A George IV medalet

[seuk 85]

Just bought this medalet commemorating the coronation of the popular monarch (well perhaps only among medalists ) George IV.

Looking at the reverse the curved foot of the 2 of 1821 caught my eye. Of the contemporary counterfeits of the George III 1820 shillings most have straight foot 2, a few are curved but only one (that I know of) with a similar design as on the medalet.

A001o/A001r - Group A.

[seuk 85]

So I had to check it out right away - As it turns out it seems like a 100% match of letter punches

[Coinery 1,153]

Nice one, Seuk, sterling stuff, I especially love the presentation of the punches in rows, will be pinching that myself, thank-you very much!

What is the proposal then, regarding counterfeiter? Is it that the fakes were prepared by the medal company, or that the dies were secretly prepared by a worker and then taken home? Or just that the punches were stolen? Are there any thefts recorded in police/court documents at the company? Amazing work, and the presentation is absolutely supreme, really inspiring!

Edited November 11, 2012 by Coinery

[HistoricCoinage 146]

Fascinating stuff! I, too, am also intrigued and Stuart has raised some interesting questions.

As usual, superb presentation.

[Peckris 579]

Yes, a very interesting presentation. There is my usual problem with the portrait however. If this is really from 1821, why is it not the usual "fatty Georgie Porgie" portrait based on his obese appearance of the time? Instead, it appears to be a crudely engraved version of the 'slimmed down' Chantrey sculpture of 1825 which Wyon based his portrait on. Unless the medalet was redone in the mid-1820s but using George III counterfeit lettering punches - but then, the question arises "why do a new medalet so long after the event, of a monarch who was so wildly unpopular?"

[azda 979]

As an engraver of the time Peck, would you want your head cut off or hung for portraying the King in an unflattering light?

[Peckris 579]

As an engraver of the time Peck, would you want your head cut off or hung for portraying the King in an unflattering light?

Pistrucci didn't get executed for his (probably accurate) portrait! My point was, why bother with a coronation medalet four years after the event, particularly one so crudely designed? And if it actually dates to 1821, how do you equate that particular portrait with that period?

[seuk 85]

Nice one, Seuk, sterling stuff, I especially love the presentation of the punches in rows, will be pinching that myself, thank-you very much!

What is the proposal then, regarding counterfeiter? Is it that the fakes were prepared by the medal company, or that the dies were secretly prepared by a worker and then taken home? Or just that the punches were stolen? Are there any thefts recorded in police/court documents at the company? Amazing work, and the presentation is absolutely supreme, really inspiring!

I think the counterfeiter will most likely be the same person as the engraver of the medalet. Making the bust and other details for the shilling you must be a skilled engraver. However it could possible be an apprentice. And anyone capable making the bust would also be capable making his own letter punches.

As I don't have a medal catalogue I don't know if the engraver is known for this particular medalet.

Yes, a very interesting presentation. There is my usual problem with the portrait however. If this is really from 1821, why is it not the usual "fatty Georgie Porgie" portrait based on his obese appearance of the time? Instead, it appears to be a crudely engraved version of the 'slimmed down' Chantrey sculpture of 1825 which Wyon based his portrait on. Unless the medalet was redone in the mid-1820s but using George III counterfeit lettering punches - but then, the question arises "why do a new medalet so long after the event, of a monarch who was so wildly unpopular?"

Dating is a problem. I understand that medalets like these were sometimes produced for several years and I'm not even sure what they were used for. Another thing is the crude portrait. The one of George III is much better. However the counterfeit has to be fairly accurate whereas the portrait of the medal is likely to be less important(?).

Anyway a connection is established - further research needs to be done (as allways ) before any conclutions can be drawn.

[bagerap 706]

This appears to be BHM# 1113, the authorship of which is unknown.

I'm trying to get a clear picture, but very few BHMs appear on line with the correct identification.

[bagerap 706]

Got one! Trouble is this link is broken more often than not.

http://www.napoleonicmedals.org/coins/bhm-1113.htm

[bagerap 706]

Not entirely sure about the figure 2 on this example due to wear.

[HistoricCoinage 146]

Got one! Trouble is this link is broken more often than not.

http://www.napoleonicmedals.org/coins/bhm-1113.htm

It's good to see Vern's website being used as a reference of sorts.

[bagerap 706]

"It's good to see Vern's website being used as a reference of sorts."

It's the one tab that I always keep open.

[seuk 85]

Not entirely sure about the figure 2 on this example due to wear.

Same die pair as mine.

Would have been nice if the engraver was known - but I didn't expected it.

[seuk 85]

Yes, a very interesting presentation. There is my usual problem with the portrait however. If this is really from 1821, why is it not the usual "fatty Georgie Porgie" portrait based on his obese appearance of the time? Instead, it appears to be a crudely engraved version of the 'slimmed down' Chantrey sculpture of 1825 which Wyon based his portrait on. Unless the medalet was redone in the mid-1820s but using George III counterfeit lettering punches - but then, the question arises "why do a new medalet so long after the event, of a monarch who was so wildly unpopular?"

Think the problem of the portrait is solved. Its from one of the (official?) coronation medals - Portrait signed H (Thomas Halliday).

[Peckris 579]

Yes, a very interesting presentation. There is my usual problem with the portrait however. If this is really from 1821, why is it not the usual "fatty Georgie Porgie" portrait based on his obese appearance of the time? Instead, it appears to be a crudely engraved version of the 'slimmed down' Chantrey sculpture of 1825 which Wyon based his portrait on. Unless the medalet was redone in the mid-1820s but using George III counterfeit lettering punches - but then, the question arises "why do a new medalet so long after the event, of a monarch who was so wildly unpopular?"

Think the problem of the portrait is solved. Its from one of the (official?) coronation medals - Portrait signed H (Thomas Halliday).

It is surely possible though, that the oh so vain lard bucket had his Coronation medals re-engraved at or after 1825? After all, he'd been Regent so long, actually getting to play Kingy for real must have made him so chuffed that he may well have kept issuing Coronation stuff all reign long! Either that, or Chantrey did more than one über-flattering sculpture, on which Halliday based a Coronation medal? Though personally, I'd be more inclined to the "re-done later medal" theory.

[seuk 85]

It turns out that the medalet is connected with the Columbia 'farthing' tokens.

The lettering on the Columbia tokens are slightly larger than on the medalet+shilling counterfeit, so the engraver of the Columbia tokens can't be proven the same person as the one who engraved the medalet. - Will have to check the other counterfeit shillings though. But with only O, B and I to compare any evidence will be extremely thin...