OUCH! Holding this Trident is killing me.....

[DrLarry 443]

I free-fall into dangerous territory here.  You may ask "does it matter" or "who gives a rats arse" to which I would answer : if nothing else it makes us wonder ...why? There are many "penny people" on this forum and you all love this coin (as do I) but after about a year of this blind love affair ,as you know, I began to look with great care at the design.  So I ask the forum why is it that Britannias hand is in an impossible pose and why is this obvious artistic flaw reproduced year after year.  You see I cannot just be a blind collector, I cannot just see a bit of bling on a coin and go....wow! 

I would ask then you all to carry out a piece of experimental examination and feed back to me...please.  But you have to do the experiment before you shout me down.  sit in the exact same position that Britannia is in an get yourself a shield and a trident...no just a broom will do (if you have not yet fully converted to the dyson) I am a little old fashioned. now this is critical you must drop the left shoulder and angle the arm exactly as she has it.  Take up your broom (not a call to revolt or to take up arms) now curl your fingers exactly as on the coin around your broom handle making sure to have the shaft cross the inside of the arm push it forward all the fingers must be evenly curling and I think the thumbs goes ...well it depends usually around the back. Now in your seated position twist back and take the weight on your shield...(I am sure you can be inventive) 

So can the hand ever be in this position can the fingers ever be in this position?  Is it anatomically possible?  If not why model it this way?  What does it tell us about the attitude of the RM if anything?  why did LCW allow it ? do it? if none of this matters to you that is also an important piece of the research game because if the public dont notice why bother to change it.  

This is todays challenge and even having done Yoga for many years; I can happily fold my leg behind my head and twist in to some ungodly positions, be careful not to strain yourself.  

Many thanks for your help ahead of it arriving.  Have a good day Larry 

[IanB 175]

It may be as simple as trying to convert a 3D subject, a model dressed as Britannia into and an almost flat 2D subject, a coin. Combined with problems of perspective and that it was being engraved onto a small lump of hard metal. Put these all together and something has to give.

Any chance of a picture of yourself in a yoga position, with or without broom handle

 

[PWA 1967 2,233]

Think i better wait untill the wife goes out ,she thinks i am bonkers as it is without finding me sitting with a brush and wheel trim out of the lock up 

[zookeeperz 470]

The trident pole should of been against the right knee not the left the only person that could sit like that is someone with an arm growing from the center of their chest  . As was said if the model mock up was 3d depth and perspective are lost so everything is now shunted forward to a 2D position. I think they made a serious error though I still think no matter how she posed the trident shaft should be on the outside knee. Also we have to take it as a given she is seated at an angle and the left arm isn't flat against her body . It's a semi out to the side pose but they again pur her right foot pointing forward when it should be angled downwards and towards the date like a half side on profile. Weird but I never even noticed it but when you know it's there it's kind of a deformed lady and hardly flattering. What's that say about us to the rest of the world. SHHHH hopefully they are blissfully unaware 

Edited June 18, 2018 by zookeeperz

[DrLarry 443]

my point exactly .....LOL  thaNK you for those replies they lifted my spirit if not my leg. 

It is very true the trident does not sit well.  Mine is not to reason why however , the Britannia holding the trident in the half penny, penny, and farthing 4d copper series and silver  all have a seated Britannia and she sits quite naturally.  Under those circumstances it would be a pleasure to be dressed as a goddess and drawn.  But then again his father did that piece of modelling...no not the one in the dress but as the artist so more rightly that should read....but his father did that rendering.  But it seems that LCW had a bit of a dad complex always wanting to outdo his dad.  However it raises a very serious point why is it so WRONG?  as a sort of artist myself I instantly know when something does not "sit right" so how come it was allowed to pass?  It is not beyond LCW's technical abilities to get it right some of the beauty of his later and earlier coins and medals shows an artist with a beautiful delicate touch showing pathos and naturalism.  Of course the argument will most certainly at this point cry for the need to produce something that could be repeated millions of times.  However unless there is some technical reason why each design element had to be X mm from the next piece in order to ensure the integrity of the die I can find no answer to this riddle. 

 

An engraver  faced with a new technical challenge surely does not have to simply get it wrong.  I know what you cry...."what is wrong and what is right?  but i shall sing the same refrain and ask what technical problem makes you twist and contort the human body in this way?  

Zoo I agree the trident should descend by the knee or at least be more upright.  I could post a picture of me in full wheel but then how would I take the picture.  Also someone would report it to the moderator.  I do not think the 3D to 2D answer works in the end this is the very essence of any coin engraving.  to twist the fingers around and snap the wrist whilst dropping the left shoulder does not make the issue easier.  There must be I think another reasoning.  Or !!!!!  LCW submits the design and prepares it, his first efforts do not work "they are too deep for the new metal " in my opinion someone else cut the final design, or he angered at the RM for many reasons (dismissal of the post of engraver)  did it "wrong" on purpose.  By not recognising the error and keep recutting from the master dies or as has been mentioned his brother took over the art work and the RM did not notice the obvious ARTISTIC error...illustrating that perhaps the RM had a certain disregard for artists work in general.  I think there is a lot of politic work which sadly we can no longer really know because of the fire.  LCW's diary is somewhat cold on the issue and cold on quite a lot of things.  

but on reading this please all other do the experiment yourself ......with or without the wife in the house ( think on you might get a brownie point or two if you are seen disappearing into your man caves with a broom.  

 

perhaps.......we could start a soap opera about the RM and its artists 

 

Edited June 18, 2018 by DrLarry

[davidrj 194]

My attitude is that Britannia here is a heraldic device - designed for national pride rather than artistic critique, The bronze coins were produced for the masses.

 When folk are tired of playing with a broom handle, they could try to persuade their cat to sit upright like the lion on a George VI Scottish shilling

 

[DrLarry 443]

if that were the case why rotate the body to emphasis the Aegis 99.9 % of the people seeing it would not even notice it as a breast plaque......again that just doesn't seem to fit there is no value in presenting details like a broken wrist into an image of national importance.  The debate in the chamber (parliament ) and the political issue during 1860 suggests almost that something other than Britannia was going to be used.  THere is no reason why a heraldic device has to be deformed to be heraldic, she has sat reasonably comfortably since 1670 ish .  OK in those earlier ones she does look as if a rat has climbed up her skirt and is heading its way north and she is sitting on an inflatable Swiss Ball doing pilates but she sits with great dignity on the halfpennies and pennies in the later 18th C.   Heraldic lions have a specific reference point which at times might stretch back to the 13th C with the college of arms who restricted the use of emblems and devices but Britannia has never been used as such.  The main reference is Greek and Roman in line with neoclassicism and in early Greek coins ,the constraints of the coin a a circular disc still do not prevent the depiction of the Goddess accurately.  A set of reference elements in Britannia as Minerva or Athena like the Aegis, the owl, the Trident, and the Helmet are all part of Greek and Roman mythology as is the chiton (the Dress) all of these are well done on other medals he created.  This artwork is this man's seminal piece it is going to be the coin that makes him immortal (historically).   Again I ask why open yourself to artistic ridicule by simply getting the whole anatomy wrong. 

30 minutes ago, davidrj said:

My attitude is that Britannia here is a heraldic device - designed for national pride rather than artistic critique, The bronze coins were produced for the masses.

 When folk are tired of playing with a broom handle, they could try to persuade their cat to sit upright like the lion on a George VI Scottish shilling

 

device.

My point exactly produced for the masses no other piece of artwork was ever seen by so many millions passed million upon millions of times from 1860 to 1960.  Who controlled an artistic rendition to be thus ......certainly not an artist.  I will draw your attention next to the serious imbalance in the Ship.  One of the masts that is persistent sits to the left of the central line of the ship.  If this mast existed on a real ship and you tried to jibe with it it would make the ship unstable and I think it might topple over.  The main mast is also off centre. A ship is not a heraldic device , although I understand it represented trade and exploration.  But if the ship is sailing away from us in a North Easterly direction the only place it reaches I think might be Norway or Sweden.  If Britannia is the embodiment of the British Isles unless they are searching for the N East passage where is the ship going? If you really want Britannia to be a hearalid device the best thing you can do is farce her in the other direction one leg outstretched to represent the SW peninsula, the body to re[present mostly england the shield forms the sticky out bits on the east coast ans here upper body appears to form a very pleasing pointy bit of scotland....then you get personification.  Now the ship should sail towards or away from you heading towards Britania to say "welcome home " to Boaty Mc Boatface or away to represent trade out around the globe.  I assume this was the reasoning in the 17th C before then she does not exist on any British coin (please correct me if I am wrong) I am not even sure she is representative of that for Britannia on a romano british coin (again I may be wrong).   

[Peckris 579]

Well, I've got a picture of the 1858 penny reverse (supposedly good) and the 1864 penny reverse (supposedly wrong) in front of me, and though the design has subtle differences, it appears to be exactly the same pose. So this is one person who hasn't a clue what's being argued here!

[DrLarry 443]

Ok well let me take a few close up images and we can have a better discussion but I think you or I might be wrong 

[DrLarry 443]

no there is a subtle but  perceptible difference it is the angle of the forearm and the relative length of the upper arm to shoulder joint which is dropped in the Bronze in order to reach the upper arm forward enough to facilitate the rendering of the shoulder as a level plane. With the upper the twist on the upper body in particular if you have a full breast and the extension of the elbow then at that angle and the hand twist combine to make an almost impossible pose ......out of balance anatomically.  Note that the shaft of the trident in the copper passes in front of the elbow and the trident is thicker which would then balance it on the ground. The trident then drops down a good 20 microns forward in the Copper than the bronze. there is then more of a bend in the copper arm than the bronze. The chiton is open in the copper and the fall of the fabric much lighter and this is reflected in the drape below the outstretched arm. Look if you would at the at the triangular drape between the knees on the copper this is much lower and there is a follow through on the position of the left leg .  whereas on the bronze the navel is suggested and is quite high which thrown the sit position off if you then consider the way the leg is not rendered as you then try to lean back it places so much pressure on diaphragm  which would be very painful to sustain for more than a few seconds without losing the position.  When you then factor in the modelling of the hand and fingers in particular the thumb on the bronze it becomes almost impossible to sit with all these elements simultaneously aligned.  A few degrees off  is enough to make the pose unattainable.  Whereas the less bulky copper has poise and a more ethereal pose.

the last factor is I accept a feature of the need to add a solid foundation within the 2D frame the foot:  the twisting of the foot to show us 3/4 foot and toes is a device I am sure.  but even here the back fold of the leg inside the coin on the copper allow the right foot to be rotated slightly to give the effect you might see on the copper .  whereas on the bronze the foot is a little more difficult to predict but it appears on my early pennies that the foot is linear without any twist of the ankle which would expose the toes in that position.   

Edited June 18, 2018 by DrLarry

[DrLarry 443]

I think  it is best if we look at the variations in the 1860 and 61  as this is the only coin we can with all certainty say was signed LCW.

[DrLarry 443]

perhaps all you guys with the patterns might be able to show us the trial pieces, it may well be that more of the answer to this problem can be uncovered.  I understand that you may see it as trivia but these types of experimental approaches can tell us a lot about many other art forms , method, spatial positioning, artistic devices and perspective and how they are understood and developed so I do not see why we cannot in the absence of the direct sources use them to see if there have been any alterations and changes to the design.  

[DrLarry 443]

1 hour ago, Peckris said:

Well, I've got a picture of the 1858 penny reverse (supposedly good) and the 1864 penny reverse (supposedly wrong) in front of me, and though the design has subtle differences, it appears to be exactly the same pose. So this is one person who hasn't a clue what's being argued here!

thanks 

[jelida 1,373]

Well this is an image I have adored for over 50 years, and it is only when you start to examine it forensically that you realise the posture is unattainable. But I don’t think there is any mystery here, the technique has been used a multitude of times over the millennia. It is known as ‘artistic license ‘.  LCW may not have been the best artist on the planet, but after a few very minor modifications over the first couple of years the resultant image is appealing, was popular and struck well in the new medium (bronze). I am not sure photo-realism has ever really taken a hold in numismatics, if one discounts those ghastly Princess Di stick-ons.

Jerry

[IanB 175]

 

I think this needs to be looked at as purely a practical solution for the person who sunk the die.

If the trident was on the right hand side it would probably be the deepest part of the coin sunk into the die and as such its length would have caused problems. If the tridents head touched the beads at the rim the shaft would naturally have to come away at an angle across the right knee and the end of the shaft would have been suspended in mid air, or it would have had a weird bend in the shaft to allow the head and the end of the shaft to lay flat.

Its on the left hand side because its easier to cut into the metal and keep it flat. The supposed awkwardness of the arm is again just a practical solution to the placing of the trident and the position of Brittania. Anatomically the arm has to be proportional to the rest of the body or we would be debating why she has either a short or long arm. Hence the wrist is in the position it is.

I do not believe there is any problems with LC Wyons drawing abilities and he probably did multiple drawing of a lovely model holding the shield and trident in all sort of positions but I do think what we have on the coin is just a practical solution to a 3D problem being transferred onto what is in effect a flat piece of metal.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited June 19, 2018 by IanB

[DrLarry 443]

9 hours ago, jelida said:

Well this is an image I have adored for over 50 years, and it is only when you start to examine it forensically that you realise the posture is unattainable. But I don’t think there is any mystery here, the technique has been used a multitude of times over the millennia. It is known as ‘artistic license ‘.  LCW may not have been the best artist on the planet, but after a few very minor modifications over the first couple of years the resultant image is appealing, was popular and struck well in the new medium (bronze). I am not sure photo-realism has ever really taken a hold in numismatics, if one discounts those ghastly Princess Di stick-ons.

Jerry

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., 

 

[DrLarry 443]

6 hours ago, IanB said:

 

I think this needs to be looked at as purely a practical solution for the person who sunk the die.

If the trident was on the right hand side it would probably be the deepest part of the coin sunk into the die and as such its length would have caused problems. If the tridents head touched the beads at the rim the shaft would naturally have to come away at an angle across the right knee and the end of the shaft would have been suspended in mid air, or it would have had a weird bend in the shaft to allow the head and the end of the shaft to lay flat.

Its on the left hand side because its easier to cut into the metal and keep it flat. The supposed awkwardness of the arm is again just a practical solution to the placing of the trident and the position of Brittania. Anatomically the arm has to be proportional to the rest of the body or we would be debating why she has either a short or long arm. Hence the wrist is in the position it is.

I do not believe there is any problems with LC Wyons drawing abilities and he probably did multiple drawing of a lovely model holding the shield and trident in all sort of positions but I do think what we have on the coin is just a practical solution to a 3D problem being transferred onto what is in effect a flat piece of metal.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

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.  

[1949threepence 3,368]

On 6/18/2018 at 5:37 PM, davidrj said:

My attitude is that Britannia here is a heraldic device - designed for national pride rather than artistic critique, The bronze coins were produced for the masses.

 When folk are tired of playing with a broom handle, they could try to persuade their cat to sit upright like the lion on a George VI Scottish shilling

 

Mine might do that as a bribe for some cut up into small pieces of finest fillet steak, warmed for 15 seconds in the microwave.

Anything less and she'd tell me to clear off, but not quite so politely.   

 

[DrLarry 443]

1 hour ago, 1949threepence said:

Mine might do that as a bribe for some cut up into small pieces of finest fillet steak, warmed for 15 seconds in the microwave.

Anything less and she'd tell me to clear off, but not quite so politely.   

 

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....

On 6/18/2018 at 5:37 PM, davidrj said:

My attitude is that Britannia here is a heraldic device - designed for national pride rather than artistic critique, The bronze coins were produced for the masses.

 When folk are tired of playing with a broom handle, they could try to persuade their cat to sit upright like the lion on a George VI Scottish shilling

 

 

[Peckris 579]

22 hours ago, DrLarry said:

thanks 

Here are two clear examples (sorry about the size, they're original scans):

 

With the pictorial evidence in front of us, can you explain what you're getting at please? (I will accept the earlier design is more 3D but that's because the copper series had enough thickness to accommodate a bolder design compared with the thinner bronze series).

[1949threepence 3,368]

25 minutes ago, DrLarry said:

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....

 

Interesting....although my remark was totally tongue in cheek, Larry. Not meant to be taken literally. 

ETA - Although the bit about her liking slightly warmed up fillet streak, IS true 

 

Edited June 19, 2018 by 1949threepence

[DrLarry 443]

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 

[DrLarry 443]

7 minutes ago, 1949threepence said:

Interesting....although my remark was totally tongue in cheek, Larry. Not meant to be taken literally. 

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

[Peckris 579]

8 minutes ago, DrLarry said:

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. 

You are forgetting that the Mint had enormous problems with converting from copper to bronze. That's why there are so many varieties in the first few years. That's the biggest factor you need to take into account. Otherwise, the two poses are remarkably similar, and you'd have to study the two with a large magnifying glass to see the differences you've described. And also remember that when Britannia first appeared on the 1672 coins, she looked very unnatural, yet that design was persisted with for decades.

[DrLarry 443]

7 minutes ago, Peckris said:

You are forgetting that the Mint had enormous problems with converting from copper to bronze. That's why there are so many varieties in the first few years. That's the biggest factor you need to take into account. Otherwise, the two poses are remarkably similar, and you'd have to study the two with a large magnifying glass to see the differences you've described. And also remember that when Britannia first appeared on the 1672 coins, she looked very unnatural, yet that design was persisted with for decades.

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 ...