symmetry between obverse and reverse sides of George 3rd shilling 1816

[oculus 0]

I have acquired a George 3rd 1816 shilling in very good condition, but I wondered if the symmetry between the two sides should be vertical rotation symmetry or horizontal? Mine is vertical, but a George 4th shilling I have is horizontal. So could I have acquired a forgery?

[Peckris 579]

It's actually the other way about - Geo III is horizontal (↑↑) while George IV is vertical (↑↓). I suspect you have good examples? Mind you, there ARE a lot of contemporary forgeries, but they are silver-washed copper, so they're pretty obvious.

[Rob 3,221]

I think you are both saying the same thing. i.e en-medaille is a rotation on the vertical axis etc. Peck, you misread it I think.

Edited August 21, 2014 by Rob

[Peckris 579]

I think you are both saying the same thing. i.e en-medaille is a rotation on the vertical axis etc. Peck, you misread it I think.

No - you rotate the coin either horizontally or vertically. If the sides are the same orientation, you rotate horizontally, if 180º degrees apart, you rotate vertically.

[Rob 3,221]

I think you are both saying the same thing. i.e en-medaille is a rotation on the vertical axis etc. Peck, you misread it I think.

No - you rotate the coin either horizontally or vertically. If the sides are the same orientation, you rotate horizontally, if 180º degrees apart, you rotate vertically.

I think oculus needs to clarify, because he either has two dodgy pieces, or more likely two normal and an ambiguous description.

[oculus 0]

FROM OCULUS:on my shillings; I meant rotating a modern coin about a vertical axis gives us the same aspect obverse and reverse,but many early coins need to be rotated about a horizontal axis to obtain the correct aspect.

I have just compared my George 3rd shilling 1816 with my George 3rd sixpence 1816. The symmetry is the same on both coins when rotating the coins about a vertical axis.So I think they are both genuine. However my George 4th shilling 1826 has to be rotated about a horizontal axis to get the correct aspect. The only early silver Victorian coin I have is an 1840 groat and that is symmetrical about the vertical like the later coins.

So my question is when did it become habitual to mint coins with symmetry about the vertical as we still have on modern coins?

I have not come across the answer in the coin literature,

[Rob 3,221]

Everything was en-medaille (upright die axis) from the Jubilee Head issues of 1887 onwards. From 1787 to 1887 there was a mixture, with some upright and others inverted (en-coin). Before 1787, an inverted die axis was the norm, though the odd example with an upright axis exists such as the 1663 first bust shilling.

[Peckris 579]

Everything was en-medaille (upright die axis) from the Jubilee Head issues of 1887 onwards. From 1787 to 1887 there was a mixture, with some upright and others inverted (en-coin). Before 1787, an inverted die axis was the norm, though the odd example with an upright axis exists such as the 1663 first bust shilling.

I think en-medaille, upright, or inverted are more sensible terms than 'horizontal' or 'vertical'. One person may be talking about an axis (though this isn't a geometry class!), whereas I was using the everyday sense of the plane you rotate something in - horizontal if both sides are the same way up, and vertical if they are at 180º to each other. The two arrow convention (↑↑ and ↑↓) is clearest of all, which I suspect is why catalogues like Spink's use it.

[Rob 3,221]

As a non-conformist, I like things which don't obey the normal rules such as the below which has a ↑→ die axis.

The reverse shields are wrong for 3 of the 4, as only the French one is in the correct position. This is a useful piece as one might infer that the dies were normally aligned in the press by matching the top of the bust with the French shield.

Edited August 22, 2014 by Rob