W. Wyon Patterns

[marvinfinnley 4]

I am a fan of William Wyon. I particularly like his 1817 patterns for George III, the three graces and incorrupta crowns. Although Pistrucci's St. George is a fine depiction, I would rather have see the 3G on the crown of 1818; however apparently the authorities didn't agree. I can't understand that. I guess it was politics.

Have there been any of these patterns for sale recently? I see many British crowns on ebay, but absolutely no 1817 Wyon patterns. I also monitor the big sales and haven't seen either of these coins for several years. I guess no one is selling. Only 18 Incorruptas were made and 50 3Gs. What is more popular?

Any other Wyon patterns favorites among the forum members? There are the 1826 and 1831 Crowns (Patterns?), the 1847 (&53) Gothics (are they really patterns?), the pattern florins of 1848, etc.

Any one own (G-forbid) a 3G or Incorrupta?

[josie 8]

Welcome marvin.

[Rob 3,152]

Any one own (G-forbid) a 3G or Incorrupta?

I've got a 3G phone, thankfully not designed by W Wyon .

[marvinfinnley 4]

Any one own (G-forbid) a 3G or Incorrupta?

I've got a 3G phone, thankfully not designed by W Wyon .

I think a Wyon-designed phone would be a beautiful object to behold. Perhaps it might show the head of Alexander Graham Bell (?)

[Red Riley 2]

I have to say that I have mixed views on William Wyon. A great engraver undoubtedly, but there was something of the politician about him. Obviously he got his big break when King George IV (a fat ugly old man) objected to Pistrucci portraying him as... a fat ugly old man. Wyan's effigy was much blander than Pistrucci's and played down the effects of ageing to the extent that the new portrait was acceptable to the eccentric and self-absorbed old king. His portrait of William IV (every bit as fat and ugly, but a much better monarch) was to my mind the best of his career, with more realism and less massaging the ego of a potty old man.

His portraits of Queen Victoria however, are where his politicians instinct really comes out. There are contemporary paintings and eventually photographs of the queen which show her as being rather dumpy with virtually no chin. Now the young head portrait which Wyon executed for the coinage is a stunning portrayal of a beautiful young woman, but is it recognisably Victoria??? Clearly it was in Wyon's best interests to portray the young queen in as kind a light as possible, but was this done at the expense of accuracy? Furthermore, the bust on the gothic series has to be my all-time favourite, but would you have recognised Victoria walking down Windsor High Street?

Perhaps I have maligned Wyon, as all portrait artists have to flatter their clients to some extent, if only to get paid. I just wonder if Wyon did it more than most.

[Emperor Oli 0]

Perhaps I have maligned Wyon, as all portrait artists have to flatter their clients to some extent, if only to get paid. I just wonder if Wyon did it more than most.

From engravers to the airbrushers of "celebrities" today!

[marvinfinnley 4]

I have to say that I have mixed views on William Wyon. A great engraver undoubtedly, but there was something of the politician about him. Obviously he got his big break when King George IV (a fat ugly old man) objected to Pistrucci portraying him as... a fat ugly old man. Wyan's effigy was much blander than Pistrucci's and played down the effects of ageing to the extent that the new portrait was acceptable to the eccentric and self-absorbed old king. His portrait of William IV (every bit as fat and ugly, but a much better monarch) was to my mind the best of his career, with more realism and less massaging the ego of a potty old man.

His portraits of Queen Victoria however, are where his politicians instinct really comes out. There are contemporary paintings and eventually photographs of the queen which show her as being rather dumpy with virtually no chin. Now the young head portrait which Wyon executed for the coinage is a stunning portrayal of a beautiful young woman, but is it recognisably Victoria??? Clearly it was in Wyon's best interests to portray the young queen in as kind a light as possible, but was this done at the expense of accuracy? Furthermore, the bust on the gothic series has to be my all-time favourite, but would you have recognised Victoria walking down Windsor High Street?

Perhaps I have maligned Wyon, as all portrait artists have to flatter their clients to some extent, if only to get paid. I just wonder if Wyon did it more than most.

Coins were, probably from the start, a vehicle for political statement. Whether it was to laud the emperor for some victory, or to delude the populace into thinking that their no-good, fat and lazy sovereign was akin to a god, coins served the purpose. Do we really want to know our rulers as they are, or as we would like them to be? One only has to think about the revelations with which we are bombarded concerning the royal family, Presidents Kennedy, Clinton, Nixon, etc. When we find out that they are just people like us, it somehow tarnishes the position in our minds. It shouldn't do that, but it does. All rulers, present company NOT excepted, are to some degree consumed with their image, and British Royalty was and IS no exception. Wyon had to support a family, and he knew where his bread was buttered. Pistrucci, however, seemed to have shot himself in the foot. He gets points for principle, but he lost his job so doing and we were deprived of the promise of his talent. But Pistrucci was not above flattery either if one remembers his treatment of a very aged and sickly George III on the 1818-1820 crowns. Wyon perhaps was a bit obvious in his desire to please, but he did it with such artistry that I, for one, can excuse the seeming unconcern for reality in his coin portraits. When we look at a great painting by da Vinci or Rubens, do we really care what the subject "really" looked like?

[Teg 0]

I have to say that I have mixed views on William Wyon. A great engraver undoubtedly, but there was something of the politician about him. Obviously he got his big break when King George IV (a fat ugly old man) objected to Pistrucci portraying him as... a fat ugly old man. Wyan's effigy was much blander than Pistrucci's and played down the effects of ageing to the extent that the new portrait was acceptable to the eccentric and self-absorbed old king. His portrait of William IV (every bit as fat and ugly, but a much better monarch) was to my mind the best of his career, with more realism and less massaging the ego of a potty old man.

His portraits of Queen Victoria however, are where his politicians instinct really comes out. There are contemporary paintings and eventually photographs of the queen which show her as being rather dumpy with virtually no chin. Now the young head portrait which Wyon executed for the coinage is a stunning portrayal of a beautiful young woman, but is it recognisably Victoria??? Clearly it was in Wyon's best interests to portray the young queen in as kind a light as possible, but was this done at the expense of accuracy? Furthermore, the bust on the gothic series has to be my all-time favourite, but would you have recognised Victoria walking down Windsor High Street?

Perhaps I have maligned Wyon, as all portrait artists have to flatter their clients to some extent, if only to get paid. I just wonder if Wyon did it more than most.

Well in defence of Wyon, have you seen Pistrucci's Coronation Medal of 1838? A good looking woman, and described by someone at the time as a 'speaking resemblance'.

For me Pistrucci greater still - both artistically and technically.

It seems almost accepted reason that the king did not like Pistrucci's portraits - and that this benefited Wyon. I can't find contemporary evidence to support this, does anyone know of any?

Teg

[scottishmoney 29]

Somewhere I have seen a self portrait that the then Princess Victoria drew of herself sometime just prior to her accession to the throne in 1837. She would be described in our time as rather plain, she depicted herself with a slightly doubled chin etc. One must note however that in her youth she looked not so much like the dowdy old dowager that most of us remember her as. In essence by 19th century mores she was a moderately attractive young woman. In fact her mood and looks changed considerably after the demise of her beloved Prince Albert in 1861.

Actually as far as no chin monarchs, here is the so called playdoh princess, Isabel II of Spain:

[Peter 615]

She was a looker.

I wouldn't want this in a higher grade,

http://www.omnicoin.com/coin_view.aspx?id=905767

[Red Riley 2]

Somewhere I have seen a self portrait that the then Princess Victoria drew of herself sometime just prior to her accession to the throne in 1837. She would be described in our time as rather plain, she depicted herself with a slightly doubled chin etc. One must note however that in her youth she looked not so much like the dowdy old dowager that most of us remember her as. In essence by 19th century mores she was a moderately attractive young woman. In fact her mood and looks changed considerably after the demise of her beloved Prince Albert in 1861.

Actually as far as no chin monarchs, here is the so called playdoh princess, Isabel II of Spain:

Streuth, now that is one ugly portrait.

I was, of course, playing devil's advocate at least to some extent. Would I swap the beauty of Wyon's gothic portrait for the realism of the Isabel II effigy? Not on your Nelly! To quote the Australian art critic Robert Hughes (on the portrait represented in my avatar) - '... just looking at it makes you want to climb into the painting and have a thoroughly enjoyable afternoon'. Perhaps I wouldn't go quite so far with Wyon's portraits (perhaps I should rephrase that...), but you get my drift. One of the functions of art, be it on a canvas or a coin, is to stir a positive response in the viewer and yes, I think Wyon's portraiture does that. All things considered however, I still think I would rather meet one of Wyon's imaginary queens than the real Queen Victoria.

I can't leave this thread with that awful Isabel II portrait can I?

That's better.

[Red Riley 2]

Somewhere I have seen a self portrait that the then Princess Victoria drew of herself sometime just prior to her accession to the throne in 1837. She would be described in our time as rather plain, she depicted herself with a slightly doubled chin etc. One must note however that in her youth she looked not so much like the dowdy old dowager that most of us remember her as. In essence by 19th century mores she was a moderately attractive young woman. In fact her mood and looks changed considerably after the demise of her beloved Prince Albert in 1861.

Actually as far as no chin monarchs, here is the so called playdoh princess, Isabel II of Spain:

Streuth, now that is one ugly portrait.

I was, of course, playing devil's advocate at least to some extent. Would I swap the beauty of Wyon's gothic portrait for the realism of the Isabel II effigy? Not on your Nelly! To quote the Australian art critic Robert Hughes (on the portrait represented in my avatar) - '... just looking at it makes you want to climb into the painting and have a thoroughly enjoyable afternoon'. Perhaps I wouldn't go quite so far with Wyon's portraits (perhaps I should rephrase that...), but you get my drift. One of the functions of art, be it on a canvas or a coin, is to stir a positive response in the viewer and yes, I think Wyon's portraiture does that. All things considered however, I still think I would rather meet one of Wyon's imaginary queens than the real Queen Victoria.

[Red Riley 2]

Apologies for the last couple of posts. Was attempting to attach a photo of a gothic crown, but was having problems...