coinsandmedals

There is no need to take their word for it. Mark Goodman discusses the importance of the coin being square to the camera in his book (page 63).

Excellent post! I have made a lot of progress over the last year with smaller copper coins, but my recent ventures with large medals have proven more difficult. The biggest issue being proper lighting. The diffusers in your last illustration are interesting, and I may give this a shot and see how it turns out.

@Zebo I also found a Biden label. Have they done this in the past with other elections?

Does anyone know if they plan to use this label with the 2020 “emergency issue” Silver American Eagles?

I agree, $50 was rather expensive for the period. In the process of researching the Boulton family, I came across an auction catalog from 1912, and I made a note of the handful of U.S. coins that sold (the prices realized and often who bought them are penciled in the margins). Lot 51 Federal Quarter Dollar, 1796, and a dime of the same date, both brilliant proofs, the latter from flawed die, very rare. This lot realized £7-17-6 Lot 54 Copper, &c. Washington Cent, 1791, small eagle; Federal Cent, 1797; and a tin Continental Currency Piece (two R's in currency), 1776, all very fine and rare. This lot realized £5-2-6 Lot 55 U.S.A. Cent, 1795, head of Liberty with cap behind pole, ONE CENT high in wreath, unlettered edge, extremely fine, uncirculated, and very rare. It sold for almost £5-18 Lot 56 U.S.A. Half Cent, 1795, Head of Liberty with cap behind, on pole, Half Cent in centre of wreath, with lettered edge, extremely fine, uncirculated and very rare. This one fetched £7-2-6 From what I can make of the handwriting, Spink won all of these lots.

I believe you were kind enough to share this information with me in one of my earlier posts about the Soho Mint. The files are on my computer, but I have not taken the time to explore those just yet. They are on my agenda for this upcoming summer. Oh yes, Doty's book is by far my favorite numismatic read. I partially have him to blame for my Soho addiction. My father-in-law introduced me to Glenlivet, and I have yet to look back. I have a bottle of 18-year single malt on my shelf, but I have never seen an 80 year!

Wow, it sounds like you have a nice setup where you are. You very well may find Huntsville a bit disappointing. I spent two years there while I earned my master’s. There is not much in the way of numismatics from what I remember, but I could be entirely wrong. I barely made enough money working for the Institutional Review Board to pay the rent, much less seriously pursue numismatics.

I purchased this letter from a private seller located in Scotland. My initial statement was more so an expression of relief that it made the trip in one piece. The mail has been less than reliable for me over the last few weeks. My numismatic research has been primarily focused on the Soho Mint. In part, this has lead me down a more in-depth exploration of the Boulton and Watt families and the lasting impact they had on society. This letter just happened to mention James Watt and seemingly fit with my overall research on the topic.

How appropriate! Minus the tobacco, that sounds like an extraordinary evening to me.

As it turns out, several pieces to the puzzle were on the floor! I just noticed your note: Was "Grey" (a secretary to the Prince) writing to "John Gray"? Charles Grey served as secretary to Prince Albert from 1849 to 1861, so it seems logical that he wrote the letter. After a bit of searching, I was able to confirm that a copy of the donated book remains in the Royal Collection Trust, but they do not list a donor. It would have been nice to establish that John Gray was the intended recipient of the letter. I persisted and kept digging. In doing a little more research on the author of the donated book, George Williamson, I found out that he was the president of the Watt Club. A few google searches later, and I found the mother-load of information, including a transcript Of the letter! For those you who are interested, here is the link to the website. The research presented on the website confirms that the author of the letter was, in fact, Charles Grey, and the recipient was John Gray. Now I can’t help but wonder if my example is an original letter written by Charles Grey or a copy in someone else’s hand. I believe I will save this mystery for another day.

@RWB thank you! It appears I now have all of the pieces to the puzzle.

Thank you @VKurtB and @Just Bob! You have both been very helpful. Some of these words (e.g., Highness) seemed pretty cut and dry, but the handwriting had me second-guessing myself.

This document just arrived from Scotland and I have been trying to decipher the handwriting with little luck. Do you think you can help me fill in the blanks? @RWB I know you have a ton of experience with stuff like this so I am hoping to take advantage of your expertise. Here is what I have so far: Balmoral Castle ____ : 7, 1856 Sir, I am commanded by His Royal ________ Prince Albert _______________ (the?) (Receipt?) (of?) (your?) (note?) (of?) the 4th - ____ - (with?) the ­­­­__________ _______ _______ _________ __________ Of the memorials of James Watt, which you have been Good _______ ________ for ______ __________ __________ Her majesty cannot but Admire the manner in Which this (volume?) is ­­­­_________ ______ , I am commanded to ____ the ________ _________ (Which?) she accepts _______ for The Royal Library. _____ __________ _______ _________ _______ ____ . _____ ________ _________ ______ ________ ____ Grey

Thank you, it means a lot to me that others, such as yourself, have enjoyed them. I had a blast discovering all of that history, and I couldn’t think of a more meaningful numismatic goal than sharing it with my fellow collectors.

Yes, but not very frequently.

As always, @Just Bob you are too kind. I think you are giving the OP more credit than they deserve. The coin pictured is too large to be a 50 Réis (17mm). The reason I suggested the coin was a 100 Réis (21.3mm) is because it is roughly proportional in size to the Lincoln cent pictured.

Nice coins, I particularly like the look of the 1909 S/S. I’ve tried my hand at a few coins with similar toning and haven’t been very successful.

@Coinbuf I will do my best to update the thread with new additions. I have a few other related pieces to post, but I haven’t photographed them yet. Time is always such a commodity. Thanks, @Just Bob and @James_OldeTowne! I appreciate the feedback. It’s nice to know others enjoyed reading my posts.

Congratulations!

Thanks! Haha I am fairly confident my wife would have something to say about that.

I have been a coin collector for most of my relatively short life (I am 28), and although my interests have changed over the years, I have remained mainly interested in coins. At times I have been intrigued by other related material (e.g., tokens and medals), but never enough to pursue them. I figured this would remain the case for the rest of my collecting years. Let it suffice to say that I was entirely incorrect! My fascination with Matthew Boulton’s Soho Mint has led me down a path I never thought I would pursue, collecting medals. In talking with several other “Soho fanatics”, I quickly realized that I was selling my exploration of the Soho Mint short by only focusing on the coins. I set a few parameters for myself and let the hunt begin. I successfully added a few examples to my collection, and this post is in part to show them off. More importantly, I wanted to get some feedback on the blurb below, which I intend to add as a new section of my expanding custom set. The set provides the historical background to the Soho Mint but does so focusing on the coins. I made no mention of the medals, and this new blurb is an attempt to correct that omission. I have a lot to learn, and I know there are several experienced medal collectors, so if I have left something out, please let me know. The “other” products of the Soho Mint There is little doubt that Matthew Boulton’s crowning achievement for his Soho Mint was striking English regal copper coinage. After all, it was this ambition that gave rise to the mint and sealed its legacy. As crucial as this feat may be, it only addresses a portion of the Soho Mint’s history. Throughout the 1st, 2nd, and 3rd Soho Mints, a wide range of pieces were struck. These included coins, tokens, and medals. Within coin collecting circles, at least the ones that I have typically encountered in the past, the last two categories I just mentioned seem to be largely ignored in favor of the first. Although the tokens and medals are often discarded as “other” products, they nonetheless provide historical detail about the Soho Mint and, at the very least, complements the history surrounding the coinage. The following sections are designed to provide the basic historical background of the tokens and medals produced at the Soho Mint and provide insight into what role they played at Soho. Medals: Although I wish I could provide a comprehensive overview of the medals produced at the Soho Mint, the fact of the matter is that I just started collecting them. I have a ton to learn, but what I can share with you is how they broadly fit within the context of the Soho Mint products. In other words, in this section, I aim to explore how Matthew Boulton and his successors, approached the business of striking medals. To do so, I have opted to focus on the principal engraver of the Medals produced at Soho, Conrad Heinrich Küchler. Although the medals themselves are rather impressive, I have decided to forgo any discussion of them here in favor of providing more detailed information in the listing for each piece. The majority of the information I will present in this section can be traced back to work done by Pollard (1970). In his article, Pollard reproduced a fair amount of the correspondence between Boulton and Küchler, and it is this material that has proven so invaluable to the topic at hand. Küchler’s role in Soho history began in the early part of 1793, and during his 17-year career under the employment of Boulton, he produced a total of 33 medals. In a letter dated March 13th, 1793, Boulton sets the terms of Küchler’s employment, which provides us our first glimpse into how Boulton approached the medal business. In this letter, Boulton gives Küchler the option of being paid per die produced or an even portion of the profit gained from the sale of each medal Küchler engraved. Küchler agreed to the former, and he remained in London for two more years, engraving several dies for Boulton. How Küchler is compensated suggests, at least to me, that Boulton may have been less enthusiastic about producing medals than gaining coin contracts. Although his offer to Küchler is generous, it pales in comparison to the concessions Boulton made to bring Droz on board. It nearly seems as if Boulton secured the help of Küchler for no other reason than to have a second skilled engraver should anything happen to Ponthon. Most of this is speculation on my behalf, but there is more to the story. In the same letter, Boulton makes it clear that he has neither the time nor inclination to oversee “the minutiae of such a minute business as making medals”. To this effect, Boulton makes it evident that he views producing medals as a “lesser” task in comparison to striking coins. It seems so uncharacteristic of the overly ambitious Matthew Boulton to essentially look down on the opportunity to produce yet another exceptional Soho product. So what is the deal here? To answer this question, we must first consider what was going at the Soho Mint at the time. As a recap, Boulton had endured great expense to build his mint, pay his employees (think of all the money he spent appeasing Droz), and secure material for an English coinage contract that he was convinced was right around the corner. Boulton was feeling the financial weight of operating a mint that was yet to produce a coinage contract that allowed him to recoup the money he invested. This could, in part, explain the terms Boulton offered to Küchler. Both options would ensure that Küchler had to produce something to get paid, which is a painful lesson he learned from Droz. The second option would have further reduced Boulton’s financial burden by offsetting some of the initial production costs to both men. Either way, the options presented to Küchler were likely due to the financial hardships Boulton was experiencing at the time. The excerpts from the archived correspondence between Küchler and Boulton provided by Pollard (1970) supports this notion. In the summer of 1795, Küchler moves to Birmingham and continues to work for Boulton while still petitioning for the money owed to him. This seems to escalate in a letter by Küchler dated January 21st, 1796, which details the work he has done and the amount he has been paid. On this date, Küchler had completed over £250 worth of work but had barely received over £130 in compensation. The debt was eventually addressed, but it appears this was a reoccurring pattern that eventually changed how Küchler was compensated for his work. Shortly after, the terms of Küchler’s employment were slightly altered in a way that seems to benefit both parties mutually. According to Pollard (1970), the new terms still afforded Küchler payment for each die he engraved, but it also provided him with a portion of the profits from the sale of specific medals. These terms, of course, came with some caveats. First, it distinguished between medals that were commissioned to be struck by but not sold by the Soho Mint (i.e., private accounts) and medals that were struck and subsequently sold by the Soho Mint (i.e., joint accounts). Under the new terms, Küchler would be compensated for the dies he produced for both classifications, but for the latter category, he would also be granted a portion of the profits. Second, the portion of profits was not guaranteed until the total expense of production was paid for. In fact, under the new terms, Küchler could end up owing Boulton money if the sales for the joint accounts were lackluster. The excerpt provided by Pollard (1970) provides a contemporary example of how this would work. This is an important fact to note because it underscores Boulton’s desire to protect himself, the Soho Mint, and Küchler. Although Boulton was a generous man, he was also in the business to make money (no pun intended), so it makes sense that he would want to protect himself as much as possible. The new terms allowed him to do so but also allowed him to remain generous with Küchler should their work be successful. The new terms set forth suggest that perhaps the business of striking and selling medals was not as lucrative as Boulton would have liked. There is evidence to suggest that this may be the case, as a large number of medals were in surplus at the Soho Mint up until its final demise in 1850. There over 300 medals in the 1850 sale alone and at least another couple hundred sold in 1912 from the Matthew Piers Watt Boulton collection. This, of course, also does not include the numerous pieces that were part of the James Watt Jr. Collection or the Boulton family holdings (independent of the M. P. W. Boulton collection). All of this suggests, generally speaking, that there was no shortage of supply when it came to several of the medals produced. This is even more obvious when considering that some of these medals come up for sale very frequently. For example, the 1793 Execution of Louis XVI “final farewell” medal has had over a dozen auction appearances this year alone. This is notable because it was the first medal that Küchler produced for the Soho Mint (Pollard, 1970). The fact that Küchler renegotiated his terms of employment to a salaried position after a brief leave of absence in 1802 further suggests that the business of producing medals was not the most lucrative. This may seem like a familiar argument for those of you who read my previous post about the Soho Mint’s original packaging (i.e., the silver-lined brass shells). The information provided above is a more in-depth look at one of the main arguments of that post and provides additional support for my theory about their origin. In summary, there is little doubt that the medals produced at the Soho Mint are an essential part of its history and, to some extent, account for its success. For instance, the medal celebrating the King’s recovery engraved by Droz undoubtedly left a lasting impression on the committee of coin. At the very least, this strong impression kept other competitors at bay, which allowed Boulton to secure a contract to strike regal copper. Oddly enough, there were times were the production of medal dies was the only project in progress at the mint, and without it, Boulton would have been paying his workers to do nothing essentially. Beyond these factors, I imagine the craftsmanship so boldly displayed on these pieces served to bolster further Matthew Boulton’s reputation of providing nothing short of the best. No matter how you choose to look at it, the fact that the medals played an integral part in the history of the Soho Mint is undeniable.

Wow, you like to make the most ridiculous claims on these boards. The coin you picture is most likely a Brazilian 100 Réis.

@RWB Thank you for the link to the Boulton papers. It will take some time to decipher the handwriting, but I am very excited to see what new tidbits of information I can learn from the documents. For now, I plan to edit this article and send it to the Numismatist for their consideration.

I had not given that much thought, to be honest. I am not even sure how to approach publishing in numismatics, but I will look into it.

I have not, but that is something I would like to do. I would also love to spend some time going through the Soho papers, but they are not digitized, and the time and money needed to examine them in person are well beyond my means.