Some of my British Coins - new pictures

[Peckris 579]

I think the JH isn't so bad when it looks like this: http://www.omnicoin.com/coins/946558.jpg

or like this: http://www.omnicoin.com/coins/994431.jpg

The first one is a lovely coin, no mistake about it. But it's still the JH portrait, and therefore looks "all wrong". The second is a fantasy piece, with the crown enlarged and the bust sitting lower in the flan; however if you look at it objectively (as if a photograph, say) the crown still looks incredibly silly, perched on her head like a hat that's 4 sizes too small.

[marvinfinnley 4]

The second picture is the Weyl half penny pattern, [VR] to [ER] as listed in Peck (P2192). Rob's research however has shown that each strike is unique in its metal and edge. So this one is the plain edge bronze half penny. It's usually treated as a pattern, not a fantasy, but I can't really define the difference. In truth, it was a private pattern, not an official pattern created by a mint engraver, but it's usually referred to as a pattern (see Peck). As we know, there's been a bunch of "semi" official or private patterns created over the years, including such avidly collected patterns by Moore, Smith, Spink and by Bonomi (the latter two even included in Linecar and Stone's proof and pattern work). So I would opine that "fantasy" is not appropriate for the Weyl patterns.

And if this sets up a lively discussion, so much the better!

[copper123 1,565]

Unfortunately "fantasy" is also a word used when selling lots of modern rubbish that most true coin collectors would not touch with a barge pole.

[marvinfinnley 4]

"Modern rubbish," you mean like the so-called "retro patterns?" Or perhaps the Geoffrey Hearn "patterns?"

[marvinfinnley 4]

"Modern rubbish," you mean like the so-called "retro patterns?" Or perhaps the Geoffrey Hearn "patterns?"

By "retro" I'm referring to the "Patina collection."

[CartwheelTwopence 2]

What incredible coins! WOW! I honestly would not even worry about a tiny little scratch when zoomed in on x20; what examples could you ever find to beat these? Particularly the crown! Very well sourced - It makes me so jealous seeing coins as beautiful as these!!!

[marvinfinnley 4]

Well, one thing, I don't fritter my money away with bunches of small purchases. I save up, sometimes for a year, watch the auctions for really appealing coins that might be in reach, then make a stab and sometimes, one gets lucky. Any coin that has the pzazz or eye appeal to jump out of the catalog at you will do the same for others and therefore has the potential to appreciate in price. But again, judgement is necessary. If there are tons of the coin just like it, then steer clear.

The Weyl is one of the esoteric items that many collectors won't bid on because they have no idea what it is. They're so rare that they appear quite infrequently. But the color got to me, and the well-known dealer who was sitting next to me at the auction mentioned that he had never seen the 1887 pattern halfpenny before. So I took a stab and got lucky.

Of course there have been many, many times that I was outbid. But sometimes you get lucky at an auction.

[VickySilver 885]

Weyl = private pattern & nada to do with Royal Mint. This to me at least, and this probably not popular, represents an earlier version of the Patina and INA "attempts". Esoteric, but even a dyed in the wool Vicky fanatic like myself leaves them alone.

BTW, the Spink auction to which I refer which you may want to look up is the November 15, 2001 Sale which has many, many proofs of ythe Victorian period.

[Rob 3,242]

Weyl = private pattern & nada to do with Royal Mint. This to me at least, and this probably not popular, represents an earlier version of the Patina and INA "attempts". Esoteric, but even a dyed in the wool Vicky fanatic like myself leaves them alone.

BTW, the Spink auction to which I refer which you may want to look up is the November 15, 2001 Sale which has many, many proofs of ythe Victorian period.

I know where you are coming from, but there are several ways of looking at it.

Contemporary ones such as the Weyls with the Jubilee Head portrait come from a period in time when there were a large number of patterns issued, both official and unofficial. Some are more common than others.

Taylor restrikes which were also concoctions in some instances, but usually made from Soho dies that were used on official coinage in other instances and so have gained acceptance with the passage of time, though in the latter part of the 19th century were frowned upon in the same was as the modern retro patterns.

The Patina and INA things are not contemporary in any way shape or form, combining impossible obverses and reverses and generally looking like bling.

Of these, the second and third stand out as commercial ventures. There were 10000(?) ish made of the various types and the market has absorbed them all. The Weyl patterns are too rare to be described as a commercial output along the lines of the other two above. Most appear to be unique with the exception of aluminium pieces, which raises the question as to whether they were made for a specific individual. The obvious name that has been touted around is Murdoch, but the presence of a single example in both the Clarkson and Moon sales in 1901, acquired by Murdoch, sets this argument to rest. It is possible that more than one example of all types exist, but I have not been able to find any evidence other than the duplicates in the Murdoch sale.

Taylor's products were considered the 19th century equivalent of the Patina issues, but gradually these were accepted, not least because official dies were the basis for many pieces. These are obviously the most acceptable to the masses because if you have a few Soho currency pieces, it isn't a great leap into the unknown to have a few Taylor pieces as well.

However, given the prospect of potentially designing the nation's coins, the late Victorian patterns of Spink, Moore, Weyl etc should be taken as a somewhat more serious exercise and in parallel with the 'official' patterns. Don't forget the popularity of Moore's model pennies in the 1840s when the RM had to publicly disown them. Today, the Royal Mint solicits designs from the public. If they made a trial striking of a runner-up, what would its status be? At the end of the day it is each to their own.

[VickySilver 885]

OK, a bit harsh, but I still don't care for the fantasies. Wouldn't mind one of the Liliuokalani (spelling?) Hawaiian Dollar patterns of ?1893. I have a Moore penny I would sell if the right buyer came along - gotten by accident!

[Rob 3,242]

OK, a bit harsh, but I still don't care for the fantasies. Wouldn't mind one of the Liliuokalani (spelling?) Hawaiian Dollar patterns of ?1893. I have a Moore penny I would sell if the right buyer came along - gotten by accident!

Which one? I might be interested if mint state.

[VickySilver 885]

Rob, I have to check and see...

Sorry, did not mean to pirate thread!

Do check out the colour pictures of some of the Vicky silver (!!) proofs in the mentioned 15 Nov., 2001 sale!

[marvinfinnley 4]

Weyl = private pattern & nada to do with Royal Mint. This to me at least, and this probably not popular, represents an earlier version of the Patina and INA "attempts". Esoteric, but even a dyed in the wool Vicky fanatic like myself leaves them alone.

BTW, the Spink auction to which I refer which you may want to look up is the November 15, 2001 Sale which has many, many proofs of ythe Victorian period.

I know where you are coming from, but there are several ways of looking at it.

Contemporary ones such as the Weyls with the Jubilee Head portrait come from a period in time when there were a large number of patterns issued, both official and unofficial. Some are more common than others.

Taylor restrikes which were also concoctions in some instances, but usually made from Soho dies that were used on official coinage in other instances and so have gained acceptance with the passage of time, though in the latter part of the 19th century were frowned upon in the same was as the modern retro patterns.

The Patina and INA things are not contemporary in any way shape or form, combining impossible obverses and reverses and generally looking like bling.

Of these, the second and third stand out as commercial ventures. There were 10000(?) ish made of the various types and the market has absorbed them all. The Weyl patterns are too rare to be described as a commercial output along the lines of the other two above. Most appear to be unique with the exception of aluminium pieces, which raises the question as to whether they were made for a specific individual. The obvious name that has been touted around is Murdoch, but the presence of a single example in both the Clarkson and Moon sales in 1901, acquired by Murdoch, sets this argument to rest. It is possible that more than one example of all types exist, but I have not been able to find any evidence other than the duplicates in the Murdoch sale.

Taylor's products were considered the 19th century equivalent of the Patina issues, but gradually these were accepted, not least because official dies were the basis for many pieces. These are obviously the most acceptable to the masses because if you have a few Soho currency pieces, it isn't a great leap into the unknown to have a few Taylor pieces as well.

However, given the prospect of potentially designing the nation's coins, the late Victorian patterns of Spink, Moore, Weyl etc should be taken as a somewhat more serious exercise and in parallel with the 'official' patterns. Don't forget the popularity of Moore's model pennies in the 1840s when the RM had to publicly disown them. Today, the Royal Mint solicits designs from the public. If they made a trial striking of a runner-up, what would its status be? At the end of the day it is each to their own.

Thanks Rob for the overview. It boils down to individual preference in the end. Those that eschew anything except official Mint products of course do not collect tokens - a field that has been immensely popular through the years (as has the collecting of private patterns). Some collectors don't like toned coins. Some like only gold or copper or silver. Who knows. I think that stating publicly that "I do not like this or that" is really not productive. We all have our likes and dislikes. However such statements always make for interesting, hopefully not too heated, discussions.

Best