With my portrait I am most pleased!

[Coinery 1,153]

With art, beauty, and historical context, the greater part of my facination with numismatics, I would dearly love to read any historical accounts that could shed light upon the proximity of a monarch's likeness to the punches used on their coinage.

Considering the diversity of busts throughout certain reigns, Elizabeth I and Charles I to name just two, and not forgetting those busts that are disliked by the monarch (the 'bull head,' being particularly unpopular with George III for example), it makes me wonder how much vanity played its part, and how much was actually left to the discretion of the engraver and his artistic integrity (G3 Bullhead being an example of a bust going to 'print,' presumeably without the 'proof' being approved by the king!)?

Who created the truest likenesses of all, Briot maybe? Which particular bust, on which denomination, particularly pleased the king or queen? Which engravers put their own heads on the block ahead of pandering to vanity?

Any information pre the photographic era, so W4 or earlier, would be very much appreciated, letters, excerpt, etc, or where to begin a search even. Also, any chance of references to go with any said information?

[Peckris 579]

I have really no idea how you'd go about researching this. It's a great topic though. Just a few jottings :

1. The Romans seem to have gone in for realism, judging by the variety and anthromorphic nature of portraits on their coins. Equally, Celtics and Saxons didn't pretend to aim at the same end, preferring what seems to be a very stylised interpretation of form. In the street, you could far more likely recognise Vespasian for example, from his numismatic portrait, than you could Offa.

2. By the time of medieval coinage (hammered) - whether through incompetence or simply a preference for stylised artificiality, you get a ludicrously similar representation on coins through a 400 year period. This comes to an end with the rather lovely profile portraits of Henry VII, and the portraits of Henry VIII are uncannily like his paintings we are familiar with. On the other hand Elizabeth was supposed to be paranoid about having only 'officially approved' portraits being done, which renders any numismatic image instantly untrustworthy.

3. In the milled era, there must be a certain amount of flattery in all reigns, right through to our present Queen. Anne was notoriously ugly and while her coins reveal no oil painting, I rather suspect you would not have wanted to meet her Maj down a dark alley.

4. George IV was vain to the point of ridicule. Again, I suspect that the three chins you see on his coins would have been closer to 5 or 6. As for the long-reigning Victoria, we wouldn't know anything about her middle-aged appearance from her coins as she morphs from young to elderly almost overnight (in 1887 for silver, and 1895 for bronze).

It seems your topic could easily divide into two :

- who created the most realistic portraits?

- who created the most pleasing (to the monarch) portraits?

[seuk 85]

Found this title in the reading list of 'A History of Modern English coinage' by James Mackay. Could be a good place to start:

H.W.A. Linecar: British coin designs and designers (G. Bell, 1977)

[Coinery 1,153]

I have really no idea how you'd go about researching this. It's a great topic though. Just a few jottings :

1. The Romans seem to have gone in for realism, judging by the variety and anthromorphic nature of portraits on their coins. Equally, Celtics and Saxons didn't pretend to aim at the same end, preferring what seems to be a very stylised interpretation of form. In the street, you could far more likely recognise Vespasian for example, from his numismatic portrait, than you could Offa.

2. By the time of medieval coinage (hammered) - whether through incompetence or simply a preference for stylised artificiality, you get a ludicrously similar representation on coins through a 400 year period. This comes to an end with the rather lovely profile portraits of Henry VII, and the portraits of Henry VIII are uncannily like his paintings we are familiar with. On the other hand Elizabeth was supposed to be paranoid about having only 'officially approved' portraits being done, which renders any numismatic image instantly untrustworthy.

3. In the milled era, there must be a certain amount of flattery in all reigns, right through to our present Queen. Anne was notoriously ugly and while her coins reveal no oil painting, I rather suspect you would not have wanted to meet her Maj down a dark alley.

4. George IV was vain to the point of ridicule. Again, I suspect that the three chins you see on his coins would have been closer to 5 or 6. As for the long-reigning Victoria, we wouldn't know anything about her middle-aged appearance from her coins as she morphs from young to elderly almost overnight (in 1887 for silver, and 1895 for bronze).

It seems your topic could easily divide into two :

- who created the most realistic portraits?

- who created the most pleasing (to the monarch) portraits?

Gosh, thank-you for taking the time to answer in such depth, I will definitely take your thoughts on board. I too think it would be an interesting subject matter, particularly if enough historical references could be sourced to make for a credible assumption about the accuracy of the finished punches.

Do you happen to know where a comprehensive collection of numismatic literature might be easily accessed?

I guess references to the monarch's pleasure, or displeasure, in such matters, would not be confined solely to numismatic works, but how you'd winkle out the one or two lines of interest in those huge historical tomes, God only knows!

If any librarians/researchers out there know of any search methods of use, please let me know?

[Coinery 1,153]

Found this title in the reading list of 'A History of Modern English coinage' by James Mackay. Could be a good place to start:

H.W.A. Linecar: British coin designs and designers (G. Bell, 1977)

Thanks, Seuk, I'll try and source a copy. I know that certain paintings are believed to be in good likeness of certain monarch's, the research that accompanies those claims would also be a good starting place too, I guess?

[Peckris 579]

Gosh, thank-you for taking the time to answer in such depth, I will definitely take your thoughts on board. I too think it would be an interesting subject matter, particularly if enough historical references could be sourced to make for a credible assumption about the accuracy of the finished punches.

Do you happen to know where a comprehensive collection of numismatic literature might be easily accessed?

I guess references to the monarch's pleasure, or displeasure, in such matters, would not be confined solely to numismatic works, but how you'd winkle out the one or two lines of interest in those huge historical tomes, God only knows!

If any librarians/researchers out there know of any search methods of use, please let me know?

Apart from the usual suspects, you might find some good articles at the end of the Coincraft Catalogue if my memory serves me well - though if these cover the topic in question to any extent, that I can't remember.

[Red Riley 2]

With art, beauty, and historical context, the greater part of my facination with numismatics, I would dearly love to read any historical accounts that could shed light upon the proximity of a monarch's likeness to the punches used on their coinage.

Considering the diversity of busts throughout certain reigns, Elizabeth I and Charles I to name just two, and not forgetting those busts that are disliked by the monarch (the 'bull head,' being particularly unpopular with George III for example), it makes me wonder how much vanity played its part, and how much was actually left to the discretion of the engraver and his artistic integrity (G3 Bullhead being an example of a bust going to 'print,' presumeably without the 'proof' being approved by the king!)?

Who created the truest likenesses of all, Briot maybe? Which particular bust, on which denomination, particularly pleased the king or queen? Which engravers put their own heads on the block ahead of pandering to vanity?

Any information pre the photographic era, so W4 or earlier, would be very much appreciated, letters, excerpt, etc, or where to begin a search even. Also, any chance of references to go with any said information?

George III was in no position to object as he was in la la land for the last decade of his reign. It was reputedly the general populace who weren't over-enamoured with the Bull Head portrait, as for some reason they didn't want to see old , fat and ugly monarchs portrayed as just that. Once those shameless flatterers, the Wyons had shuffled off this mortal coil, I suspect realism returned to the coinage and in my view most up to the present day (perhaps with the exception of the Machin and Maklouf portraits of the present queen) have represented a reasonably objective view of the sitter. But the temptation to 'go for a gong' by producing a shamelessly buttered-up portrait of the sitting monarch is still there. Hence (one of the reasons!) why I believe we should bannish the monarch's head from the coinage and replace it with great (and very dead) citizens from the past who could hardly object to an unflettering depiction.

Steps back and hides behind sofa...

[Colin G. 147]

Steps back and hides behind sofa...

And so you should, we would inevitably end up with people like Amy Winehouse on a fifty pence

[Red Riley 2]

And so you should, we would inevitably end up with people like Amy Winehouse on a fifty pence

Given the current ethos of the Royal Mint... you have a point.

[Chris Perkins 228]

Surely Amy Winehouse must have already been on a 50 pence? If not a UK issue, then certainly one of those wonderful themed Isle of Man coins!

[argentumandcoins 70]

Surely Amy Winehouse must have already been on a 50 pence? If not a UK issue, then certainly one of those wonderful themed Isle of Man coins!

She'd been on everything else!!!!

[Coinery 1,153]

With art, beauty, and historical context, the greater part of my facination with numismatics, I would dearly love to read any historical accounts that could shed light upon the proximity of a monarch's likeness to the punches used on their coinage.

Considering the diversity of busts throughout certain reigns, Elizabeth I and Charles I to name just two, and not forgetting those busts that are disliked by the monarch (the 'bull head,' being particularly unpopular with George III for example), it makes me wonder how much vanity played its part, and how much was actually left to the discretion of the engraver and his artistic integrity (G3 Bullhead being an example of a bust going to 'print,' presumeably without the 'proof' being approved by the king!)?

Who created the truest likenesses of all, Briot maybe? Which particular bust, on which denomination, particularly pleased the king or queen? Which engravers put their own heads on the block ahead of pandering to vanity?

Any information pre the photographic era, so W4 or earlier, would be very much appreciated, letters, excerpt, etc, or where to begin a search even. Also, any chance of references to go with any said information?

George III was in no position to object as he was in la la land for the last decade of his reign. It was reputedly the general populace who weren't over-enamoured with the Bull Head portrait, as for some reason they didn't want to see old , fat and ugly monarchs portrayed as just that. Once those shameless flatterers, the Wyons had shuffled off this mortal coil, I suspect realism returned to the coinage and in my view most up to the present day (perhaps with the exception of the Machin and Maklouf portraits of the present queen) have represented a reasonably objective view of the sitter. But the temptation to 'go for a gong' by producing a shamelessly buttered-up portrait of the sitting monarch is still there. Hence (one of the reasons!) why I believe we should bannish the monarch's head from the coinage and replace it with great (and very dead) citizens from the past who could hardly object to an unflettering depiction.

Steps back and hides behind sofa...

I guess losing the monarch's bust on a modern coin is no big deal anymore. Before the advent of film and photography however it was probably the biggest celebrity status there was out there, the only image the general public ever saw, of pretty much anyone!

When we think 'out loud' about Liz II, we see images of her in a funny hat, taking flowers off kids, etc. I doubt anyone, not even coin collectors, think of a bust from a currency coin? A different story if we talk about images of say Charles I...we instantly see the famous paintings and, of course, his coins! Thank goodness they didn't mill images from the local games on them; a jouster with the error double lance, or a falconry hunt with the two partridge rarity!

[Debbie 58]

Did I read somewhere that with american coins that if a portrait was in profile the monarch was dead, and if shown in face on position they were still alive? - Or that could be something to do with the ancient egyption portraits?!*?

[Generic Lad 25]

Did I read somewhere that with american coins that if a portrait was in profile the monarch was dead, and if shown in face on position they were still alive? - Or that could be something to do with the ancient egyption portraits?!*?

Well, it wouldn't be true for US coins because only dead people are able to be featured on coins (and bills) and prior to 1909 no historical person appeared on any circulating coinage. And it is up to the artist to decide which way the bust is facing most of the common circulation coins face left (half dollar, quarter, dime, older nickel) but others face right (penny, SBA dollar, Susan B. Agony dollar, Sacajawea dollar) and others are shown more face on (presidential dollar, newer nickels)