Message:

<p>[QUOTE=&quot;DonnaML, post: 8214588, member: 110350&quot;]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.</p><p><br /></p><p>Official medal:</p><p><br /></p><p>&nbsp;[ATTACH=full]1441718[/ATTACH]</p><p><br /></p><p>Unofficial medal:</p><p><br /></p><p>[ATTACH=full]1441719[/ATTACH]</p><p><br /></p><p>But I don&#039;t think the differences were remotely sufficient to be able to argue that it wasn&#039;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&#039;t true back then that it was the Royal Mint that owned Pistrucci&#039;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&#039;ve added to my description of the unofficial medal suggests as much (new footnote in boldface):</p><p><br /></p><p>Great Britain, Victoria, Unofficial Large AE Coronation Medal, 1838, by Benedetto Pistrucci (same portrait used on official coronation medal), for Rundell, Bridge &amp; Co. Obv. Bust left, wearing plain diadem, with hair tied straight back, ALEXANDRINA VICTORIA, signed below as &#039;Benedetto Pistrucci Chief Medallist Royal Mint&#039; / 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 <i>Georgic</i>, 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 &amp; Pl. 144; BHM II 1802 [Brown, Laurence, <i>British Historical Medals Vol. II, 1837-1901 </i>(Seaby 1987)]; Whittlestone &amp; Ewing 90 (obv. ill. at p. 18; obv. is also the cover illustration) [Whittlestone, Andrew &amp; Michael Ewing, <i>Royal Commemorative Medals 1837-1977, Vol. 1, Queen Victoria 1837-1901</i> (2008)]. <i>Purchased from Bonham’s, Knightsbridge, London, UK, Auction Sale No. 28052, 09.09.1999, Lot 106.</i>*</p><p><br /></p><p>*<b>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 &amp; 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.</b></p><p><b><br /></b></p><p>In addition, Pistrucci&#039;s design for the official Victoria coronation medal is&nbsp; 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&#039;s and used instead on other medals, on coins, and on the first postage stamp issued in 1840. Although I like both, Wyon&#039;s portrait was far preferred by critics; Pistrucci&#039;s was severely criticized, even in the House of Commons. Here is my example of the medal on which Wyon&#039;s portrait first appeared, with a footnote mentioning the controversy:</p><p><br /></p><p>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&#039;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 &amp; Pl. 141, BHM II 1775 (ill. p. 7), Welch 5 &amp; Pl. II (see pp. 43-46) [Welch, Charles, <i>Numismata Londinensia, Medals Struck by the Corporation of London to Commemorate Important Municipal Events</i>, 1831 to 1893 (London 1894)], Whittlestone &amp; Ewing 72A (ill. p. 16)].*</p><p><br /></p><p>[ATTACH=full]1441727[/ATTACH]</p><p><br /></p><p>[ATTACH=full]1441728[/ATTACH]</p><p><br /></p><p>*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.</p><p><br /></p><p>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, <i>British Official Medals for Coronations and Jubilees</i> (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&#039;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&#039;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.”</p><p><br /></p><p>As I said, I like both portraits. How do others feel? Which would you have chosen for the official coronation medal?[/QUOTE]</p><p><br /></p>

Your name or email address:

Do you already have an account?

• No, create an account now.
• Yes, my password is:
• Forgot your password?

Stay logged in