course be simply created by the comparative ware of initial lustre. The gunk that usually collects in the interior curve will I'm sure leave a line if cleared out later. However there repeatedly seems something strange below many of the lower ends of the 3. Again I have not looked to see if this is a depression or just discolouration. I tend to buy a load of them and shove them under the microscope. One or two for sale seem "interesting" and they are pretty cheap but of course then get what you pay for.

Very true Jerry I love it even more for knowing its flaws but the end result is not of as much interest to me as the process of getting to the end result. I am not sure at all that as a solution this is a good one and the technical abilities of the coining process and the art work have been solved quite happily for half a century already by this point in the artwork of the SOHO mints. What intrigues me |(which in itself is just another way of being interested in coins at the end of the day) is how and why solutions are resolved as needs change or materials change. Forensic coining uncovers in my approach many possibilities which, in light of new technologies like digital photography and access to better and cheaper instruments to measure and analyse coins in the home we might learn many new things or at least ask questions of the old solutions we have perhaps blindly accepted in the past. I am more than sure that in this way it is possible to look for longer and enjoy at a deeper level coins and their makers and the material science that surrounds them.,

thanks