1873/2 Penny has it been recorded?

[DrLarry]

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. 

[Peckris]

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. 

[DrLarry]

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 June 19, 2018 by DrLarry

[1949threepence]

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. 

   

  

     

 

[1949threepence]

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?

 

 

 

Edited June 20, 2018 by 1949threepence

[davidrj]

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?

[blakeyboy]

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 

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

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

[DrLarry]

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.   

[DrLarry]

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 June 21, 2018 by DrLarry

[DrLarry]

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

 The octopus strangles liberty 

Edited June 21, 2018 by DrLarry

[DrLarry]

this one works nicely too 

[Mr T]

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.

[1949threepence]

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.  

[DrLarry]

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 

[DrLarry]

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 

[Rob]

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.

[Mr T]

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.

[DrLarry]

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? 

[Michael-Roo]

On 21 June 2018 at 11:15 AM, DrLarry said:

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

 The octopus strangles liberty 

 

The Dunghill cartoon is Pitt, not George III.

[DrLarry]

many  thanks ....  

[DrLarry]

they all end up looking so similar 

[1949threepence]

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 June 25, 2018 by 1949threepence