Baldwin's of St. James's
Auction 10 22 Sep 2017
View prices realized
► Sale information
Find similar lots
British Coins and Medals, Victoria, proof crown in pure silver, 1847, edge plain, 'Gothic' bust l., rev. crowned cruciform shields (S.3883; ESC.291A [R6]; Bull 2580), nearly as struck, a brilliant Proof with reflective surfaces showing scattered abrasions but almost none touching the portrait, with a blush of delicate pinkish gold toning
Very little is known or has been recorded about this unusual piece, struck not in the standard silver alloy but in nearly pure silver, which surely accounts for the noted abrasions in a softer metal than was the norm: doubtless mistaken over the years for the usual Gothic issue, and consequently not well handled when being examined. In English Silver Coinage, Alan Rayner simply noted that it was made for presentation purposes, giving no other detail. But was it really? Was it more likely a trial striking made to test the alloy? The rarity rating of R6 suggests that only 3 or 4 pieces are known. If this was in fact made for VIPs, wouldn't there be more? If a trial piece, that sounds about right. Lacking documents, we will likely never know for certain.
Of course, the crown preceded the Gothic-style florin, first struck in 1851, bearing the obverse legend of the crown but with the date not moved to the reverse, as on the crown. And here we encounter a curious controversy that may, possibly, have begun with the legend used on the crown, where the national name in Latin is abbreviated just slightly, so as to fit the space. On the florin, this was further abbreviated to just 'brit' for 1851, then changed to 'britt' beginning in 1868. Again, space did not permit the name in full. But the first abbreviation used on the florin was technically incorrect, as C. E. Challis points out (A New History of the Royal Mint, page 511): 'Wyon had had to proceed under the watchful supervision of the queen and the prince consort, and visits to Osborne and Buckingham Palace had been necessary before the queen gave her approval. On one point there was later public controversy: the doubling of the T of BRITT in the inscription on the obverse. Here the classical scholarship of the chancellor himself had saved the Mint from error, but lesser minds failed to understand the application of the Latin rule that the final consonant of an abbreviation should be doubled when necessary to indicate the plural.'
Victoria's bronzes first struck in 1860 all use the proper BRITT abbreviation. The two versions appear only within the Gothic florin series, and the legends are perfectly proportional on the Gothic crowns, but at some time beginning in the late 1840s the 'controversy' briefly occurred. Was young Victoria part of it? Was Prince Albert? Both provided 'watchful supervision', Challis declared. Was this 'pure silver' Gothic crown one of the VIP pieces shown to the royal couple? Was it a trial piece specially minted in pure silver for their inspection? Could it be that Victoria herself held this very coin, upon which her approval rested? After all, she was the ultimate VIP. (7000-8000 GBP)
Very little is known or has been recorded about this unusual piece, struck not in the standard silver alloy but in nearly pure silver, which surely accounts for the noted abrasions in a softer metal than was the norm: doubtless mistaken over the years for the usual Gothic issue, and consequently not well handled when being examined. In English Silver Coinage, Alan Rayner simply noted that it was made for presentation purposes, giving no other detail. But was it really? Was it more likely a trial striking made to test the alloy? The rarity rating of R6 suggests that only 3 or 4 pieces are known. If this was in fact made for VIPs, wouldn't there be more? If a trial piece, that sounds about right. Lacking documents, we will likely never know for certain.
Of course, the crown preceded the Gothic-style florin, first struck in 1851, bearing the obverse legend of the crown but with the date not moved to the reverse, as on the crown. And here we encounter a curious controversy that may, possibly, have begun with the legend used on the crown, where the national name in Latin is abbreviated just slightly, so as to fit the space. On the florin, this was further abbreviated to just 'brit' for 1851, then changed to 'britt' beginning in 1868. Again, space did not permit the name in full. But the first abbreviation used on the florin was technically incorrect, as C. E. Challis points out (A New History of the Royal Mint, page 511): 'Wyon had had to proceed under the watchful supervision of the queen and the prince consort, and visits to Osborne and Buckingham Palace had been necessary before the queen gave her approval. On one point there was later public controversy: the doubling of the T of BRITT in the inscription on the obverse. Here the classical scholarship of the chancellor himself had saved the Mint from error, but lesser minds failed to understand the application of the Latin rule that the final consonant of an abbreviation should be doubled when necessary to indicate the plural.'
Victoria's bronzes first struck in 1860 all use the proper BRITT abbreviation. The two versions appear only within the Gothic florin series, and the legends are perfectly proportional on the Gothic crowns, but at some time beginning in the late 1840s the 'controversy' briefly occurred. Was young Victoria part of it? Was Prince Albert? Both provided 'watchful supervision', Challis declared. Was this 'pure silver' Gothic crown one of the VIP pieces shown to the royal couple? Was it a trial piece specially minted in pure silver for their inspection? Could it be that Victoria herself held this very coin, upon which her approval rested? After all, she was the ultimate VIP. (7000-8000 GBP)