• When you click on links to various merchants on this site and make a purchase, this can result in this site earning a commission. Affiliate programs and affiliations include, but are not limited to, the eBay Partner Network.

coinsandmedals

Member
  • Posts

    859
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    12

Everything posted by coinsandmedals

  1. @DWLangeI appreciate the link. I stumbled upon that earlier today and had the same thought as Roger.
  2. @RWBthis is an excellent idea! The librarian at my university is a fellow stats fanatic, and we know each other well from a few classes. I might send her an email to see if she can work some magic. She’s been able to find some relatively obscure material for me in the past, but it was all related to my area of study. A member of another forum suggested the ANA library. I may contact them first before making a request through my university.
  3. In doing some research, I came across the citations for two articles that I would like to read, but I have no luck locating digital copies. I did locate a printed copy of the first, but it is being sold as a set for $25, and it seems impractical to spend that much for a single article that is only eight pages long. I checked NNP for both, but the search function is next to useless, and the only two Coin and Bulletin volumes they have for 1972 are not the correct issue. Does anyone have a copy or a source for a copy of either of these articles? Any help would be greatly appreciated! Brian Gould (1972) Noel-Alexandre Ponthon: Medallist and Minaturist (1769/70-1835) Seaby’s Coin and Medal Bulletin 1972 Seaby London pp 312-319 Brian Gould (1969) Monsieur Duret: Craftsman at Soho Numismatic Circular September 1969 Volume LXXVII Number 9 p 278.
  4. Wow, that appears to be an absolute beauty! I look forward to seeing the close-up images once you get it in hand. Congratulations!
  5. I assume that the number is very small. Like other members have already said, most collectors seem unable or unwilling to learn how to grade, much less take the time to study the history of the items they accumulate. In the past, I read almost anything that came my way. This provided a decent background knowledge of a host of U.S. coins. Since starting my graduate education, I have found it more challenging to devote time to do so. That being said, I still read relevant material very often, but it is much more tailored to what I collect. New publications on my area of focus are far and few. As such, I spend a lot of time reading out of print books, contemporary ephemera (e.g., newspaper clippings, parliamentary briefs, etc.), peer-reviewed journal publications, and lately, a considerable amount of archived personal correspondence in a mix of several different languages. Although I love pretty shiny things just as much as the next guy, it is often the historical context that captures and keeps my attention.
  6. @Mohawk I sincerely hope you'll share your submissions with us at some point. I always enjoy seeing what others submit. Should you come across any Soho pieces keep me in mind. The opportunity to buy from a trusted source is always much welcomed event!
  7. Tom, is that you? It is nice to see you active here again! How have you been? How did the dissertation go?
  8. I received a call today from NGC informing me that work on this submission has officially started! In my opinion, the fact that one of the higher-ups at NGC is willing to take the time to personally reach out to a small-time collector like me says a lot about the character of the company. I am very thankful for their kind consideration, and I can't wait to see how these turn out in the end. I’ll be sure to update this thread as more information becomes available.
  9. 1797 twopence – Genuine Example Matthew Boulton's Soho Mint was able to rapidly produce high-quality copper coinage that would stand the test of time and ultimately meet the needs of the general. It would be difficult, if not impossible, to refute the accomplishments of the Soho Mint. Still, some may wonder if his coinage was immune to the counterfeiting that had plagued England for centuries. To address this, we must first revisit the pence and twopence pieces of 1797. Despite the lack of edge lettering, the new pence and twopence pieces did have some features that would deter counterfeiting. For one, the coins were well made and noticeably more massive than any other circulating regal piece. Their expansiveness allowed for the possibility of wide raised rims that contained the incuse legend. The large raised rims would help protect the primary devices from excessive wear, and the incuse legend assured it would survive long after the raised rims wore down. All of this is to say that for counterfeits to pass, they would have to be of much higher quality, which would likely translate into less profit for the counterfeiters. Although not the intent of Boulton, there was another factor that protected at least the twopence pieces. As it turns out, the general public was not very fond of them (Selgin, 2011). They were enormous and heavy which made them too bulky to carry around in any quantity. Because of this, they tended to build up in storekeeper's drawers, but the storekeepers had no real way of exchanging them for paper money or silver. All of these factors made them unpopular and therefore were less susceptible to counterfeiting. However, I cannot say the same for modern counterfeiters, as these pieces seem to be a favorite target. Pictured below is a modern counterfeit of the type that is rather convincing upon initial inspection and conforms to the standard weight, diameter, thickness, and overall design as an original. Still, there are subtle differences in design that distinguish it as a counterfeit when comparing it to a genuine example from my collection (i.e., the one pictured with the black background). I have listed each coin's basic specifications and included the same information for genuine examples in parentheses. See if you can spot the markers that distinguish this "1797 twopence" as a fake! 1797 "twopence" – Modern Counterfeit Weight: 55.80 grams (56.69 grams) Diameter: 41 mm (40.64 mm) Thickness: 5 mm (5 mm) Edge: Plain (Plain) The Pennies were also rather large and heavy (i.e., 36 mm and weighed an ounce), but they were better received than their larger counterparts and circulated in excess of the next 65 years (Dyer, 1996). This made for an ideal target for counterfeiters. The large raised rims, incuse legend, and high quality did not prove sufficient to curb counterfeiting (Ruding, 1799; Ruding, 1819; Doty, 1998; Selgin, 2003). Individuals could collect genuine examples, melt them down, and make lightweight pieces. The excess copper from this process would yield substantial profit. Although this never became a widespread problem, it contradicted Boulton's claim that his coins were far too high quality to be counterfeited, and he had a vested interest in curbing the issue. Most notably, he wished to secure future contracts to strike regal English copper, and this counterfeit issue could prove a considerable hindrance. Boulton was so concerned that he announced a 100 guinea payment for actionable information about the counterfeiters (Doty, 1998). As detailed by numerous sources, this led to a man named William Phillips to come forward with information about three counterfeiting outfits located in none other than Birmingham (Dickerson, 1936; Peck, 1964; Selgin, 2011). Boulton acted on this information, which eventually led to numerous arrests. Although some of the earlier pieces were low-quality casts that were easily identified, the counterfeits became quite sophisticated as time went on. As noted by Clay and Tungate (2009) and further substantiated by Selgin (2011), the shallow designs proved to be much easier to reproduce than Boulton thought. Soon counterfeiters were engraving dies and striking pieces that were close replications of the actual coins despite the use of hand-operated presses. For those of you interested, Dickerson (1936) gives a full unabridged replication of the letter Boulton sent to the Lords of the Committee on Coin, which details the simultaneous raid on three separate counterfeiting facilities. However, so far, the focus of the counterfeits discussed were products created from fake dies. Peck (1964) notes that some counterfeits were produced using genuine dies that were stolen from the Soho Mint. He makes this argument based on the die diagnostics of the pieces he observed. I have complete confidence in his conclusions; however, I have had no luck finding additional information on this topic. He even mentions that the origin of these struck counterfeits using genuine dies remains a mystery. 1797 “pence” - Contemporary Counterfeit Pence NGC VF-20 Weight: 18.91 grams (28.34 grams) Diameter: 34.4 mm (35.8 mm) Thickness: 2 mm (3-3.5 mm) Edge: Plain (Plain) An odd discrepancy to this point comes from Doty (1998), who points out that the working dies for the pence and twopence pieces were destroyed under the supervision of a Royal Mint official on July 26th, 1799. Of course, this does not preclude the possibility the dies were stolen before being destroyed, or that perhaps by "destroyed", he means that the dies were defaced. This would certainly explain the large gash across the reverse of the contemporary counterfeit pictured above, which was struck using genuine Soho dies (i.e., P-1110). Peck (1964) mentions that the pieces were struck on a light planchet that was roughly 1 mm thinner than usual (i.e., 2 mm instead of 3 mm) and weighed substantially less (i.e., about 19 grams compared to a full ounce). The weight alone is enough to give these coins away; however, the next biggest clue can be found within the legends which run into the rims. The struck pieces using the genuine Soho dies (i.e., Peck-1110) are rather good, and I imagine these readily passed as currency at the time. To take this one step further, I would not be surprised if these fooled some collectors who assumed they were well-circulated genuine examples. The information provided above is well documented by multiple modern publications and numerous contemporary sources. However, the information presented from this point forward is something that I am still working to disentangle. That said, if you have any relevant information, please let me know! Since the production of the 1797 and 1799 coinage, the price of copper had risen dramatically. It appears the rising cost of copper had created a sense of concern among The House of Commons that the now heavy copper coinage of 1797 and 1799 would be largely exploited. They go so far as to state their concern for the melting of copper coin put in circulation in 1797 and 1799 in the indenture dated March 26th, 1805, which provided Boulton the green light to produce the 1806 coinage. I can imagine their fears were confirmed with reports of large quantities of pence and twopence pieces being collected with the intent to melt them down. One such report was detailed in The Times on April 13th, 1805, in which eight casks of these coins weighing over 2000 pounds were seized by police (Peck, 1964). It stands to reason that the House of Commons was concerned that England's state of copper coinage would once again slip into disarray if left unchecked. The natural solution was to dissuade rampant melting and subsequent reintroduction of lightweight counterfeits with a fresh supply of regal copper coinage of the proper weight. It appears, however, that this might have also had unintended consequences. The steep rise in copper prices necessitated the reduction in weight of the proceeding English copper struck at the Soho Mint in 1806 and 1807, which now provided a different source of profit for counterfeiters. They could now produce their renditions of the new regal coinage using the heavy twopence and pence pieces as a supply of raw material. To make matters even better, they could closely adhere to the standard weight of the new pieces, and the general public would likely be none the wiser, all the while generating a handsome profit for themselves. Production of the new regal coinage did not officially start until March 20th, 1806, with farthings taking precedence over pence and halfpence. Accordingly, Doty (1998) reports that by March 31st, 4,833,768 farthings were delivered and 19,355,480 pence closely followed that in May, and 87,893,526 halfpence by the end of June. Production of farthings, halfpence, and pence continued into 1807, yielding an additional 1,075,200 farthings, 41,394,384 halfpence, and 11,290,168 pence. The mass production seemingly overwhelmed distribution efforts. In fact, it appears that the distribution of the third English contract was not complete until 1809 (Doty, 1998). Once production had stopped, a total of 165,842,526 new copper coins had been released into circulation, leading to a glut in copper coinage. The new security features of the 1806/1807 coinage likely made it increasingly difficult to produce convincing counterfeits. Passing their counterfeit wares was also likely made much more difficult once a healthy supply of the genuine article was available for comparison. Nonetheless, several of these counterfeits have survived for modern collectors. Any documentation regarding other contemporary counterfeits of Soho English copper beyond those of the 1797 coinage is nearly non-existent. I have several books on counterfeit English copper coinage, only one of which mentions a Soho piece. In his 2015 publication entitled "Counterfeit Georgian Copper Coins", Richard Coleman only lists one contemporary counterfeit of an 1806 halfpence (CH-1806B-1; page 82). He notes that this piece appears to be die struck and in good form. He also provides scant commentary of design details that distinguish it as a counterfeit. I have in my collection a contemporary counterfeit 1806 halfpence (pictured below) that appears to differ from the one pictured in his book, suggesting that more than one variety exists. It stands to reason that others also exist, but the lack of auction appearances paired with next to little documentation makes it nearly impossible to form any solid conclusions. If only the counterfeiters kept such meticulous records as Matthew Boulton. 1806 “halfpence” - Contemporary Counterfeit (with edge included in the picture) Weight: 8.7 grams (9.45 grams) Diameter: 27.18 mm (29 mm) Thickness: 2 mm (2-2.5 mm) Edge: Partially engrailed but very shallow (deeply engrailed) Likewise, it appears that contemporary counterfeit 1807 halfpence also exist. I have one such piece in my collection that seems undocumented in any reference that I have found to date. A more crudely executed and moderately circulated example came up for auction earlier this year, suggesting that others likely also exist. Although somewhat unrelated, it is worth noting that the counterfeit sold for more than a graded MS-64 genuine example would likely have fetched at the time. The piece pictured below has a plain edge, numerous design, and basic specification discrepancies, distinguishing it as a circulated contemporary counterfeit. 1807 “halfpence” - Contemporary Counterfeit Weight: 6.42grams (9.45 grams) Diameter: 27.93 mm (29 mm) Thickness: 1.43 mm (2-2.5mm) Edge: Plain (deeply engrailed) I recently acquired a counterfeit 1806 penny, the first of which that I have come across. It is interesting to note that no mention of contemporary counterfeit pence pieces is made in any reference beyond the counterfeit 1797 pieces. In this instance, the coin closely adheres to the standard specifications, but the plain edge and numerous design discrepancies help identify this piece as a circulated contemporary counterfeit. Also, like the 1806 halfpence, this piece has a color more consistent with what one would expect from a piece struck in brass. 1806 "penny" – Contemporary Counterfeit Weight: 18.60 grams (18.89 grams) Diameter: 34 mm (34 mm) Thickness: 4 mm (3 mm) Edge: Plain (deeply engrailed) Despite Boulton's claims, his coinage was not immune to counterfeiting, but this does little to detract from his undeniable legacy. Before his involvement, the counterfeiting issue was so prevalent that a Royal Mint report from 1787 estimates that 92% of circulating copper was counterfeit (Peck, 1964). Although I do not have an estimated number to report, I would hazard to guess that this number was substantially lower and remained so after Boulton flooded the country with high-quality copper coinage. In my humble opinion, the Soho Mint products are some of the most exciting pieces that portray a story of rapid advancements in the art and science of minting. This era of profound development played a critical role in curbing mass counterfeiting and established a legacy that can still be felt some two centuries later in our modern coinage. Although not nearly as eye-appealing as the genuine articles, contemporary counterfeits are an integral part of the story that provides a different lens to view the historical context that gave rise to their existence. In this instance, they provide a unique glimpse into the effectiveness of Matthew Boulton's Soho Mint against a crime that plagued England for well over five centuries. Without their existence, one might falsely conclude that Boulton's coinage was immune to the very issue it set out to correct. Please feel free to share any contemporary counterfeits in your collection, even if they are from a different country, era, or metal!
  10. I am not sure that function exists for the NGC registry. I was more so trying to encourage you to post pictures on the forum for us all to enjoy. I suppose I should have qualified my statement of “more interesting”, which I meant to refer to examples not usually encountered (i.e., most early proofs with a different obverse or reverse design than the one adopted). Your Droz patterns would be good examples of "interesting" coins for those who are not nearly as familiar with his work. It appears our interests are largely in line with one another. I enjoy the scientific, social, artistic, and economic history of the Soho Mint. The shiny pieces of metal happen to be a nice bonus!
  11. I greatly appreciate your kind words. I decided to forgo discussing the Sierra Leone Company coinage mostly because I did not have an example to illustrate. The breadth of the write-up was extensive enough without its inclusion. It is an interesting and important part of Soho history that I likely will include in the future. It appears that you are collecting almost the entire gauntlet of English copper struck at the Soho Mint. As I am sure you already know, this will not be an easy goal to accomplish. I sincerely hope that you stick around this forum and share your new additions as you acquire them. For now, my collecting efforts have slowed as more important goals are on the horizon, so if provided the opportunity, I will live vicariously through your journey. The 1799 NGC PF-68 Cameo in the August Heritage Auction is an excellent example for many reasons. Yes, they note the mislabeled denomination, but this has no bearing on the variety. In this instance, they have appropriately labeled the variety in the auction description, but I imagine this is likely because of the relatively high price this example is likely to fetch. In my experience, it is not the norm for auction houses to list the variety unless clearly stated on the label; however, they do often correct egregious errors such as a mislabeled denomination. That said, Heritage Auctions is usually one of the few that try to highlight all errors as they occur. It is also worth noting that Peck rates 1233 as scarce, but there have been well over 60 examples offered for sale since 1970. This estimate only includes the examples attributed by TPGs and numerous auction houses. It makes no effort to include those not directly attributed, so the actual number of market appearances is likely much higher. By most accounts, this variety is extremely common (albeit not in PF-68 holders). The auction description acknowledges this point and deflects the attention to the assigned grade. If I had an extra $4000-6000 to spend on a coin (without my wife possibly murdering me), it most certainly would not be on this piece for several reasons. I would make the argument that no TPG is immune to error. I have found my fair share of errors in NGC, PCGS, ANACS, and ICG holders. That said, in my experience, one of the companies I have listed above makes far more mistakes within this niche area than the other three combined. While I agree that the TPG census/population reports may provide some helpful information regarding rarity, I stand by my point that it is limited in utility. Yes, P-966 is also a good example, as well as almost all other renderings of DH-11, excluding 962, 963, and 968. All of this talk about Soho pieces makes me curious about what you have added to your collection so far. Would you mind sharing some of your more interesting pieces?
  12. Welcome to the forum! Your question hits pretty close to home as my focus is almost entirely upon the coins, tokens, and medals struck at the Soho Mint. You specifically mention Peck, so I assume you also collect by variety? With that assumption, I have a few related comments. The census/population reports provided by the TPGs are interesting, but they have limited utility for this niche area. Here are a few reasons why: 1. The submitter must pay a $15 attribution fee to have the appropriate variety listed on the label. It appears most submitters are either unaware of this or are unwilling to pay the fee as the bulk of graded pieces are unattributed. This results in the coins being lumped together within a single category based on finish (i.e., copper, bronzed, gilt, etc.). Note that I am primarily discussing the numerous proofs, patterns, and restrikes. This is not as significant an issue for circulation strikes (excluding the 11 vs. 10 leaves variety of the 1797 Pence). If the attribution is not listed on the label is not included in the census/population report. As you can imagine, this only further complicates matters. 2. Variety attributions are often incorrect. I have learned over the years to be far more cautious with one of the major TPGs because of this. I will not specify which, but I think the answer is apparent when looking through the coins within my set. 3. The census/population reports only include graded coins. The bulk of the material we collect has simply not crossed paths with a TPG. This is painfully obvious to me as about 95% of what I purchase is raw. The TPG fever has not fully taken hold in Europe yet. This might change with time, and I suspect that it very well may. Still, the census/population reports only provide a very narrow and often highly inaccurate glimpse of rarity. Using auction archives can be helpful, but they too have limitations. Most auction houses are seemingly reliant upon TPG data and are either unable or unwilling to form their own opinion about the variety of the piece they are offering. It is rare for an auction house to contradict the variety attribution listed on the TPG label. This is true even if it is a painfully obvious error (e.g., the variety listed is for a coin with an entirely different obverse design) and almost always true when the difference is subtler. Because TPGs often get the attribution incorrect, this by default means that auction houses will as well. Even if they have an in-house expert to consult, it may not be economically viable to do so, and as such, the issue is likely to remain uncorrected. Unless the auction house provides crisp detailed pictures, the process of variety attribution will be all but impossible without viewing the coin in hand. That said, this seems to be a less apparent issue as most auction houses have invested in good photography since the rapid push toward online markets over the last decade and even more so in the last year. If you attempt to do a comprehensive review of rarity by variety for the last four decades, these limitations become even more troublesome. Although Peck did an exceptional job with the information he had at his disposal, my research and that of others suggest that his rarity rating is to be taken with a healthy dose of skepticism. There are numerous examples where his estimate of rarity was off base from reality. For instance, he rates P-965 as very scarce, but in reality, this coin is very common. At the time of writing this post, I have options to buy over two dozen examples of this variety, which is not unusual. Likewise, there are instances in which he underestimated the rarity of certain varieties. I suspect as you continue your research, you will discover this as well. Of course, the actions of Matthew Piers Watt Boulton and Taylor only further complicated the issue as it created more “varieties” that are often very difficult to account for. Like Peck, we can only base our estimates of rarity upon the data we have at hand. Luckily, we have way more information readily available to us because of the internet, which is an opportunity not afforded to Peck a half-century ago. Over the years, I have developed a working knowledge of relative rarity for many varieties, and I suspect that you will likely do the same in time. You might also enjoy the registry set that I built detailing the history of the Soho Mint, which won the “Most Informative Custom Registry” award last year.
  13. Here is another sneak peek of a new NGC custom registry set that I am working on. Please feel free to share anything related! Collecting the medals struck at the Soho Mint introduces quite a bit of variety. Although I likely would have admired the artistry of the piece, I find it unlikely that I would have taken the time to procure it for my collection. Beyond the societal level impact of agricultural science, my general collecting interests are unrelated, and as such, this piece would not have normally garnered a second glance. Nonetheless, it was struck at the Soho Mint, and Küchler engraved the dies, and therefore it deserves a prominent position in my collection. It is interesting to note that Pollard (1970) attributes this medal as being struck in 1793, but more recent research by Tungate (2020) indicates that it was struck in 1797. The Board of Agriculture ordered medals in September of 1797, and Sinclair (the president at the time) requested that specimens in copper, silver, and gold be sent for inspection. Tungate (2020) notes that a bill of over £44 was sent to the Board of Agriculture on October 7th, 1799. This bronzed copper specimen has retained its original silver-lined brass shells and inscribed wrapper. It appeared as lot 227 of the 2002 Moton & Eden sale of the James Watt Jr. Collection. At the time, it sold for £260. Tungate (2020) indicates that only 74 of these pieces, across all metals, were reportedly struck. It appears that Matthew Pier Watt Boulton (i.e., Matthew Boulton’s grandson) retained the dies upon the Soho Mint's demise in 1850, but no other information about their whereabouts is known (Vice, 1995). Historical Context: I initially had some difficulty obtaining information about the Board of Agriculture. It appears most of the digitally available information pertains to the National Agricultural Society, still currently in operation. At the time, I did not realize how closely the two were related. The modern society owes its very existence to some degree to the original Board of Agriculture. This short narrative aims to familiarize readers with the historical context that gave rise to the medal presented and reiterate the cautious tale of unchecked egos and unrealistic ambitions. The two later facets were undeniably the eventual downfall of the Board of Agriculture. Although some degree of controversy once existed about who deserved credit for establishing the Board of Agriculture, it appears that this argument has essentially been put to rest in modern times (Clarke, 1898; Mitchison, 1959). Our story begins just before the idea for a Board of Agriculture became more than a fleeting fantasy. In April of 1793, the Kingdom was suffering from a currency shortage, and the government seemed to have few ideas of how to remedy the issue. Sir John Sinclair made a simple suggestion to issue temporary low-value exchequer bills in a total of £5,000,000 to temporarily relieve the shortage. Mitchison (1959) noted that Sinclair had already arranged for several bankers to send the money requested before the legislation had even moved beyond the preparation stage. This set up a nice quid pro quo situation in which Pitt found himself in the debt of Sinclair (Clarke, 1898; Mitchison, 1959). Sinclair, eager to call in his favor, floated the idea of establishing a Board of Agriculture. Pitt's understanding was that Sinclair was naming his price, and thus backed the proposal for the creation of such a board. With the help of Lord Melville, the idea was sent before the house for approval to formally present to the King. As reproduced by Clarke (1898), the proposal read: "That an humble Address be presented to His Majesty, entreating that His Majesty would be graciously pleased to take into his Royal consideration the advantages which might be derived by the public from the establishment of a Board of Agriculture and Internal Improvement: Humbly representing to His Majesty that, though in some particular districts, improved methods of cultivating the soil are practised, yet that, in the greatest part of these kingdoms, the principles of Agriculture are not yet sufficiently understood, nor are the implements of husbandry, or the stock of the farmer, brought to that perfection of which they are capable: That his faithful Commons are persuaded, if such an institution were to take place, that such inquiries might be made into the internal state of the country, and a spirit of improvement so effectually encouraged, as must naturally tend to produce many important national benefits, the attainment of which His Majesty has ever shown a most gracious disposition to promote; and, in particular, that such a measure might be the means of uniting a judicious system of husbandry to the advantages of domestic manufacturing industry, and the benefits of foreign commerce, and consequently of establishing on the surest and best foundations the prosperity of his kingdoms : And if His Majesty shall be graciously pleased to direct the institution of such a Board for a limited time, to assure His Majesty that his faithful Commons will cheerfully defray any expense attending the same to the amount of a sum not exceeding £3,000." The proposal was supported by many, as was customary further discussion was tabled until a second meeting held on May 15th, 1793. It appears, however, that by the next meeting, a large body of opposition had taken hold of the house, and Sinclair's proposal would be put to the test. Clarke (1898) lists some of the most boisterous members of the opposition, which included arguments that other societies such as the Society of Arts already performed the objective of the new board. The merits of this argument could be examined, but in reality, the potential of the proposed Board of Agriculture would far extend any mutual interest with the Society of Arts. Nonetheless, the Society of Arts had been established for over 40 years and by now was self-sufficient and therefore not reliant upon government funding. This led to a suggested amendment of the proposal that essentially eliminated the need for government funding (Clarke, 1898). Of course, this would have spelled doom of the Board of Agriculture, as the money provided by the government would at times be the only thing sustaining the board, and as we will soon see, without any government assistance, the board could not survive. Luckily the proposed revision was rejected, and the original proposal was overwhelmingly supported by a vote of 101 to 26. The newly formed Board of Agriculture and Internal Improvement was provided a royal charter. In Sinclair's haste to get things going, he inadvertently pissed off one man of considerable influence, Lord Chancellor Loughborough. Before the business of the new Board of Agriculture could begin, the Great Seal had to be affixed to its charter; however, Sinclair had already arranged for the board's first meeting to occur on August 22nd, 1793. He sent the Royal Charter to be sealed the day before with a note explaining his hope that the process would be done quickly, citing the meeting scheduled for the next day (Clarke, 1898). Aggravated by Sinclair's disregard for the duty of his office, Lord Loughborough took his time sealing the charter. The charter was not sealed, or at least Sinclair was not made aware it had been sealed until the afternoon of August 23rd, 1793, which required that the first meeting be postponed. The Royal Charter stated that the board was to be made of sixteen officers and thirty ordinary members. In addition, the board could appoint any number of honorary members as they needed, but the rights of these members were to be limited to attending and voting within general meetings on all matters unrelated to the internal structure of the board. The lowest class of membership consisted of corresponding members, which could include foreigners, who had no right to attend or vote in meetings. An annual meeting was to be held around March 25th, during which new officers would be elected, and five ordinary members would step down to allow five honorary members to be promoted. Usually, those who attended the least number of meetings were asked to step down (Clarke, 1898; Mitchison, 1959). All votes were to be cast by ballot and counted after each vote commenced. It appears this practice was employed throughout the lifespan of the Board of Agriculture. By March 18th, 1800, honorary members were granted the right to debate on all matters unrelated to the internal structure of the board, and it appears that such memberships reached a peak of over 500 by 1809 (Clarke, 1898). Although several notable changes were made to the powers associated with the presidency, the overall structure endured. The Board of Agriculture held its first meeting on September 4th, 1793, upon which the session was adjourned until January 23rd, 1794 (Clarke, 1898; Mitchison, 1959). It was during this period that set the board on a collision course that would take years to correct. The president, Sir John Sinclair, had an idea to send surveyors to all parts of the Kingdom to write reports upon the agricultural activities and best practices employed. In theory, that would not have been a terrible idea. Sinclair, however, acted in haste and set surveyors about their business without first consulting the other members or setting strict terms of the employment of the surveyors, nor the terms of publishing their findings (Clarke, 1898). During his first address, Sinclair made his plan clear to the other members, and it was eventually settled upon, but even if the other members objected, it was too late to halt what was already in motion. The cost of producing and subsequently printing the reports was extraordinary, and despite multiple complaints from those in charge of the board's finances, the damage had already been done. By May 11th, 1795, the board was in debt to the tune of £5,863 with only £200 in funds available on hand. If not all of it, most of this debt was incurred by Sinclair (Clarke, 1898). A resolution was eventually passed in March of 1797, limiting the president's powers to access funds held by the board, which undoubtedly was an effort to keep this madness from occurring in the future. Sinclair's reports were almost all received by July of 1795, but they were mostly in poor order (Clarke, 1898). The lack of coherent structure and the considerable variation in the quality of the reports made them all but useless. The reports hurt the board's reputation and, in some instances, roused suspicion about its intentions. One such incidence, as it relates to tithes, is well recorded as causing a rift between church leaders and government officials, which translated to tension between the board and all parties involved (Clarke, 1898; Mitchison, 1959). This tension would continue to cause issues for the board until its eventual demise. In short, the reports by large were a failure, and the cost of printing them far exceeded any revenue they generated. In 1796 the board decided to forego printing the remaining reports unless they merited special attention. In its place, they published "Communications", which aimed to disseminate the collective knowledge of the board. Of course, Sinclair added his own flair to the project and took no less than 82 printed pages to detail how the board came about (Clarke, 1898). During Sinclair's tenure as president, the board did influence several essential acts of parliament, such as the legislative action that shifted the responsibility to maintain proper weights to local magistrates. This reduced the ability of unethical traders to take advantage of the poor by ensuring they received the fair amount of product they paid for. Clarke (1898) detailed that perhaps the most crucial development was the report made of Joseph Elkington's methods of draining wastelands. Without the action of the Board of Agriculture, his knowledge would have undeniably been lost upon his death as he made no effort to write about his practices. Despite all of the advances made, Sinclair left the board in deep debt. A new president was elected in 1798, John Southey Somerville, and his quick thinking eventually resolved the financial issues of the board. When he took office, the board was £420 in debt with an anticipated incoming expense for services rendered that amounted to an additional £1692 (Clarke, 1898). He proposed that all printing, except for that done to publish the communications be seized, and that no less than £400 of the yearly government grant of £3000 be put aside to pay off debt each year until it was resolved. Seizing to print Sinclair's reports amounted to a saving of £1000 per year. He further proposed that the savings should be used to offer premiums (i.e., prizes) for essays of "discoveries and improvements in the most important and leading points of husbandry", which was adopted by the Board on May 25th and 29th of 1798 (Clarke, 1898). This system of annual prizes would become a permanent fixture of the Board of Agriculture, and by 1800 there were no less than 23 prizes offered for essays on a host of topics. These prizes were intended to be honorary awards of little financial significance, so it is not surprising that gold and silver medals were the original source of recognition. As time went on, monetary rewards were associated with the medals, and in some instances, the entire prize was monetary (Clarke, 1898). Nonetheless, the medal depicted here is of the general design employed by Küchler at Mathew Boulton's Soho Mint. The essay's provided useful material that allowed the board to fulfill its primary task of disseminating knowledge about best practices. In short, the annual prizes proved an effective tool to generate new material that the board could then, in turn, publish and sell to others. The annual prizes would serve a critical role in late 1800 and early 1801. The price of wheat had skyrocketed. This provided a large amount of motivation to convert otherwise fertile grasslands into wheat farms to turn a handsome profit on the temporarily high prices. The consequences of doing so were not well understood. The Board of Agriculture played an important role in what would have otherwise been a national catastrophe had the majority of the grasslands been converted. On December 17th, 1800, the board offered prizes totaling £800 for related essays, further supplemented by an additional £800 provided by parliament (Clarke, 1898). Over 350 essays were submitted, which gave rise to a report on June 19th, 1801, presented to the Lord's Committee laying out the recommended course of action (Clarke, 1898). as it turns out, converting the grasslands to produce wheat was detrimental to the soil and caused enough destruction to make its conversion back to grasslands nearly impossible. As Clarke (1898) argued, this undoubtedly played a crucial role in saving some of the most bountiful grasslands in the world. As useful as the Board of Agriculture could have been, the government largely dismissed it, and its somewhat peculiar status made many question its true intentions. This is very clear when considering the general dismissal of the board's recommendation to avoid what they predicted would be a massive food shortage in 1800. The board recommended that the government import large quantities of rice from India through the East India Company, but the government ignored their pleas (Clarke, 1898). The food shortage of 1800 eventually became so widespread that the government decided to act, but they were too late, and by the time the rice had arrived, the issue was resolved by a large crop yield in 1801. In all, the failure of the government to heed the warning of the board is estimated to have cost upwards of £2,500,000 (Clarke, 1898). Throughout the remaining years of the board, they worked diligently to influence the passing of an enclosure act, but the rift between them and the church made this all but impossible (Clarke, 1898; Mitchison, 1959). The government already dismissed the board out of hand, and with the influence of the church against them, they truly stood little chance of being effective in their efforts. The Board of Agriculture hit an era of prosperity, and by 1819 they had a positive balance of over £2,000. The yearly government grant was soon to be applied for, and for reasons not entirely clear to me, the board decided only to request £1,000 of the usual £3,000 grant (Clarke, 1898). This lapse of judgment would prove nearly fatal for the board as the government soon decided to withdraw any consideration of further government funding. Without the annual influx of the government grant, the board's financial situation became bleak. In part, this was due to their inability to scale down their scope of activities within the means of their available funds. They continued to offer hefty prizes for related essays and spent large sums of money organizing exhibits. To offset these costs, the board opted to raise money through donations and subscriptions. This practice was later extended to the general public, who could become an honorary member with the endorsement of two existing members. This privilege came with a subscription fee of £2 and two shillings per year or twenty guineas for life membership (Clarke, 1898). From contemporary documents, it appears this was initially a success, but by May 24th, 1822, it was clear that some form of government grant would be needed to maintain the board. Although the leadership petitioned parliament, they were not granted any further support of a notable amount. Eventually, plans were made to dissolve the board, and it was decided that relevant documents should be relinquished to the Record Office in the Tower. In addition, the remaining balance of the board minus the expenses paid to publish any worthy work were turned over to the board to the Chancellor of Exchequer. This amount summed to just over £519 and was relinquished just before the board's final meeting on June 25th, 1822 (Clarke, 1898). As noted by Clarke (1898) and Mitchison (1959), the Board of Agriculture fell victim to many shortcomings that eventually led to self-destruction. Perhaps the greatest of which was the board's inadvertent quarrel with the church of England over a perceived threat to tithes, which in turn led to friction between the church and government. This friction between the two harbored a great deal of intense ill-will between the board and both church and government officials (Clarke, 1898). It is little wonder why the board was never able to secure additional funding, much less influence a sweeping reform of the enclosure act. Nonetheless, the board of agriculture did impart several notable influences on the current state of agricultural science. If nothing else, it laid a solid foundation for the Royal Agricultural Society of England. The latter would continue the work of the former, expanding upon their research while also avoiding the same pitfalls that led to the demise of its ancestor. There is so much more to this story, and the information provided above is only a tiny portion of the fascinating history surrounding the Board of Agriculture and its members. I encourage those interested in learning more to seek out the publications I have cited repeatedly here. Obverse: The obverse design depicts King George III facing right. Unlike Kuchler's usual renditions, the King is neither draped nor armored, but instead, the bust is truncated with the initials "C. H. K." appearing at the undermost portion. The King's hair is short, with several small locks of hair falling closely behind his neck and a large lump of hair appearing just above his ear. Resting upon his head is a crown of laurel tied together by a knot with two bows and two loose ends. The second bow is partially obscured by the first, but both extend behind the King's head toward the rim. The two loose ends fall behind the neck, one of which closely adheres to the curve of the truncation and partially rests below it. A large wave of hair partially obscures the laurel crown just below the three uppermost leaves. The legend "GEORGIUS III · D : G · MAG · BR · REX." appears near the bust of George III. This legend is contained within a neatly formed circle of tiny beads. Between the innermost rim and the beaded circle is an open wreath. The left-hand side is a laurel branch, while the right appears to be wheat. The two branches are tied at the bottom center of the medal by a knot with one big bow and two loose ends. The loose end on the left wraps around the front of the laurel branch, while the right wraps behind the wheat branch to the front. The inner beaded circle and wreath are superseded by a piece of partially rolled parchment, upon which the legend "BOARD OF AGRICULTURE ESTABL'D · 23 · AUG · 1793 ·" appears. This is contained within a relatively wide and raised rim, which shows numerous rust spots indicating that this die was improperly stored for some time before being reused. Reverse: The reverse of this medal depicts an allegorical figure designed to represent agriculture. She stands in the center facing right and wearing a loose-fitting gown draped over her shoulders, which extends to her sandaled feet. In her right hand, she holds some tool that is not immediately identifiable to me. Her left hand rests upon a spade partially dug into the ground with a snake coiled around it. Resting upon her head is a winged cap. She stands upon a piece of land at the foreground with small pieces of grass protruding through, upon which "C · H · KÜCHLER . FEC·" appears on the exergual line. In the immediate background, a plough appears to her left, and two tools, one of which is a scythe, appear to her right. I am not sure what the second tool is, and it appears Boulton was also unsure as he asked Küchler, "What is this ball intended for?" in his notes upon the initial design (Tungate, 2020). It is worth noting the distant background appears to depict two very different farming landscapes (i.e., the flatlands and a mountainous region). Immediately above and wrapping around the inner portion of the rim is a blank ribbon partially rolled on each end. In exergue, the word "VOTED" appears in the upper right corner. These two areas were left initially blank so that the medal could be engraved with the winner's details; however, as noted by Pollard (1970), a significant degree of variation occurred in how this was executed. This is contained within a relatively wide and raised rim, which shows numerous rust spots indicating that this die was improperly stored for some time before being reused. Edge: Plain – although it appears some medals were engraved with the winner's details (i.e., name, titles, and what it was awarded for). Size: 48mm Notes: Interestingly, a single bronzed copper specimen resided in the James Watt Jr. Collection. We know that Sinclair requested that specimens in copper, silver, and gold be sent, but it seems unlikely that many copper or bronzed copper pieces would be struck. These were prize medals commissioned on behalf of the Board of Agriculture, meaning that the quantity struck was under the careful control of Boulton at the board's request. We know from other contemporary accounts that Boulton refused to sell copies of commissioned pieces, even to his most esteemed collectors (Pollard, 1970). Given other contemporary information, it is likely safe to assume that this medal was produced at the Soho Mint under the careful direction of James Watt Jr., who was an avid collector. It is no secret that he would sometimes use old dies to produce a piece or two missing from his collection of Soho Mint wares. The Board of Agriculture seized to exist in mid-1822, which coincides nicely with Watt Jr.'s tenure as Master of the Mint. Given that this medal was not struck in gold or silver, it seems unlikely that it was ever meant to be issued, suggesting that it might have been a one-off piece struck later to fill a hole in an otherwise remarkable collection. This would also account for the numerous rust spots throughout the obverse and reverse designs. References: Clarke, E. (1898). History of the Board of Agriculture 1793-1822. London: Royal Agricultural Society of England. Davies, E. A. (1952). An Account of the Formation and Early Years of the Westminster Fire Office. Glasgow: Robert MacLehose & Co. Ltd. Mitchison, R. (1959). The Old Board of Agriculture (1793-1822). The English Historical Review, 74(290), 41-69. Tungate, S. (2020) Matthew Boulton and The Soho Mint: copper to customer. Worcestershire: Brewin Books. Vice, D. (1995). A fresh insight into Soho Mint restrikes & those responsible for their manufacture. Format Coins, Birmingham, 3-14. Interesting links: https://merl.reading.ac.uk/collections/royal-agricultural-society-of-england/ https://www.library.wales/discover/digital-gallery/printed-material/gwallter-mechains-reports-for-the-board-of-agriculture
  14. Although it’s nice to know I’m not alone, I wish circumstances were a bit better. It’s never fun to get destroyed at auction. @Fenntucky Mike so the 1813 IoM piece caught your eye? That coin really pops in hand, but for some reason, the pictures I took look flat. I listed it with the hope of raising funds for another purchase, but as it turns out, I didn’t stand a chance. It’s interesting to see that the market for raw notes is behaving similarly to raw coins. Maybe it’s a good time to take advantage of those situations. @Six Mile Rick best of luck with the auction! In this market, I’m sure you’ll do well.
  15. So far, the advice provided is all excellent. Let me reiterate that this process will not be quick, and it might be best to set expectations very low as they can only go up from there. You seem to have the right mindset, so I hope you stick around here and learn with us! There are several very knowledgeable world coin collectors here that are generally speaking very generous with their knowledge. If you have questions about a specific coin, it will not hurt to start a new thread here and post clear, tightly cropped, and correctly oriented pictures of the coin in question. You specifically mentioned British coins, so if you have any copper coinage dated up to 1837 and need help, please tag me in your post or send me a private message. If I do not know the answer to your question, I am sure I know someone who does.
  16. I can’t keep up! I am sure many of you have noticed how insanely active the world coin market is lately. Even the super common coins that I could have picked by the dozens for a few hundred dollars are suddenly selling for 2-3 times what they were. This usually translates into me picking up my jaw off the keyboard as I watch otherwise unremarkable pieces fetch extremely strong prices auction after auction. This, of course, is expected for the truly exceptional pieces, but geez, when did the dredge become so desirable? Maybe it is time to break out the old blue plastic Whitman box and start sending stuff in to take advantage of this market. Some of the pieces that I might have $100 in are now demanding upwards of $300-400 so long as it is certified and at least average grade. Part of me wants to cash in, but even if I do, I very well may end up swapping coins for cash with little luck of being able to use that cash to fund future purchases as prices for more desirable coins are way out of whack. Even if I had the funds, I think I would be hesitant to pull the trigger and bid. So this makes me wonder what is driving the current market for world coins. I can think of a few factors that are undoubtedly influencing the stronger prices. The pandemic: There is little doubt that the events over the past year have, in the most general sense, had a positive impact on the current market. The most encountered argument is that people who were holed up at home had more time on their hands to devote to hobbies. The extra time paired with the money saved from not vacationing, eating out, or paying for entertainment and the stimulus checks influenced an increase in hobby-related spending. This is primarily speculative, but it does not seem too outlandish and justifies the resources needed to increase demand. So did demand actually increase? In the most general sense, the world coin market was not nearly as in demand relative to the U.S. coin market, so the threshold was pretty low. It is not surprising that prices realized would increase as demand continued to grow. This assumes that demand has increased and is not some odd instance in which the same number of bidders are suddenly willing to pay substantially more for somewhat common pieces. Based on the increase in both the number of bids and the number of active registered bidders for some of the more common pieces, it appears that demand has increased. So maybe the world coin market is finally realizing the upward adjustment that so many speculated would eventually occur. With an increase in demand, what influence does that, in turn, have on the supply? The easy argument would be that an increase in demand reduces the overall availability as collectors snap up pieces to add to their collection, which further escalates prices. As it relates to my niche area, availability only seems to be reduced in terms of graded material. It appears most major European dealers still have a healthy supply of raw material, but the majority never had much in the way of graded coins. This suggests that the increase in demand does not generalize to the entire spectrum of these coins but only to the tiny fraction that is graded. In some instances, even for very common world coins, there may only be a couple hundred (more often even less) graded examples but thousands of nice raw examples. This disproportionate demand artificially restricts perceived availability as buyers do not seem willing to pursue similar raw pieces of the same quality. This might also help explain the current backlog at the TPGs as people aim to cash in on this craziness. I think this is a bit ridiculous, but I also collect coins and not plastic. People are crazy. There are few other factors that I can think of that are likely driving this market, but the ones above seem to be the most obvious. I guess I will keep pursuing pretty inexpensive trinkets to hone my photography skills while I patiently await the next “must-have item” to hit the market. For now, my blue Whitman box will stay where it is until I am willing to go all-in on something exceptional. I assume I am not the only one who has been utterly destroyed in recent auctions. For me, it has now become the norm as I slowly try to adjust to this craziness. Who else has had similar experiences lately?
  17. So far, most of the medals I have presented have been the work of one of Soho's most prolific engravers, Conrad Heinrich Küchler. Luckily, a lot of the original correspondence relating to those pieces has been detailed in numerous publications and online databases, which has served to further my investigation. The same cannot be said for this medal, as it was engraved by a less well-known yet still influential Soho engraver, John Phillip. Given the lack of digitalized contemporary documents and nearly no mention of the piece in published works, I decided to focus my efforts on a different tool, auction catalogs. Scouring auction archives and dealer inventories that I have at my disposal led to an interesting discovery. Across these sources, no less than three different engravers were credited for the obverse and reverse dies! The gentleman I purchased the medal from indicated that it was the work of G.F. Pidgeon, but a well-respected auction house suggested Lewis Pingo. Yet, another stated the engraver was I. P. with no further elaboration. It appears, however, that all but perhaps the last, which is due entirely to lack of elaboration, is incorrect. Tungate (2020) details the chronological order of the numerous coins, tokens, and medals struck at the Soho Mint. She often reports known mintages and engravers. In this instance, she credits John Phillips for the Westminster Fire Office piece, but she classifies it as a token and notes that the piece is dated 1803 but was struck in 1811. I find this somewhat odd, as the piece does not imply any exchange of goods or services upon surrender, suggesting it is not a token but, in fact, a medal. Furthermore, the current piece and all of those I have since examined are not dated 1803. Nonetheless, I gave her suggestion that John Phillip engraved the die full consideration, as I did with all the others. The piece is signed "I. P." on both sides, which I soon discovered was, in fact, the initials used by John Phillips to mark his work. This is evident when examining other pieces engraved by him and produced at the Soho mint. With that mystery solved, one is only left to ponder the date provided for their manufacture, 1811. This point is significant as it relates to the silver-lined brass shells, but I will save that tidbit of information for the "notes" section below. Historical Context: This medal was purchased well before my intent to create this set, but the simplicity of its design paired with the silver-lined-brass shells, original wrapper, and the provenance linking it to the James Watt Jr. Collection made this piece irresistible. I had no idea what the Westminster Fire Office was, much less why they commissioned medals to be struck the Soho Mint. As with every other piece in this collection, I sought to understand its history and why it came into existence. A quick internet search was all but a flop, but it did lead me to an interesting book published in 1952 by E. A. Davies, which detailed the formation of the Westminster Fire Office. Most of the information obtained and subsequently shared here originated from this book. I aim only to hit the highlights, but copies of the book can occasionally be found online if you find yourself intrigued. Founded in 1717, the Westminster Fire Office is one of the oldest and most distinguished English intuitions that offered fire insurance to building owners. As Davies (1952) argues, the Great Fire of London in 1666 brought about a wave of destruction that left countless people with virtually nothing. The wounds inflicted by this horrible event were still felt some 50 years later, and the current system to provide aid was insufficient. At the time, the King would authorize small amounts of aid, deemed "King's Briefs", which were under the control of local clergy and parish councils. The process was slow and rarely approved, making this antiquated system all but useless. To address the growing issue, several organizations came about in the 1680s that essentially offered insurance to those in need who could afford the initial costs. Our story begins with the Hand-in-Hand Office, which held its first meeting at Tom's Coffee House on November 12th, 1696 (Davies, 1952). Members operated the Hand-in-Hand Office for the sole purpose of protecting themselves from undue damage in the event of a catastrophic fire. The office was founded by roughly a hundred members from both Westminster and the City of London. The general membership appointed directors for two-year terms, and although they ran most of the day-to-day operations, their power was always in check by larger group membership which held a meeting twice a year. By January of 1699, Tom's Coffee House, located in Westminster, became the Hand-in-Hand Office's official headquarters, and all general meetings were initially held there until 1701 (Davies, 1952). As membership continued to increase, the original location was not deemed appropriate, and a larger venue in Westminster was adopted for a short period. Unappeased by the move, those who resided in London pushed for the meetings to be held in the city, but this would exclude those who resided in Westminster. A compromise was reached, allowing the general meetings to occur in London from Christmas to Midsummer and Westminster for the remaining portion of the year. This did little to appease the members from the city, and eventually, a new office was established in London. This would prove to be the demise of the importance of the Westminster office, and it was effectively closed by February of 1714. The new office would serve as the official meeting location. This placed a significant burden on those from Westminster, resulting in their loss of influence as they could not attend as many meetings. Seemingly betrayed, several members of the Hand-in-Hand Office set to correct the issue and met to establish the Westminster Fire Office at Tom's Coffee House in 1717. The founders wasted no time establishing the new organization, and by June of 1717, they were soliciting subscribers. The members agreed that the Westminster Fire Office would come to exist if they could raise enough subscriptions to seed the company with no less than £2000, which they had little trouble securing (Davies, 1952). Several documents were drafted detailing the general structure, policies, services offered, and all other inner workings of the Westminster Fire Office. As detailed in those documents, insurance policies were only to cover buildings, not their contents. Furthermore, homes made of timber were twice as expensive to insure relative to those made of stone or brick. Coverage was offered in seven-year terms, at a rate of 12 Shillings per £100 of building value, as assessed by the appointed surveyor. Those seeking membership were required to pay their dues upfront, which consisted of the above-mentioned cost dependent upon the building's value, a small few for the Office badge affixed to their building, and the necessary processing fees imparted by the government. Once paid, they were required to sign a Deed of Covenant that bound them to their membership. The Westminster Fire Office was designed to split any financial loss due to fire damage across members. This was done by reducing the dividend afforded to members at the end of their seven-year contract. To this extent, a membership could have little direct risk to the individual but came with a great deal of protection. These terms seem to have been very agreeable as, by the end of June, there were roughly 150 subscribers paying dues totaling £2,860 (Davies, 1952). The founders once again met at Tom's Coffee House on July 30th, 1717, to draft the Deed of Settlement to officially establish the Westminster Fire Office. The first general meeting of the newly established Westminster Fire Office took place just three weeks later. During this meeting, the first directors and "inferior officers" were appointed, and it was established that general meetings should occur in April and October of each year. The directors, however, were expected to meet weekly and perform a host of additional duties with an annual salary. These coveted positions often went to men of significant influence and wealth, which was likely for the best as the exceedingly meager salary was unlikely to attract anyone else. Directors could serve a maximum of two consecutive years, and new directors were appointed in the general meetings held in October of each year, during which no more than four were eligible for reelection. Upon serving, they were not eligible to run again until two years had passed. This process would be closely adhered to for nearly two hundred years. It interesting to note that a directorship was a position of honor, with little compensation and an enormous responsibility. For instance, directors were required to assess any fire damage done to insured buildings, no less than three were required to inspect a building requiring more than £1000 in coverage (this required a vote at the general meetings), and they were required to be present at all fires to direct the fire brigade. All of this, of course, is on top of the administrative duties of their office but afforded them no additional pay. In other words, being a director required a lot of dedication but offered little in return beyond prestige. The one duty that stuck out in my mind required that directors be present at every fire within the area, even if the Westminster Fire Office did not insure the building in distress. This might seem odd at first, but at the time, no public fire department existed in the area. Instead, fire brigades were established by the different Fire Offices and were conducted entirely by each respective organization (Davies, 1952). When a fire broke out, the brigades from all companies were dispatched, and they often worked together to put out fires. This practice ensured that damage was kept to a minimum and further secured the safety of the other uninflected buildings insured. Although some of these organizations were driven by pure profit, they all provided a much-needed public service. Serving on one of these brigades as a waterman or foreman also afforded many advantages. Perhaps the greatest of which was being immune to forced military service (i.e., press-gangs), granted by the Act of 1707 (Davies, 1952). Each organization was required to register the members with the Office of Admiralty, and this, paired with their distinctive uniforms and office badge, would render them immune to press-gangs. The Westminster Fire Office adopted its badge on September 3rd, 1717. The design by Roger Askew, one of the early directors, was relatively simple. The portcullis was adopted from the coat of arms of the City of Westminster, while the feathers were a tribute to the Prince of Whales (i.e., King George II). Davies (1952) notes that the soon-to-be King expressed great support for the Westminster Fire Office and even insured six of his properties within the first year of their establishment. Proud of the newly established office badge, members ensured it was used at nearly every possibility. Large cast lead renditions were made and numbered to denote the houses under the protection of the office, but perhaps the essential function it served was to distinguish the members of the company's fire brigade. Although the names of the waterman were registered with the Office of Admiralty, the badge served as an immediate symbol to denote their immunity to forced conscription. Furthermore, the badge allowed the waterman to identify the director on the scene charged with commanding them. As time went on and the success of the Westminster Fire Office afforded several expansions of the Fire Brigade, directors were no longer required to be on the scene of every fire. Nonetheless, the organization steeped in tradition continued to issue badges to directors. By the early nineteenth century, the Westminster Fire Office started issuing gold medals to directors as a token of appreciation for the level of dedication required to perform the duties of their position, especially in consideration of their minimal compensation. In the end, the Westminster Fire Office was exceptionally successful, and by 1757 they secured over 20,000 policies totaling more than £7,000,000 worth of insured property (Davies, 1952). This is even more impressive when one considers the limited scope of their operation at the time. As the organization continued to grow, there was an obvious need to make a few changes to the original charter. These changes were voted upon within the general meetings and, if adopted, were put in place somewhat informally. It wouldn't be until 1805 that the Deed of Settlement was amended to formalize previous changes, allow for the appointment of up to 24 directors, and extended the range of eligibility to all of England, Scotland, and Wales (Davies, 1952). As time went on and social services become more centralized, the Westminster Fire Office found themselves no longer in need of their fire brigade. After over 115 years of dedicated service, the Westminster Fire Office Brigade was dissolved in 1833. The changes enacted in 1805 eventually gave rise to field offices across England, Scotland, and Wales. For instance, A Westminster Fire Office branch was operating in Birmingham by 1886 (Davies, 1952). Eventually, the smaller organizations such as the Hand-in-Hand Society and the Westminster Fire Office found themselves outmatched in a world full of corporate conglomerates and were subsequently absorbed by the latter. In the case of the Westminster Fire Office, they were offered a generous buyout by the Alliance Insurance Company Limited. Although many longstanding members objected on the grounds of tradition, they gave in to reason, and the Westminster Fire Office was incorporated on March 12th, 1906 (Davies, 1952). Part of the terms put forth allowed the Westminster Fire Office to continue operations much like before, but under the constitution drafted by its new parent company. It appears that the organization was still running at the time of publication, as a list of directors for the year 1952 is provided early on in the book. The Author, A. E. Davies, is listed as the Manager and Secretary. Obverse: The Westminster Fire Office was steeped in tradition. In fact, tradition was the only reason why these medals were commissioned. As such, it seems fitting to adhere to the general practice of using their badge on nearly all things officially associated with them. The obverse of this medal depicts the portcullis in the center, with sharply pointed spearheads on the ends. In keeping with the simple but elegant design style of the Soho Mint, the engraver John Phillips delicately balanced the need for simplicity with perhaps unnecessary detail. For instance, individual rivets are incorporated in the design of the portcullis at every naturally occurring joint. On either side, the portcullis is attached to a draw chain intersected by a mount with additional excess chain falling freely to either the outer side. As noted in the introduction, the portcullis was adopted from the arms of the City of Westminster. Immediately above and centered is an ornate crown with three large feathers protruding from the center. The feathers were supposedly a nod to the would-be King George II, who expressed interest in promoting the newly formed Westminster Fire Office. The lower pointed tips of the portcullis rest upon a platform with the word "ESTABLISHED" inscribed at the center. The date "MDCCXVII" appears below and supersedes the engraver's initials "I P.". The obverse legend appears at the inner portion of the innermost rim and is dived by the primary device, with "WESTMINSTER" appearing on the left and "FIRE OFFICE" on the right. The slightly raised inner rim that contains the legend is restricted within a wider rim of greater relief. Reverse: An oak wreath is depicted on the reverse consisting of two oak branches tied in the middle by a ribbon with a single loop and two loose ends. The loose end on the left drops down and is wrapped around the end of the right branch, while the right loose end flows down and then behind the end of the left branch. The engraver's initials "I · P ." appear below between the two loose ends. Fifteen oak leaves and eighteen acorns (two of which are incomplete) appear on the left branch, while sixteen leaves and seventeen acorns (two of which are incomplete) appear on the right branch. Although most of the leaves are detailed enough to include the veins, several appear devoid of detail, suggesting the die was lapped. The second cluster of leaves from the bottom on the left is an excellent example of this. The center of the medal is left intentionally blank to allow the name of the recipient to be engraved. This particular medal is not engraved, which supports the idea that it was never meant to be issued. Like the obverse, all of this is contained within a slightly raised inner rim, superseded by a substantially wider rim of greater relief. Edge: Plain Size: 40mm Notes: Researching this medal provided some beneficial information pertaining to the Silver-lined brass shells produced at the Soho Mint. Initially, it was thought the death medals issued by Matthew Robinson Boulton in memory of his father in 1819 were the first recorded pieces with the shells. I recently discovered a Westminster Fire Office Medal, struck in gold and issued to Henry Robins Esquire, who served as a director in 1816 and 1817. This particular medal is described as retaining the original red leather case of issue and the fitted copper shells. This medal was likely produced well before 1819 and therefore brings to question the time frame initially applied to the silver-lined brass shells. Of course, there is no way of directly proving this without examining either a receipt of the order placed by the Westminster Fire Office or the Soho archives in Birmingham. Both are not available online, and I doubt I will have the time and funds needed to cross the pond to investigate the issue within the foreseeable future. Another interesting point that should be made details the fate of the dies used to strike these medals once the Soho Mint was dismantled and sold at auction in 1850. Vice (1995) mentions that several dies used to strike medals were returned to the original entity that commissioned their production. In this case, it appears that one pair of dies for the Westminster Fire Office Medal were returned to them. I have yet to find any source that details what happened to the dies after that point. It is, however, worth noting that the current specimen is struck in copper and bronzed. To the best of my knowledge, no other bronzed specimen exists. Given that this piece is seemingly unique in that regard, I assume this was likely produced at the Soho Mint under the careful direction of James Watt Jr., who was an avid collector. It is no secret that he would sometimes use old dies to produce a piece or two that was missing from his collection of Soho Mint wares. Given that this medal was not struck in gold, it seems unlikely that it was ever meant to be issued, suggesting that it might have been a one-off to fill a hole in the otherwise remarkable collection of James Watt Jr, who was the Mint Director at the time. Morton and Eden auctioned off this piece and the rest of the Watt Jr. Collection in November 2002. It is recorded in their catalog as lot number 265 and realized a whopping £225. If only I had a time machine! In full transparency, a bronze example of a slightly different version of the Westminster Fire Office Medal resides in the British Museum (MG.1321); however, this piece at best seems to be derivative of the piece struck at the Soho Mint. I have included the link to this piece in the "interesting links" section. References: Davies, E. A. (1952). An Account of the Formation and Early Years of the Westminster Fire Office. Glasgow: Robert MacLehose & Co. Ltd. Tungate, S. (2020) Matthew Boulton and The Soho Mint: copper to customer. Worcestershire: Brewin Books. Vice, D. (1995). A fresh insight into Soho Mint restrikes & those responsible for their manufacture. Format Coins, Birmingham, 3-14. Interesting links: https://coins.ha.com/itm/great-britain/world-coins/great-britain-westminster-fire-office-gold-proof-medal-1717-1817-pr63andnbsp-deep-cameo-pcgs-/a/3051-30817.s?ic4=ListView-ShortDescription-071515 https://www.britishmuseum.org/collection/object/C_MG-1321
  18. This is very exciting! As I inch closer to finishing my degree, it appears all the more likely that I will once again find myself in the Huntsville or Madison area. Should this occur, I would very much like to join the ranks.
  19. There seems to be a perceived, if not an actual, increase in demand for graded material. The scope of the issue spans from coins to trading cards to comic books. My dad and I talked about this, and he confirmed that many of his regular customers and an even more significant number of newer customers are requesting more graded material. His experience is not unique as he has heard similar situation from dealers within his network of friends that expands the entire eastern seaboard. The issue is locating good quality graded material at a reasonable cost, which I assume to be part of the larger problem.
  20. @ChrisInJesup and @ronsthank you for the comments! I’m hoping these will entered into the system soon. Updates are pending.
  21. It might be worth giving NGC a call. The last time I spoke with someone from accounting they mentioned that they can roll these awards to the following year.
  22. Have you tried calling? I have always found NGC to be very flexible with stuff like this so long as it’s brought to their attention.