British Official Coronation & Jubilee Medals, etc.

Nice.

Ooh, I forgot about this one.



Commemorative Medals, Old Testament, Elijah fed by ravens at the brook Cherith, copper medal, c.1830, from Sir Edward Thomason’s series of sixty ‘Medallic Illustrations of the Holy Scriptures’,

Obverse: two ravens swoop on Elijah with food, after the painting by Paolo Veronese
Reverse: legend in 29 lines

Diameter: 73.5mm.

(BHM.1468, no. 43)

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

I've added more detailed descriptions of most.

 

I don't collect very many of these pieces. Here are the only two I have.

I bought this one of George III and Charlotte's marriage at the 2022 FUN Show.



I bought this Edward VIII unofficial coronation medal to fill the hole for him that was in my "all kings" collection.

 

Really beautiful collection @DonnaML , and everyone else too! I love the intense artistry on these medals.

 

Stunning collection @DonnaML !! And I relished reading your complete descriptions. I have perhaps a couple of dozen British medals, some of the 18th c., but mostly 19th c. They mostly commemorate various events, but none are commemoration medals. Apologies as I have no photos.

 

No apologies necessary! Unlike the case with my ancient coins, for which I've made sure since I began collecting them in 2017 that I have either the dealers' or my own photos for every coin, I still have plenty of British and some French historical medals (the general term, as opposed to the "art medals" I have, mostly from France) for which I have no photos at all. Also, as I've previously mentioned, I sold about 60 or 70 of my most valuable historical medals for financial reasons back around 2015 or so, and will probably never be able to, or even want to, reacquire more than a small number of the types I sold that were particularly important to me, like a few of the coronation medals I posted above.

Here's one more Mudie medal I photographed today; as usual, the reverse is much more interesting than the obverse:

Great Britain, Battle of Waterloo medal, 1815 (Struck 1820). Obv. Bust r. HENRY WILLIAM MARQUIS OF ANGLESEY. Rev. Equestrian figure of Anglesey l., leading a cavalry charge. CHARGE OF THE BRITISH AT WATERLOO. Ex. JUNE XVIII. MDCCCXV. AE 41 mm. By G. Mills/ A.J. Depaulis. Mudie 34, Eimer 1069, BHM 859.

 

If one compares the portrait of Victoria on the official coronation medal (using your photo, since the only photo I have of mine is the group photo in the tray) with the one on the obverse of the large unofficial medal (see post on page 1 of this thread), I think one can see that although the designs are basically the same, there are a few tiny differences in the hair, etc.

Official medal:



Unofficial medal:



But I don't think the differences were remotely sufficient to be able to argue that it wasn't the same design. I doubt that the laws on works for hire belonging to the person who commissions the work have changed so much that it wasn't true back then that it was the Royal Mint that owned Pistrucci's design, not Pistrucci personally. So I suspect that the manufacturer of this unofficial medal had to get permission from the Mint to reuse the design, and probably did so. In fact, a new footnote I've added to my description of the unofficial medal suggests as much (new footnote in boldface):

Great Britain, Victoria, Unofficial Large AE Coronation Medal, 1838, by Benedetto Pistrucci (same portrait used on official coronation medal), for Rundell, Bridge & Co. Obv. Bust left, wearing plain diadem, with hair tied straight back, ALEXANDRINA VICTORIA, signed below as 'Benedetto Pistrucci Chief Medallist Royal Mint' / Rev. Legend and date in 5 lines, DA FACILEM CURSUM ATQUE ADNUE COEPTIS 1838. (Legend is version of invocation at beginning of Vergil’s first Georgic, i.e., “da facilem cursum atque audacibus adnue coeptis” [meaning “Grant [me] an easy journey and nod in approval of the bold things begun [by me],” but omitting “audacibus”/bold]; as set forth on this coin, the legend has been translated as “Give an easy passage and support our undertakings.”) 87 mm., 328 g. Eimer 1309 & Pl. 144; BHM II 1802 [Brown, Laurence, British Historical Medals Vol. II, 1837-1901 (Seaby 1987)]; Whittlestone & Ewing 90 (obv. ill. at p. 18; obv. is also the cover illustration) [Whittlestone, Andrew & Michael Ewing, Royal Commemorative Medals 1837-1977, Vol. 1, Queen Victoria 1837-1901 (2008)]. Purchased from Bonham’s, Knightsbridge, London, UK, Auction Sale No. 28052, 09.09.1999, Lot 106.*

*See BHM II 1802 at p. 15, noting that “[t]he head on the obverse varies only slightly from that used by the same artist on the official coronation medal.” It is likely that the Royal Mint’s permission was required for the manufacturer (Rundell, Bridge & Co.) to publish a medal with a design essentially the same as the one that Benedetto Pistrucci was hired to create for the Mint. Although BHM does not mention any documentary evidence of such permission, it does cite (see id.) a letter dated 6 July 1838 from Rundell “requesting permission from the Master of the Mint to have struck [an additional] 24 gold and 24 silver shell medals of the obverse of this piece. A reply from G.W. Morrison on behalf of the Master of the Mint was made on 7 July stating that ‘the Master of the Mint has been pleased to comply with your request and has given the necessary authority to Mr. Pistrucci accordingly.’” It follows logically that the Mint must also have given permission for the use of the design in striking the medal itself.

In addition, Pistrucci's design for the official Victoria coronation medal is of interest when compared to the portrait that William Wyon also submitted for use on the official medal, but was rejected in favor of Pistrucci's and used instead on other medals, on coins, and on the first postage stamp issued in 1840. Although I like both, Wyon's portrait was far preferred by critics; Pistrucci's was severely criticized, even in the House of Commons. Here is my example of the medal on which Wyon's portrait first appeared, with a footnote mentioning the controversy:

Great Britain, 1837, AE Commemorative Medal for the Corporation of the City of London (No. 5), Queen Victoria’s Visit to the City of London, by William Wyon. Obv. Diademed head of Queen Victoria left, VICTORIA REGINA, Wyon's name engraved at truncation/ Façade of the Guildhall with Royal Standard flying above; in exergue, IN HONOUR OF HER MAJESTY’S VISIT/TO THE CORPORATION OF LOND/9TH NOV: 1837. 54 mm. Eimer 1304 & Pl. 141, BHM II 1775 (ill. p. 7), Welch 5 & Pl. II (see pp. 43-46) [Welch, Charles, Numismata Londinensia, Medals Struck by the Corporation of London to Commemorate Important Municipal Events, 1831 to 1893 (London 1894)], Whittlestone & Ewing 72A (ill. p. 16)].*





*See BHM Vol. II p. 7: This medal is number [five] of the series published by the Corporation of the City of London to commemorate important events in the life of the City and was authorized by the Royal Entertainments Committee, the body responsible for the organization of the Queen’s entertainment. . . . An undated bill from William Wyon, now in the archives of the Corporation of London, refers to ‘one gold, 34 mounted, 195 plain silver, 530 bronze, 10 ornamental cases (Royal Family) and 397 plain cases’. . . . The whereabouts of the gold specimen referred to by Wyon is not now known, possibly it has not survived and it would appear from the mint records . . . that at least 1625 examples in either silver or copper were struck. . . . Wyon’s portrait of the Queen was used on various other medals and was also the basis for Sir Henry Corbould’s design for the penny black postage stamp” – i.e., the first postage stamp.

See also the discussion of Wyon’s portrait for this medal, as compared to Pistrucci’s portrait for the official coronation medal, at Wollaston pp. 80-81 [[H. Wollaston, British Official Medals for Coronations and Jubilees (1978)]: “In 1837 when Victoria succeeded William IV, William Wyon was the Chief Engraver of the Mint and Pistrucci the Chief Medallist of the Mint. Both claimed the privilege of designing the coronation medal as they did in 1830 [for William IV, when Wyon was chosen]. Pistrucci was selected. Perhaps as compensation Wyon did a portrait of the young Queen for use on coins [and this medal]. . . . [Pistrucci’s] finished product was generally criticized. Wyon’s design of the young head, on the other hand, was highly praised. Some did so on artistic grounds. Others used the opportunity to decry the work of a foreign medallist, Pistrucci, and to eulogize the work of an English medallist, Wyon. Critics of Pistrucci's medal carried their vendetta into politics. Questions were asked in the House of Commons [requiring a response from the Master of the Mint that didn't attempt to defend Pistrucci other than by offering] an apology excusing him on the grounds of his eyesight. . . . Although Wyon lost to Pistrucci in the contest as to which of them should design the coronation medal, he was the ultimate victor in perpetuating the young Queen’s portrait. His head was chosen for the first postage stamp issued in 1840. His head was also chosen to be put on one side of the official medal for Queen Victoria’s Diamond Jubilee in 1897. On the other side was the head of the old Queen by T. Brock.”

As I said, I like both portraits. How do others feel? Which would you have chosen for the official coronation medal?

 

That's an AMAZING collection - I have a couple of the larger Queen Victoria Diamond Jubilee medals - the bronze and the silver - and one original box that came with the bronze, that's in poor condition (the box). I think they're really neat!

 

It's in considerably better condition than my own example of that case, which you can see in a photo of a tray where I keep it, together with most of my other original medal cases, on the first page of this thread. They really don't hold up that well for the most part. Most old medals for sale don't even come with their cases, and it's rare to find one in great condition that's older than the 1960s. You'd think people would have preserved them carefully, but I guess a lot were just tossed and many of the rest weren't taken care of.

I think you could probably improve the appearance of the "old" side of the silver one by carefully washing it, without damaging it, if I'm right that some of those black smudges are just dirt, not discoloration.

 

I also like both portraits, Donna. Pistrucci's Victoria portrait has a longer neck as compared to Wyon's design. Pistrucci's work has a more classical, idealized and stylized feel, just like those on the Roman coins and marble heads. In contrast, Wyon's design looks more realistic, IMO.

 

@DonnaML Pray share, is there anything you don't collect? Your royal medals are fantastic! I've wanted to foray into the Young Victoria medals sometime, also the commemorative jubilee medals. It is a shame about the cases/boxes - I do actively collect some medals from the late 19th and early 20th century myself and only want them with original boxes and paperwork and of course uncleaned.

The real unfortunately overlooked areas are the so-called "Memorial Plaques" of 1918-19 that were created in memory of Britain's soldiers that sacrificed their lives in WWI. Most of them are missing the box, the paperwork and a lot of the medals have been found in dumps, the Thames etc. The one I own was sent by representatives of King George V to the soldiers family in Oregon USA in 1919 - all original with the lettre, the card from the king and the envelope it was posted in.

Back to our regularly scheduled topic:




A fascinating memento from Scottish and British history, this AR medal by Nicholas Briot was struck in 1633 to commemorate Charles I's very belated Scottish coronation that year. His coronation should have been much earlier, he ascended the throne in 1625, but he carelessly delayed said coronation until finally giving into demands that it be done in 1633. His introduction of Anglican liturgy into the coronation ceremony did little to endear him to his Scottish subjects, and things went decidedly sour thereafter. On his return trip to London his baggage including many crown jewels were lost in the Firth of Forth, just off of Burntisland. The treasure has still never been located. Subsequently alleged witches were brought to trial in London, on charges of causing the shipwreck. Things went down for Charles I from there on, both in Scotland and in England.

This lovely medal, with a lifelike portrait of the monarch, was commissioned to Nicholas Briot, a famous and skilled coiner. This medal was struck in a screw press, and is actually much better detailed as a result. One of these medals was struck piedfort in gold, which was presented to the King, he kept it as a pocket piece until his death in 1649. The silver examples like this one were thrown by the king to the crowds at the coronation ceremony.

 

This medal was apparently prepared at the time of the uprising, but was not actually struck until much later in the 18th century. It is conjectured that the dies for this medal were prepared by Charles Norbert or Joseph Charles Roettiers. The obverse portrait is of course Prince Charles with the legend CAROLUS WALLIAE PRINCEPS or Charles Prince of Wales. The reverse of this medal portrays Britannia looking outwards to the ships in the distance - a reference to the landing at Eriskay. The Latin legend AMOR ET SPES translates to Love and Hope.

Subsequent to the flight of the Prince, he largely withdrew from further adventure. Regrettably he drowned his sorrows in the bottles, the remaining nearly 43 years of his life were a litany of unhappiness and failed relationships.

 

That's a truly beautiful example of the Charles I Scottish coronation medal, @scottishmoney. I used to own one myself, which I bought from Bonham's at a 1999 auction (the same auction in which I purchased the large unofficial Pistrucci coronation medal for Victoria posted above), but sold it some years ago. It's one that I definitely hope to replace.

 

An excellent comparison! I agree with you.

 

A medal struck to commemorate the birth of Prince Charles, aka "Bonnie Prince Charley in 1720. An uncommon medal that encompasses James VIII and his wife, Clementina, and of course Prince Charles.

 

The Old and Young Pretenders! Beautiful! Of course, given your user name, you would refer to the former as James VIII rather than as James III, which is how I usually think of him.

 

View attachment 1441727
*See BHM Vol. II p. 7: This medal is number [five] of the series published by the Corporation of the City of London to commemorate important events in the life of the City and was authorized by the Royal Entertainments Committee, the body responsible for the organization of the Queen’s entertainment. . . . An undated bill from William Wyon, now in the archives of the Corporation of London, refers to ‘one gold, 34 mounted, 195 plain silver, 530 bronze, 10 ornamental cases (Royal Family) and 397 plain cases’. . . . The whereabouts of the gold specimen referred to by Wyon is not now known, possibly it has not survived and it would appear from the mint records . . . that at least 1625 examples in either silver or copper were struck. . . . Wyon’s portrait of the Queen was used on various other medals and was also the basis for Sir Henry Corbould’s design for the penny black postage stamp” – i.e., the first postage stamp.

I'm partial to Wyon's engraving. Here's a gilt example with a matte finish, under glass with a silver ring. Perhaps this is one of the 34 mounted examples. No case came along with it.






Bob

 

That's gorgeous.

 

Now that's a collection!!

 

Thanks! You shoulda seen my collection 10 years ago! And yes, there are things I don't collect, like US coins! I also haven't bought any modern world coins, as opposed to medals -- not even any more British coins -- in some years. Except for a couple of small gold coins, a one-third guinea from Great Britain and a 10 francs coin from France, out of nostalgia for all the gold coins going back to Elizabeth I that I used to have before I sold them. (The last time I checked, I still had about 20 modern British gold coins going back to Victoria, but none of them is particularly special or valuable, and I keep them in my safe deposit box.)