coinsandmedals

Lately, there has been much criticism and suspicion about the length of time it takes to get your coins graded. And my recent submission is no different. Like me, at the end of the day, when all your coins have been returned, you will probably ask yourself if it has been worth it? In the end, I weighed my worth against the grades I got, the price I paid, and the wait I had to endure.
On April 22, 2021, I mailed a 13-coin submission to NGC. On August 10, I received the last of my coins back in the mail. In that one mailing, I had four separate submissions graded in the following order. The first two were Christa McAuliffe commemorative coins graded under the US-modern tier. The next was a silver 5-ounce Tuskegee Airmen Quarter in an oversize holder. The largest was an 8-coin submission under the world-economy tier. Finally, the last two coins I received back were two coins under the world-modern tier.
In the end, the cost was never going to be an issue because of last year’s award as one of three awarded journalists. This only left me with two considerations which were in a manner of speaking linked together. The wait was worth it if I liked the grades, and if I didn’t like them, it wasn’t.
Most of the coins were related to my 1868-70 Spanish Provisional Government set and my 1933-38 Second Spanish Republic set. The others were new purchases and a few that had been lying around in flips.
Having all those grading credits tempted me to send in coins that I otherwise might not of. However, I had a duplicate raw coin that I considered sending in with the submission to sell. In the end, I determined not to send it because I thought it might get a details grade. Why waste the credit if I didn’t need to? Instead, I’ll save it for my 2021 Morgan and Peace Dollar.
This turned out to be a good decision because, in 13 coins, I had no detailed grades and three top-pops, of which two were 70’s. Most of the other grades were reasonably expected, with only a few exceptions. The following is a chart detailing my hope, my expectation, and the final grade:
Coin
Hope
Expected
Final Grade
2021 UNC Christa McAuliffe
70
69
69
2021 PRF Christa McAuliffe
70
69
69
2021 SP Oversize Tuskegee Airmen
70
69
70
1947-S Philippine MacArthur Peso
65
64
63
1870(70) SNM Spanish Provisional 50C
20
15
12
1870(70) SNM Spanish Provisional Peseta
VF
VF
25
1870(73) DEM Spanish
Provisional Peseta
58
AU
55 (Top-Pop)
1934 2nd Spanish Republic 25C
65
64
64
1937 2nd Spanish Republic 5c
65
64
63
1937 Menorca 25C (Spanish Civil War)
64
63
63
1938 2nd Spanish Republic 25C
67
66
63
2019PM B.V. Islands Silver $1 Una and the Lion
69
69
68 (rev proof)
2020 France 2E Proof Medical Research
70
69
70
 
Overall, my expectations were met with a minimum of disappointments and three top-pops! Was this worth the wait? Determine for yourselves, but as for me, I think this was worth the wait. Gary.


 

Napoleon had a fascination with the Roman Empire and this is reflected in everything he did, most notably on the medals of the period. I have an example of the medal depicting the Vendome column in Paris, this was erected in 1810 as tribute to the Grand Armee and the Victory at Austerlitz in 1805. This was Napoleon's take on Trajan's column in Rome.

Both columns show a spiral relief of important military events, the major events of the 1805 campaign for Napoleon and in this case of Trajan the Dacian campaign. The similarity does not end there as they also seem to have had the statue on the top changed a few times over the years – Napoleon, originally dressed in Roman garb, did not survive much past 1814 and the fall of his Empire being re-instated as the little corporal’ in 1833. The Vendome column was also demolished in 1871 during the short-lived Paris commune only to be re-erected a mere three years later following the French army regaining control of the area. This is the version that can still be seen in Paris today and is topped by yet another roman reincarnation of Napoleon.

An extremely rare, possibly unique, gold version of the medal has just appeared at the upcoming MDC Monaco auction (20-21 October, lot 763) with a starting price of 30,000Euros. That means that I will not be able to ‘upgrade’ in this lifetime and have to settle for my example, copper is good.

It took me nearly six months to decide what to send, but I have finally convinced myself to submit a few of my better raw pieces for grading. This submission is a bit complex as it spans seven invoices and requires a few special requests. Luckily, my contact at NGC was more than willing to help. As many of you know, I have a fair number of Soho pieces that have retained their original shells. When possible, I have made an effort always to have the shells encapsulated alongside the coin in a multi-coin holder. Doing so allows me to ensure that the shells are less likely to be separated from the coin. After all, it would indeed be a shame to lose such a unique piece of Soho history that has been carefully curated over the last two centuries. In total I am only sending in 17 pieces for grading, but there are 43 items listed on the submission forms when including the shells. On any note, I wanted to share the pieces I am sending in (at least the ones I have pictures of). 
1.       1799 Great Britain proof Farthing with shells

2.       1791 Jean Jacques Rousseau medal – proof with shells

3.       1800(11) Westminster Fire Office Medal – proof with shells

4.       1804 Bombay Presidency Pice – Multicoin Reholder - As can be seen in the picture - this slab looks like a game used NHL hockey puck 

5.       1803 Madras Presidency 10 Cash - Multicoin Reholder - Another hockey puck holder

6.       1808 Madras Presidency 10 Cash - Multicoin Reholder - And yet another hockey puck holder

7.       1805 Ireland proof Penny with shells

8.       1793 Board of Agriculture Medal – proof with shells

9.       1800 George III Preserved from Assassination Medal –Proof with shells

10.   1803 Boydell's National Edition of Shakespeare's Works - with shells

11.   1802 Peace of Amiens Medal – with shells
12.   1793 Death of Gustavus III – proof with shells

13.   1793 Execution of Louis XVI of France – Final farewell – proof with shells

14.   1805 Bank of England $1 obverse die trial – proof
15.   1753 England ½ Penny
16.   1754 England Farthing
17.   1917 Costa Rica 10 Centavos
Thank goodness for the $500 grading credit from the NGC registry awards last year. That combined with the account credit for my membership will help, but I will still have a relatively substantial bill coming my way once it is all done. I will be sure to post updates as they become available. 
Feel free to do a GTG if you feel so inclined.

It took me nearly six months to decide what to send, but I have finally convinced myself to submit a few of my better raw pieces for grading. This submission is a bit complex as it spans seven invoices and requires a few special requests. Luckily, my contact at NGC was more than willing to help. As many of you know, I have a fair number of Soho pieces that have retained their original shells. When possible, I have made an effort always to have the shells encapsulated alongside the coin in a multi-coin holder. Doing so allows me to ensure that the shells are less likely to be separated from the coin. After all, it would indeed be a shame to lose such a unique piece of Soho history that has been carefully curated over the last two centuries. In total I am only sending in 17 pieces for grading, but there are 43 items listed on the submission forms when including the shells. On any note, I wanted to share the pieces I am sending in (at least the ones I have pictures of). 
1.       1799 Great Britain proof Farthing with shells

2.       1791 Jean Jacques Rousseau medal – proof with shells

3.       1800(11) Westminster Fire Office Medal – proof with shells

4.       1804 Bombay Presidency Pice – Multicoin Reholder - As can be seen in the picture - this slab looks like a game used NHL hockey puck 

5.       1803 Madras Presidency 10 Cash - Multicoin Reholder - Another hockey puck holder

6.       1808 Madras Presidency 10 Cash - Multicoin Reholder - And yet another hockey puck holder

7.       1805 Ireland proof Penny with shells

8.       1793 Board of Agriculture Medal – proof with shells

9.       1800 George III Preserved from Assassination Medal –Proof with shells

10.   1803 Boydell's National Edition of Shakespeare's Works - with shells

11.   1802 Peace of Amiens Medal – with shells
12.   1793 Death of Gustavus III – proof with shells

13.   1793 Execution of Louis XVI of France – Final farewell – proof with shells

14.   1805 Bank of England $1 obverse die trial – proof
15.   1753 England ½ Penny
16.   1754 England Farthing
17.   1917 Costa Rica 10 Centavos
Thank goodness for the $500 grading credit from the NGC registry awards last year. That combined with the account credit for my membership will help, but I will still have a relatively substantial bill coming my way once it is all done. I will be sure to post updates as they become available. 
Feel free to do a GTG if you feel so inclined.

It took me nearly six months to decide what to send, but I have finally convinced myself to submit a few of my better raw pieces for grading. This submission is a bit complex as it spans seven invoices and requires a few special requests. Luckily, my contact at NGC was more than willing to help. As many of you know, I have a fair number of Soho pieces that have retained their original shells. When possible, I have made an effort always to have the shells encapsulated alongside the coin in a multi-coin holder. Doing so allows me to ensure that the shells are less likely to be separated from the coin. After all, it would indeed be a shame to lose such a unique piece of Soho history that has been carefully curated over the last two centuries. In total I am only sending in 17 pieces for grading, but there are 43 items listed on the submission forms when including the shells. On any note, I wanted to share the pieces I am sending in (at least the ones I have pictures of). 
1.       1799 Great Britain proof Farthing with shells

2.       1791 Jean Jacques Rousseau medal – proof with shells

3.       1800(11) Westminster Fire Office Medal – proof with shells

4.       1804 Bombay Presidency Pice – Multicoin Reholder - As can be seen in the picture - this slab looks like a game used NHL hockey puck 

5.       1803 Madras Presidency 10 Cash - Multicoin Reholder - Another hockey puck holder

6.       1808 Madras Presidency 10 Cash - Multicoin Reholder - And yet another hockey puck holder

7.       1805 Ireland proof Penny with shells

8.       1793 Board of Agriculture Medal – proof with shells

9.       1800 George III Preserved from Assassination Medal –Proof with shells

10.   1803 Boydell's National Edition of Shakespeare's Works - with shells

11.   1802 Peace of Amiens Medal – with shells
12.   1793 Death of Gustavus III – proof with shells

13.   1793 Execution of Louis XVI of France – Final farewell – proof with shells

14.   1805 Bank of England $1 obverse die trial – proof
15.   1753 England ½ Penny
16.   1754 England Farthing
17.   1917 Costa Rica 10 Centavos
Thank goodness for the $500 grading credit from the NGC registry awards last year. That combined with the account credit for my membership will help, but I will still have a relatively substantial bill coming my way once it is all done. I will be sure to post updates as they become available. 
Feel free to do a GTG if you feel so inclined.

I think I have officially hit the point where I can no longer justify the expense of new additions. There have been some stellar coins offered for sale already this year, but more often than not, these pieces realize prices that are just a bit out of my comfort zone. Consequently, I have only added four new noteworthy pieces to my collection, which pales compared to last year. On any note, I am delighted with my latest purchase which brings back memories of a much simpler time. A time before COVID, before insane auctions prices, and before I was thoroughly infected with the bug of collecting Soho pieces.

We can probably all think back to the first piece that eventually became the foundation of a new collecting pursuit. For me, this took the form of a 1788 Great Britain pattern Halfpenny (P-945) struck at the Soho Mint (pictured above). I remember being sucked into the history and immense conflict between Jean Pierre Droz (the engraver of this coin) and the founder of the Soho Mint, Matthew Boulton. Fast forward several years and that research has dramatically expanded and now represents almost all of my numismatic pursuits. There is just so much fascinating history left to be discovered! The original piece holds a special place in my collection, and I am ecstatic to add a second similar example alongside it.
My newest purchase is the “1788” Great Britain pattern Halfpenny (P-1003) pictured below. Although this piece is dated 1788, it was likely struck nearly a century later. Peck classifies this variety as a restrike, meaning that it was struck using Soho dies sometime after the demise of the Soho Mint. I provide more detail about restrikes in the introduction of my registry set, so if you are looking for more information about restrikes, it can be found there. On any note, this piece was likely struck in the 1880s by Taylor after he acquired the dies from Matthew Pier Watt Boulton, the grandson of Matthew Boulton. Often dubbed “Taylor restrikes”, these pieces make the proper attribution of English coinage struck at the Soho Mint far more complicated, as he often intentionally created new varieties to sell to unsuspecting collectors. When considering the sheer number of restrike varieties paired with the frequency with which some of these come up for sale, it appears that this was a relatively successful operation. For instance, we know that 10 of these pieces, along with 794 other restrikes of different varieties and types, were part of a consignment from W. J. Taylor’s workshop on June 29th, 1880 (Peck, 1964). This was a single consignment, and it stands to reason that multiple of this caliber were likely placed over the careers of Taylor and his two sons. As such, it would be nearly impossible to ascertain how many of each variety were produced. Peck (1964) specifically notes that this variety (i.e., P-1003) was created with the sole intent of creating something new to trick unsuspecting collectors.

Although Peck (1964) notes this coin as rare, it appears to be much more common than other similarly rated varieties, with nearly 60 examples coming up for sale over the last five decades. 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 higher. However, this example is somewhat more unique because both the obverse and reverse are double struck, the reverse being far more dramatic than the obverse. From my estimates, it appears the obverse is double struck with about a 3-degree rotation between strikes. The reverse, however, is double struck with about 21 degrees of rotation between strikes. The result is a coin that looks as though it has been circulated, but the flat areas are where the strikes overlapped. This is abundantly apparent when examining the bust of King George III and the outer portion of Britannia’s shield. In contrast, examining the inner portion of the shield demonstrates the conflicting design details. It will be interesting to see how NGC grades this piece, given its odd nature.
So what got you started in your current collecting pursuits? Has it come full circle as it has for me? 

I think I have officially hit the point where I can no longer justify the expense of new additions. There have been some stellar coins offered for sale already this year, but more often than not, these pieces realize prices that are just a bit out of my comfort zone. Consequently, I have only added four new noteworthy pieces to my collection, which pales compared to last year. On any note, I am delighted with my latest purchase which brings back memories of a much simpler time. A time before COVID, before insane auctions prices, and before I was thoroughly infected with the bug of collecting Soho pieces.

We can probably all think back to the first piece that eventually became the foundation of a new collecting pursuit. For me, this took the form of a 1788 Great Britain pattern Halfpenny (P-945) struck at the Soho Mint (pictured above). I remember being sucked into the history and immense conflict between Jean Pierre Droz (the engraver of this coin) and the founder of the Soho Mint, Matthew Boulton. Fast forward several years and that research has dramatically expanded and now represents almost all of my numismatic pursuits. There is just so much fascinating history left to be discovered! The original piece holds a special place in my collection, and I am ecstatic to add a second similar example alongside it.
My newest purchase is the “1788” Great Britain pattern Halfpenny (P-1003) pictured below. Although this piece is dated 1788, it was likely struck nearly a century later. Peck classifies this variety as a restrike, meaning that it was struck using Soho dies sometime after the demise of the Soho Mint. I provide more detail about restrikes in the introduction of my registry set, so if you are looking for more information about restrikes, it can be found there. On any note, this piece was likely struck in the 1880s by Taylor after he acquired the dies from Matthew Pier Watt Boulton, the grandson of Matthew Boulton. Often dubbed “Taylor restrikes”, these pieces make the proper attribution of English coinage struck at the Soho Mint far more complicated, as he often intentionally created new varieties to sell to unsuspecting collectors. When considering the sheer number of restrike varieties paired with the frequency with which some of these come up for sale, it appears that this was a relatively successful operation. For instance, we know that 10 of these pieces, along with 794 other restrikes of different varieties and types, were part of a consignment from W. J. Taylor’s workshop on June 29th, 1880 (Peck, 1964). This was a single consignment, and it stands to reason that multiple of this caliber were likely placed over the careers of Taylor and his two sons. As such, it would be nearly impossible to ascertain how many of each variety were produced. Peck (1964) specifically notes that this variety (i.e., P-1003) was created with the sole intent of creating something new to trick unsuspecting collectors.

Although Peck (1964) notes this coin as rare, it appears to be much more common than other similarly rated varieties, with nearly 60 examples coming up for sale over the last five decades. 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 higher. However, this example is somewhat more unique because both the obverse and reverse are double struck, the reverse being far more dramatic than the obverse. From my estimates, it appears the obverse is double struck with about a 3-degree rotation between strikes. The reverse, however, is double struck with about 21 degrees of rotation between strikes. The result is a coin that looks as though it has been circulated, but the flat areas are where the strikes overlapped. This is abundantly apparent when examining the bust of King George III and the outer portion of Britannia’s shield. In contrast, examining the inner portion of the shield demonstrates the conflicting design details. It will be interesting to see how NGC grades this piece, given its odd nature.
So what got you started in your current collecting pursuits? Has it come full circle as it has for me? 

I think I have officially hit the point where I can no longer justify the expense of new additions. There have been some stellar coins offered for sale already this year, but more often than not, these pieces realize prices that are just a bit out of my comfort zone. Consequently, I have only added four new noteworthy pieces to my collection, which pales compared to last year. On any note, I am delighted with my latest purchase which brings back memories of a much simpler time. A time before COVID, before insane auctions prices, and before I was thoroughly infected with the bug of collecting Soho pieces.

We can probably all think back to the first piece that eventually became the foundation of a new collecting pursuit. For me, this took the form of a 1788 Great Britain pattern Halfpenny (P-945) struck at the Soho Mint (pictured above). I remember being sucked into the history and immense conflict between Jean Pierre Droz (the engraver of this coin) and the founder of the Soho Mint, Matthew Boulton. Fast forward several years and that research has dramatically expanded and now represents almost all of my numismatic pursuits. There is just so much fascinating history left to be discovered! The original piece holds a special place in my collection, and I am ecstatic to add a second similar example alongside it.
My newest purchase is the “1788” Great Britain pattern Halfpenny (P-1003) pictured below. Although this piece is dated 1788, it was likely struck nearly a century later. Peck classifies this variety as a restrike, meaning that it was struck using Soho dies sometime after the demise of the Soho Mint. I provide more detail about restrikes in the introduction of my registry set, so if you are looking for more information about restrikes, it can be found there. On any note, this piece was likely struck in the 1880s by Taylor after he acquired the dies from Matthew Pier Watt Boulton, the grandson of Matthew Boulton. Often dubbed “Taylor restrikes”, these pieces make the proper attribution of English coinage struck at the Soho Mint far more complicated, as he often intentionally created new varieties to sell to unsuspecting collectors. When considering the sheer number of restrike varieties paired with the frequency with which some of these come up for sale, it appears that this was a relatively successful operation. For instance, we know that 10 of these pieces, along with 794 other restrikes of different varieties and types, were part of a consignment from W. J. Taylor’s workshop on June 29th, 1880 (Peck, 1964). This was a single consignment, and it stands to reason that multiple of this caliber were likely placed over the careers of Taylor and his two sons. As such, it would be nearly impossible to ascertain how many of each variety were produced. Peck (1964) specifically notes that this variety (i.e., P-1003) was created with the sole intent of creating something new to trick unsuspecting collectors.

Although Peck (1964) notes this coin as rare, it appears to be much more common than other similarly rated varieties, with nearly 60 examples coming up for sale over the last five decades. 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 higher. However, this example is somewhat more unique because both the obverse and reverse are double struck, the reverse being far more dramatic than the obverse. From my estimates, it appears the obverse is double struck with about a 3-degree rotation between strikes. The reverse, however, is double struck with about 21 degrees of rotation between strikes. The result is a coin that looks as though it has been circulated, but the flat areas are where the strikes overlapped. This is abundantly apparent when examining the bust of King George III and the outer portion of Britannia’s shield. In contrast, examining the inner portion of the shield demonstrates the conflicting design details. It will be interesting to see how NGC grades this piece, given its odd nature.
So what got you started in your current collecting pursuits? Has it come full circle as it has for me? 

I think I have officially hit the point where I can no longer justify the expense of new additions. There have been some stellar coins offered for sale already this year, but more often than not, these pieces realize prices that are just a bit out of my comfort zone. Consequently, I have only added four new noteworthy pieces to my collection, which pales compared to last year. On any note, I am delighted with my latest purchase which brings back memories of a much simpler time. A time before COVID, before insane auctions prices, and before I was thoroughly infected with the bug of collecting Soho pieces.

We can probably all think back to the first piece that eventually became the foundation of a new collecting pursuit. For me, this took the form of a 1788 Great Britain pattern Halfpenny (P-945) struck at the Soho Mint (pictured above). I remember being sucked into the history and immense conflict between Jean Pierre Droz (the engraver of this coin) and the founder of the Soho Mint, Matthew Boulton. Fast forward several years and that research has dramatically expanded and now represents almost all of my numismatic pursuits. There is just so much fascinating history left to be discovered! The original piece holds a special place in my collection, and I am ecstatic to add a second similar example alongside it.
My newest purchase is the “1788” Great Britain pattern Halfpenny (P-1003) pictured below. Although this piece is dated 1788, it was likely struck nearly a century later. Peck classifies this variety as a restrike, meaning that it was struck using Soho dies sometime after the demise of the Soho Mint. I provide more detail about restrikes in the introduction of my registry set, so if you are looking for more information about restrikes, it can be found there. On any note, this piece was likely struck in the 1880s by Taylor after he acquired the dies from Matthew Pier Watt Boulton, the grandson of Matthew Boulton. Often dubbed “Taylor restrikes”, these pieces make the proper attribution of English coinage struck at the Soho Mint far more complicated, as he often intentionally created new varieties to sell to unsuspecting collectors. When considering the sheer number of restrike varieties paired with the frequency with which some of these come up for sale, it appears that this was a relatively successful operation. For instance, we know that 10 of these pieces, along with 794 other restrikes of different varieties and types, were part of a consignment from W. J. Taylor’s workshop on June 29th, 1880 (Peck, 1964). This was a single consignment, and it stands to reason that multiple of this caliber were likely placed over the careers of Taylor and his two sons. As such, it would be nearly impossible to ascertain how many of each variety were produced. Peck (1964) specifically notes that this variety (i.e., P-1003) was created with the sole intent of creating something new to trick unsuspecting collectors.

Although Peck (1964) notes this coin as rare, it appears to be much more common than other similarly rated varieties, with nearly 60 examples coming up for sale over the last five decades. 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 higher. However, this example is somewhat more unique because both the obverse and reverse are double struck, the reverse being far more dramatic than the obverse. From my estimates, it appears the obverse is double struck with about a 3-degree rotation between strikes. The reverse, however, is double struck with about 21 degrees of rotation between strikes. The result is a coin that looks as though it has been circulated, but the flat areas are where the strikes overlapped. This is abundantly apparent when examining the bust of King George III and the outer portion of Britannia’s shield. In contrast, examining the inner portion of the shield demonstrates the conflicting design details. It will be interesting to see how NGC grades this piece, given its odd nature.
So what got you started in your current collecting pursuits? Has it come full circle as it has for me? 

While I don't have a must do or list of things that I feel are must do items for my numismatic journey, I have some goals for my collection.   One such goal has been to include an uber high grade classic coin to the collection.   This has never been a high priority or something that I felt I "had" to do just a want list item that I figured I would find someday that would not only fit this minor goal but be very nice upgrade to one set or the other.   I think that I always expected that would be a new coin for my Lincoln set, given that it is a very large, long set I guess that it seemed the most likely set to find one that was within financial reach.  There are tons of MS68 and MS69 graded modern Lincoln coins but the most available MS68 classic coins in that series are the steel cents and they still sell for right around 1K on average, doable but not really the coin that I was motivated to go after at those prices.
However recently on GC I saw an auction for a 1940-D Mercury dime in MS68FB, not only is this a great classic design coin but it was also a numerical upgrade for several sets.   So I did as usual and threw in a $20 bid to place the coin on my watchlist, I check recent auction results for this grade and figured that it would likely sell for more than I was prepared to go.   A couple of days before the end of the auction I checked on the status and was surprised to see the price still rather low.  Ok that does happen sometimes and then a flurry of action in the last hour pushes the prices up near or beyond average.   So I decided what I was willing to go, which was below the recent averages; and place my final bid fully expecting to be out bid in those last hours.   I checked my emails after the auction deadline and low and behold I had won for just under my high bid!
I thought that is great, and then the doubts start to creep in.   Why did I win for less that recent average sales; did I miss something that others saw?   Did I just buy a dog coin, what did I just do!   Well nothing to do but wait for the package to arrive and see the coin in hand.   Fast forward to yesterday when the package came, I can now say that I very happy with my new coin, not a dog at least in my opinion.  I suspect that because this coin is blast white played some part in the lower than average selling price, had it been toned I expect it would have been much more expensive.  Also the lack of a CAC bean may have been a factor to some buyers at this grade level, not a deal breaker for me.
So there it is, a minor bucket list item checked off with what I find to be a very beautiful coin with one of the most attractive classic designs.  The only photos I have are the GC one's for now.

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

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

It took me nearly six months to decide what to send, but I have finally convinced myself to submit a few of my better raw pieces for grading. This submission is a bit complex as it spans seven invoices and requires a few special requests. Luckily, my contact at NGC was more than willing to help. As many of you know, I have a fair number of Soho pieces that have retained their original shells. When possible, I have made an effort always to have the shells encapsulated alongside the coin in a multi-coin holder. Doing so allows me to ensure that the shells are less likely to be separated from the coin. After all, it would indeed be a shame to lose such a unique piece of Soho history that has been carefully curated over the last two centuries. In total I am only sending in 17 pieces for grading, but there are 43 items listed on the submission forms when including the shells. On any note, I wanted to share the pieces I am sending in (at least the ones I have pictures of). 
1.       1799 Great Britain proof Farthing with shells

2.       1791 Jean Jacques Rousseau medal – proof with shells

3.       1800(11) Westminster Fire Office Medal – proof with shells

4.       1804 Bombay Presidency Pice – Multicoin Reholder - As can be seen in the picture - this slab looks like a game used NHL hockey puck 

5.       1803 Madras Presidency 10 Cash - Multicoin Reholder - Another hockey puck holder

6.       1808 Madras Presidency 10 Cash - Multicoin Reholder - And yet another hockey puck holder

7.       1805 Ireland proof Penny with shells

8.       1793 Board of Agriculture Medal – proof with shells

9.       1800 George III Preserved from Assassination Medal –Proof with shells

10.   1803 Boydell's National Edition of Shakespeare's Works - with shells

11.   1802 Peace of Amiens Medal – with shells
12.   1793 Death of Gustavus III – proof with shells

13.   1793 Execution of Louis XVI of France – Final farewell – proof with shells

14.   1805 Bank of England $1 obverse die trial – proof
15.   1753 England ½ Penny
16.   1754 England Farthing
17.   1917 Costa Rica 10 Centavos
Thank goodness for the $500 grading credit from the NGC registry awards last year. That combined with the account credit for my membership will help, but I will still have a relatively substantial bill coming my way once it is all done. I will be sure to post updates as they become available. 
Feel free to do a GTG if you feel so inclined.

It took me nearly six months to decide what to send, but I have finally convinced myself to submit a few of my better raw pieces for grading. This submission is a bit complex as it spans seven invoices and requires a few special requests. Luckily, my contact at NGC was more than willing to help. As many of you know, I have a fair number of Soho pieces that have retained their original shells. When possible, I have made an effort always to have the shells encapsulated alongside the coin in a multi-coin holder. Doing so allows me to ensure that the shells are less likely to be separated from the coin. After all, it would indeed be a shame to lose such a unique piece of Soho history that has been carefully curated over the last two centuries. In total I am only sending in 17 pieces for grading, but there are 43 items listed on the submission forms when including the shells. On any note, I wanted to share the pieces I am sending in (at least the ones I have pictures of). 
1.       1799 Great Britain proof Farthing with shells

2.       1791 Jean Jacques Rousseau medal – proof with shells

3.       1800(11) Westminster Fire Office Medal – proof with shells

4.       1804 Bombay Presidency Pice – Multicoin Reholder - As can be seen in the picture - this slab looks like a game used NHL hockey puck 

5.       1803 Madras Presidency 10 Cash - Multicoin Reholder - Another hockey puck holder

6.       1808 Madras Presidency 10 Cash - Multicoin Reholder - And yet another hockey puck holder

7.       1805 Ireland proof Penny with shells

8.       1793 Board of Agriculture Medal – proof with shells

9.       1800 George III Preserved from Assassination Medal –Proof with shells

10.   1803 Boydell's National Edition of Shakespeare's Works - with shells

11.   1802 Peace of Amiens Medal – with shells
12.   1793 Death of Gustavus III – proof with shells

13.   1793 Execution of Louis XVI of France – Final farewell – proof with shells

14.   1805 Bank of England $1 obverse die trial – proof
15.   1753 England ½ Penny
16.   1754 England Farthing
17.   1917 Costa Rica 10 Centavos
Thank goodness for the $500 grading credit from the NGC registry awards last year. That combined with the account credit for my membership will help, but I will still have a relatively substantial bill coming my way once it is all done. I will be sure to post updates as they become available. 
Feel free to do a GTG if you feel so inclined.

It took me nearly six months to decide what to send, but I have finally convinced myself to submit a few of my better raw pieces for grading. This submission is a bit complex as it spans seven invoices and requires a few special requests. Luckily, my contact at NGC was more than willing to help. As many of you know, I have a fair number of Soho pieces that have retained their original shells. When possible, I have made an effort always to have the shells encapsulated alongside the coin in a multi-coin holder. Doing so allows me to ensure that the shells are less likely to be separated from the coin. After all, it would indeed be a shame to lose such a unique piece of Soho history that has been carefully curated over the last two centuries. In total I am only sending in 17 pieces for grading, but there are 43 items listed on the submission forms when including the shells. On any note, I wanted to share the pieces I am sending in (at least the ones I have pictures of). 
1.       1799 Great Britain proof Farthing with shells

2.       1791 Jean Jacques Rousseau medal – proof with shells

3.       1800(11) Westminster Fire Office Medal – proof with shells

4.       1804 Bombay Presidency Pice – Multicoin Reholder - As can be seen in the picture - this slab looks like a game used NHL hockey puck 

5.       1803 Madras Presidency 10 Cash - Multicoin Reholder - Another hockey puck holder

6.       1808 Madras Presidency 10 Cash - Multicoin Reholder - And yet another hockey puck holder

7.       1805 Ireland proof Penny with shells

8.       1793 Board of Agriculture Medal – proof with shells

9.       1800 George III Preserved from Assassination Medal –Proof with shells

10.   1803 Boydell's National Edition of Shakespeare's Works - with shells

11.   1802 Peace of Amiens Medal – with shells
12.   1793 Death of Gustavus III – proof with shells

13.   1793 Execution of Louis XVI of France – Final farewell – proof with shells

14.   1805 Bank of England $1 obverse die trial – proof
15.   1753 England ½ Penny
16.   1754 England Farthing
17.   1917 Costa Rica 10 Centavos
Thank goodness for the $500 grading credit from the NGC registry awards last year. That combined with the account credit for my membership will help, but I will still have a relatively substantial bill coming my way once it is all done. I will be sure to post updates as they become available. 
Feel free to do a GTG if you feel so inclined.

It took me nearly six months to decide what to send, but I have finally convinced myself to submit a few of my better raw pieces for grading. This submission is a bit complex as it spans seven invoices and requires a few special requests. Luckily, my contact at NGC was more than willing to help. As many of you know, I have a fair number of Soho pieces that have retained their original shells. When possible, I have made an effort always to have the shells encapsulated alongside the coin in a multi-coin holder. Doing so allows me to ensure that the shells are less likely to be separated from the coin. After all, it would indeed be a shame to lose such a unique piece of Soho history that has been carefully curated over the last two centuries. In total I am only sending in 17 pieces for grading, but there are 43 items listed on the submission forms when including the shells. On any note, I wanted to share the pieces I am sending in (at least the ones I have pictures of). 
1.       1799 Great Britain proof Farthing with shells

2.       1791 Jean Jacques Rousseau medal – proof with shells

3.       1800(11) Westminster Fire Office Medal – proof with shells

4.       1804 Bombay Presidency Pice – Multicoin Reholder - As can be seen in the picture - this slab looks like a game used NHL hockey puck 

5.       1803 Madras Presidency 10 Cash - Multicoin Reholder - Another hockey puck holder

6.       1808 Madras Presidency 10 Cash - Multicoin Reholder - And yet another hockey puck holder

7.       1805 Ireland proof Penny with shells

8.       1793 Board of Agriculture Medal – proof with shells

9.       1800 George III Preserved from Assassination Medal –Proof with shells

10.   1803 Boydell's National Edition of Shakespeare's Works - with shells

11.   1802 Peace of Amiens Medal – with shells
12.   1793 Death of Gustavus III – proof with shells

13.   1793 Execution of Louis XVI of France – Final farewell – proof with shells

14.   1805 Bank of England $1 obverse die trial – proof
15.   1753 England ½ Penny
16.   1754 England Farthing
17.   1917 Costa Rica 10 Centavos
Thank goodness for the $500 grading credit from the NGC registry awards last year. That combined with the account credit for my membership will help, but I will still have a relatively substantial bill coming my way once it is all done. I will be sure to post updates as they become available. 
Feel free to do a GTG if you feel so inclined.

So, if it seems like I am more quiet lately know that it is only because Fenntucky Mike and like 5 other people on the PMG side have gotten to witness a lot of manic babbling about near-worthless hyperinflation novelties - feel free to check that out to be as bored as my dear wife.  
So, I got grade results back yesterday evening. No stand-out wins and some minor disappointments.
On the CWTs I had expected like 55-58 but part of me had hoped for a 61-62. I got an XF45 and a AU 55 BN. The 45 is disappointing but not crazy. It is nice to have the F numbers for one of these that I didn't before though. 
 

On the Tobacco Dove I got a 69. The hope here when submitting was, obviously, a 70 - while expecting a 69. After the residue report I was afraid of a 67 or 68 coming back, which would have killed its value and turned sending it in into a bit of a disaster (albeit good to have removed the residue before anything worse happened). The 69 after cleaning is a good save / recovery. It was worth it to let them clean off the residue.
 

Of course, the big news here is my golden babies are coming home! The 10Gs are returning in pretty, new, scratch resistant holders, which is going to make that a very charming set. Now that they're finalized you can see images of them in the new holders on the cert look-up tool. Most of these things were previously graded so long ago (25+ years) that there were no images for them. I love that the old cert#s are preserved in the new holders, preserving the history that many of these were graded a long time ago, around the same time, I think around 1993, possibly by the same person. That bit of history and mystery will always make me wonder with these... who submitted these back in the day?. But I think I will be trying to do my own pictures once they come.

My wife recently referred to my Zimbabwe dollar collection as my “pride and joy” to Ben. I do not know that she’s wrong, but I think they have to share that title with the 10G set… and my wonderful, beautiful sons… clearly. Naturally. My two sons that I do not get frustrated with when they start thumping my 100 trillion note on their knee…
But then, the REALLY big news... We closed on the house today! And are now homeowners! ... and... thanks to the leaseback... landlords! For 2 months! While still being renters!?! … Life is strange some days...
I am very happy to know those coins are coming back now and will be with me even if we move sooner than expected. I will be very happy to have my 10Gs back home.
I am also glad because I'm about to send it the Zimbabwe coins and had kind of wanted to have these shipped home first - I don't even know why. It was just giving me pause to mail off another box when these were not done, even knowing they would probably come back as soon as the Dove cleared NCS which I knew would probably be only 1-2 more weeks. If I had mailed the Zimbabwe coins last week and NGC had shipped these next week like I had expected I probably would have still had the 10Gs before the Z coins were taken out of the box. But I feel like I've been a bit weird about having those 10G coins away from me ever since I had this idea about a year ago.
I will be trying to get the Z coins mailed within the next few days.

With regard to timing, I feel NGC did good. I mailed the coins on 3/30 if I remember right and they arrived at NGC around 4/6. They showed in the system on 4/21 and were shipped back on 5/25. I think they would have shipped home 2 weeks ago but everything has been waiting on the Dove. NCS did quite well. Their turnaround times have been about 22 working days. It has only been 22 calendar days and 16 working days since they sent me the letter about it needing work. Overall, with them coming back about 7 weeks after I mailed them and 6 weeks after they got them - about 30-35 working days for NGC - I would say they held to their turnaround time estimates and did very solid - even with the Dove causing a delay. I am quite pleased.
I also could have had my other coins back faster if I had not asked NGC to hold them and ship them all back together, which they did, saving me a chunk of cash since the other 3 basically got to hitch back with the 10Gs for free - after having hitched on the way over with the 10Gs for no extra cost.

When I first started collecting Irish copper, I set a goal to complete a “type set” of the coinage struck at the Soho Mint. This set would only consist of three coins (i.e., an 1805 penny, 1805 halfpenny, and 1806 farthing). I limited myself to the business strike examples as I thought they would be more attainable given my budget. Within a year, I had a solid set built, and I have since been upgrading to nicer examples as they come up for sale. For instance, I recently upgraded the farthing from an MS-64 to an MS-66 example. Although the assigned grade is generally of little importance to me, in this case the 66 example was drastically superior to the 64. Likewise, I recently upgraded my penny from a brown (BN) to a red-brown (RB). I purchased both of these pennies raw and had them graded, and I am stoked that it is currently the only RB example graded at either NGC or PCGS. In both of these instances, a future upgrade is highly unlikely. I am still hunting for a suitable upgrade for the halfpenny, but I am in no hurry.

With that set complete, my attention was then drawn to the proofs. My goal was simple, replicate the type set but with all proof examples. I decided to forgo adding gilt specimens as they are often much more expensive, and I generally do not find them particularly interesting. I had already acquired several very nice examples of the 1806 proof farthing by complete happenstance, so I only needed to track down the halfpenny and penny. The halfpenny proved to be a bit more challenging than I initially thought it would be. Most of the examples that came up for sale were gilt proofs, and the handful of non-gilt examples that were available were not very eye appealing. Eventually, a nice raw example came up for auction, and I did not hesitate to pull the trigger. As I often do, I had the coin graded mostly to protect it in the NGC slab and be able to display it in my custom registry sets. I was delighted when it came back with the cameo designation, but I regret not requesting NGC’s photo services as the toning paired with the cameo contrast make this coin a nightmare to photograph. Nonetheless, I have included my less-than-stellar photos here so you all can get a general idea of what it looks like.
I now only lacked the 1805 proof penny, which would prove a sore topic for me until recently. The proof pennies tend to come up for sale much more frequently than either the farthings of halfpennies, which in part made me pickier about adding an example to the collection. I watched several very nice examples pass through various auction houses without placing a bid, mainly because these coins seemed to be selling for very strong prices. I did not want to pay an exorbitant price for a relatively common coin just to complete a set, but I was willing to pay more for an exceptional coin. I told myself that I would go all-in for a nice cameo piece (either graded or raw) or a nice example with the original shells. After a little over a year of searching, I stumbled upon my newest addition, an 1805 proof Irish Penny with the original silver-lined brass shells (pictured below)!

It took me a bit longer than I initially expected, but I am happy to say that both of these type sets are complete! It is also worth noting that this is currently the only Irish piece in my collection that has retained its original shells. As some of you may know, I have a bit of a weakness when it comes to these pieces. For now, I am very excited to have this goal complete, but I may end up building another set in the near future. Maybe this time, I will include the gilt pieces.

I learned several weeks ago that my friend, Bill McKivor, passed away. I have missed him sorely, but I refrained from posting about it until his family released an obituary (you can find that here). Many of you who knew him have likely already heard, but I wanted to post it here for those who have not.
Bill and I did not meet until May of last year, but in the relatively short amount of time that I knew him, he quickly became one of my favorite people. Bill was an unusually kind and generous person who exemplified the type of comradery which often brings new people to this hobby. While talking with another gentleman who was well acquainted with Bill, he described Bill’s ability to carry on a conversation as legendary. This description seems more than appropriate to me. Bill and I initially emailed one another, but eventually, our messages got too long, and with the issues Bill often experienced with his outlook program, we decided to continue our conversations on the phone. We spent hours talking, and on more than one occasion, we had to end our conversation early because our phone batteries couldn’t keep up! I made a point to plug my phone up before our calls, but it never seemed to last long enough.

In line with every other aspect, Bill was exceedingly generous with the information he had. I learned so much about the Soho Mint, Matthew Boulton, antique cars, tokens, and medals in such a short time. It never ceased to amaze me how much Bill knew about seemingly obscure topics, such as the silver-lined brass shells produced at the Soho Mint. I spent months researching the topic on the internet with little luck, but within 30 minutes, Bill had provided me with enough contextual information to provide a solid foundation for a short article. I hope to resubmit that article for publication soon, which I plan to dedicate in his honor. While discussing the silver-lined brass shells, Bill shared his passion for the medals produced at the Soho Mint, and this is the slippery slope that eventually led to my wallet becoming a bit thinner. He talked about the historical context of the pieces, the vast array of the art depicted on them, and the numerous nuances of collecting them.
I eventually found myself pursuing several medals at an auction, and after winning, I quickly realized just how woefully underprepared I was for their arrival. These things were huge and of such high relief in comparison to the coinage. It did not take long for me to realize I was well out of my league insofar as storage was concerned. I called Bill for advice, and he provided some very helpful suggestions. About a week later, I received an unsolicited package from him with cloth holders to help store the larger medals that would not fit my extra-large flips. I offered to pay for them, but Bill refused. In another instance, he sent me a copy of The MCA Advisory (Vol 20, No. 3, May-June, 2017), which detailed his collection of Soho Medals to aid my research. Again, I offered to pay him for it, but he said helping was payment enough. He wanted no further conversation on the topic. That was just the type of guy he was. If he could help, he would, and he did so without an expectation of anything in return.

Beyond Bill’s willingness, if not insistence upon being helpful, he was a thoughtful and genuine person. This was abundantly clear when we talked about politics, religion, marriage, travel, or just about every other topic that one can think of. He had so many extraordinary stories to share that always seemed to highlight the importance of some life lesson. He always encouraged me to grasp opportunities when they present themselves, and in part, this is what motivated me to start collecting medals. He piqued my interest by sharing his passion for them. I could not think of a better excuse for pursuing so many incredible pieces than having the guru to discuss them with!
Had it not been for Bill sharing his passion, I would have almost certainly overlooked the medals and subsequently an essential part of Soho’s history. Any consideration of the Soho Mint is incomplete without also taking into account the role of medal engraving. As such, it seems fitting that his memory should live on in my collection as I pursue the very pieces that he once held in such high regard. I plan to build a detailed custom set, similar to my others, which highlights the rich history of the medals struck at the Soho Mint. I hope that by doing so, I may help others discover the series and perhaps extend the same generosity afforded to me by Bill. I regret to say that I only had the pleasure to purchase two items from him, both of which are pictured here. As you can see, Bill had a real eye for quality!  
 

The last few weeks have been very busy. Perhaps this is why I was so surprised to find a package from NGC in my mailbox today. I was so excited that I did not make it to the front door before I had the package ripped open and the coin in hand. Usually, I make an effort not to open coin-related mail outside, but my excitement got the best of me.
On any note, I received an 1881 S Morgan Dollar graded MS-64 with the notation of “2020 NGC Registry Award Winner” on the label. This is the only silver dollar I have in my collection, but I plan to display it along with the plaque. The cert verification images do this coin no justice, so I took a few very quick pictures. Photographing silver dollars is entirely new to me, so this proved an interesting experience. As I noted in one of my previous journal entries, I have been slowly gathering lower-value coins to hone my photography skills, so photographing this coin was a real treat for me. I am not entirely happy with how the pictures turned out, so I plan to retry once I have more time.

In 2019 I won the most creative custom set award, and that plaque has been proudly displayed on top of the bookcase behind my desk since it arrived. I plan to take a trip to Walmart tonight to find a stand for the 2020 award so that they can be displayed together. I can’t help but wonder how my wife will react when I add it alongside the other. She is very supportive, but she still likes to tease me about my “mega nerd” hobby now and again.

I had the pleasure of speaking with one of the higher-ups at NGC the other day to request a special favor, and it reconfirmed everything I knew about NGC. I am a small-time collector, yet this gentleman took the time to discuss my request and encouraged me to send my items his way. It never ceases to amaze me how dedicated NGC is to the hobby and how willing they are to go the extra mile to help collectors. I have already figured out how to spend the $500 grading credit generously provided by our hosts to further my collecting goals, which I hope to detail in a future journal.
I want to thank NGC and the staff for their consideration, and I look forward to competing again this year!
Once again, congratulations to all of the winners!

So, unlike with the PMG plaque, which arrived on 2/27 - much to my shock – I can’t really call this one a surprise in the mail. I’d seen other’s posting about getting theirs on Monday and Tuesday, so I knew the arrival of this package was probably imminent. Still, it was great to get it.
My home office and my windows sit almost directly above the front door to the house, so I heard the carrier scanning the barcodes and the beeping as it was dropped off and I wondered in that moment if that’s what it was because I wasn’t expecting anything else in the mail today.
I didn’t open it right away. I took it upstairs and stuck it in the bedroom to wait until after the kids were asleep. I will likely repeat what I did last year and try to get a shot of the two boys together this year holding the two plaques for this year now that I have both, but I wanted to get a minute and just enjoy opening this and looking at it in peace myself. I opened the PMG plaque with Sam around and it took a while before he let me have it back.


So, here’s the coin:

A MS64 1881-S Morgan, which will be quite a partner / buddy for my MS64 1882-S Morgan.  I'm now ranked in the top 1,700 for Morgan sets in the registry. It's straight to the top now! #1 set, 2021 awards!
I had guessed that the coin would be a 1 or 2 ounce graded silver NCLT from 2020. I was wrong and very pleasantly surprised. Fenntucky Mike posted an image of his full slab and (unsurprisingly) looks like all these Award Winner coins have the same 7-digit invoice number and they’re numbered 001 through… 50? I think? He got number -008 and I have -022. Gary appears to have -034.I wonder who got -001? Who got the last / highest number. I'm sure it was all random but it is funny to think about.
(Edited to add this bit, which I'd said as a comment elsewhere) Honestly, the sheer number of coins they had to give away - and the unstated expectation that everyone would be getting the same / mostly the same thing - is the main reason I was REALLY expecting the coin to be 2020 NCLT, just because those would fit because of the year and would be easy to get in an arbitrarily large number in the same basic grade / condition (69/70).They really surprised me with this one, managing to give 50+ people MS64 Morgans from San Francisco from just a couple of years, but, as Gary said, they are more common dates. Even then, I really wonder if it was at all "interesting" to round them up and how they went about it - Did they go into the market for RAW coins until they had enough MS64s? Did they buy some of their previously graded MS64's on the market? A little of both?
When the PMG plaque arrived I posted a shot of the 5 together and Fenntucky Mike said something along the lines of I’d need another or a bigger shelf soon. I shifted some things around, cleaned up my desk, and popped over to Michael’s to buy another stand last month, so here is my proof. I made it work (for now). If NGC or PMG are nice enough to give me something next year I'll cross that bridge and deal with that “problem” when the time comes.

I also got the new certificates in the mail over the weekend. So far, I’ve managed to keep track of all the certificates I’ve gotten since 2016 – including now 5 certificates for the 10G set for all the years since my marriage and Ben's birth.. 
Thanks again to NGC! Thanks again for those who read these and say they like it / what I write.
The version of myself that Joined the registry in 2007, the version of myself that started this journal as a 20 year old, did not, and would not have imagined this. Not what’s sitting on my desk hutch now, not my life as it is now, not my wife or my sons, not this past year.
I’m not done yet! More to come!
Side note, but one of Shandy’s current obsessions is our next housing situation. With our current lease up on 3/31/2022 she’s looking to move us closer to her parents for more access to free baby-sitting and more date nights. So there’s a good chance that, if I win anything next year – be it plaques or certificates – they’ll be delivered to the new address / the new home or subject to mail forwarding. But we’re hoping that will be the last home – for the foreseeable future anyway. She was looking at this last night even!
I think Ben’s Beyblade collection now numbers 19 – with three more seemingly lost forever in some magical void that only children can access in some 1-way capacity. I’m pretty committed to not buying more but he does get a weekly allowance now so what ne does with his allowance is his business!

The last few weeks have been very busy. Perhaps this is why I was so surprised to find a package from NGC in my mailbox today. I was so excited that I did not make it to the front door before I had the package ripped open and the coin in hand. Usually, I make an effort not to open coin-related mail outside, but my excitement got the best of me.
On any note, I received an 1881 S Morgan Dollar graded MS-64 with the notation of “2020 NGC Registry Award Winner” on the label. This is the only silver dollar I have in my collection, but I plan to display it along with the plaque. The cert verification images do this coin no justice, so I took a few very quick pictures. Photographing silver dollars is entirely new to me, so this proved an interesting experience. As I noted in one of my previous journal entries, I have been slowly gathering lower-value coins to hone my photography skills, so photographing this coin was a real treat for me. I am not entirely happy with how the pictures turned out, so I plan to retry once I have more time.

In 2019 I won the most creative custom set award, and that plaque has been proudly displayed on top of the bookcase behind my desk since it arrived. I plan to take a trip to Walmart tonight to find a stand for the 2020 award so that they can be displayed together. I can’t help but wonder how my wife will react when I add it alongside the other. She is very supportive, but she still likes to tease me about my “mega nerd” hobby now and again.

I had the pleasure of speaking with one of the higher-ups at NGC the other day to request a special favor, and it reconfirmed everything I knew about NGC. I am a small-time collector, yet this gentleman took the time to discuss my request and encouraged me to send my items his way. It never ceases to amaze me how dedicated NGC is to the hobby and how willing they are to go the extra mile to help collectors. I have already figured out how to spend the $500 grading credit generously provided by our hosts to further my collecting goals, which I hope to detail in a future journal.
I want to thank NGC and the staff for their consideration, and I look forward to competing again this year!
Once again, congratulations to all of the winners!

The last few weeks have been very busy. Perhaps this is why I was so surprised to find a package from NGC in my mailbox today. I was so excited that I did not make it to the front door before I had the package ripped open and the coin in hand. Usually, I make an effort not to open coin-related mail outside, but my excitement got the best of me.
On any note, I received an 1881 S Morgan Dollar graded MS-64 with the notation of “2020 NGC Registry Award Winner” on the label. This is the only silver dollar I have in my collection, but I plan to display it along with the plaque. The cert verification images do this coin no justice, so I took a few very quick pictures. Photographing silver dollars is entirely new to me, so this proved an interesting experience. As I noted in one of my previous journal entries, I have been slowly gathering lower-value coins to hone my photography skills, so photographing this coin was a real treat for me. I am not entirely happy with how the pictures turned out, so I plan to retry once I have more time.

In 2019 I won the most creative custom set award, and that plaque has been proudly displayed on top of the bookcase behind my desk since it arrived. I plan to take a trip to Walmart tonight to find a stand for the 2020 award so that they can be displayed together. I can’t help but wonder how my wife will react when I add it alongside the other. She is very supportive, but she still likes to tease me about my “mega nerd” hobby now and again.

I had the pleasure of speaking with one of the higher-ups at NGC the other day to request a special favor, and it reconfirmed everything I knew about NGC. I am a small-time collector, yet this gentleman took the time to discuss my request and encouraged me to send my items his way. It never ceases to amaze me how dedicated NGC is to the hobby and how willing they are to go the extra mile to help collectors. I have already figured out how to spend the $500 grading credit generously provided by our hosts to further my collecting goals, which I hope to detail in a future journal.
I want to thank NGC and the staff for their consideration, and I look forward to competing again this year!
Once again, congratulations to all of the winners!

The last few weeks have been very busy. Perhaps this is why I was so surprised to find a package from NGC in my mailbox today. I was so excited that I did not make it to the front door before I had the package ripped open and the coin in hand. Usually, I make an effort not to open coin-related mail outside, but my excitement got the best of me.
On any note, I received an 1881 S Morgan Dollar graded MS-64 with the notation of “2020 NGC Registry Award Winner” on the label. This is the only silver dollar I have in my collection, but I plan to display it along with the plaque. The cert verification images do this coin no justice, so I took a few very quick pictures. Photographing silver dollars is entirely new to me, so this proved an interesting experience. As I noted in one of my previous journal entries, I have been slowly gathering lower-value coins to hone my photography skills, so photographing this coin was a real treat for me. I am not entirely happy with how the pictures turned out, so I plan to retry once I have more time.

In 2019 I won the most creative custom set award, and that plaque has been proudly displayed on top of the bookcase behind my desk since it arrived. I plan to take a trip to Walmart tonight to find a stand for the 2020 award so that they can be displayed together. I can’t help but wonder how my wife will react when I add it alongside the other. She is very supportive, but she still likes to tease me about my “mega nerd” hobby now and again.

I had the pleasure of speaking with one of the higher-ups at NGC the other day to request a special favor, and it reconfirmed everything I knew about NGC. I am a small-time collector, yet this gentleman took the time to discuss my request and encouraged me to send my items his way. It never ceases to amaze me how dedicated NGC is to the hobby and how willing they are to go the extra mile to help collectors. I have already figured out how to spend the $500 grading credit generously provided by our hosts to further my collecting goals, which I hope to detail in a future journal.
I want to thank NGC and the staff for their consideration, and I look forward to competing again this year!
Once again, congratulations to all of the winners!

The last few weeks have been very busy. Perhaps this is why I was so surprised to find a package from NGC in my mailbox today. I was so excited that I did not make it to the front door before I had the package ripped open and the coin in hand. Usually, I make an effort not to open coin-related mail outside, but my excitement got the best of me.
On any note, I received an 1881 S Morgan Dollar graded MS-64 with the notation of “2020 NGC Registry Award Winner” on the label. This is the only silver dollar I have in my collection, but I plan to display it along with the plaque. The cert verification images do this coin no justice, so I took a few very quick pictures. Photographing silver dollars is entirely new to me, so this proved an interesting experience. As I noted in one of my previous journal entries, I have been slowly gathering lower-value coins to hone my photography skills, so photographing this coin was a real treat for me. I am not entirely happy with how the pictures turned out, so I plan to retry once I have more time.

In 2019 I won the most creative custom set award, and that plaque has been proudly displayed on top of the bookcase behind my desk since it arrived. I plan to take a trip to Walmart tonight to find a stand for the 2020 award so that they can be displayed together. I can’t help but wonder how my wife will react when I add it alongside the other. She is very supportive, but she still likes to tease me about my “mega nerd” hobby now and again.

I had the pleasure of speaking with one of the higher-ups at NGC the other day to request a special favor, and it reconfirmed everything I knew about NGC. I am a small-time collector, yet this gentleman took the time to discuss my request and encouraged me to send my items his way. It never ceases to amaze me how dedicated NGC is to the hobby and how willing they are to go the extra mile to help collectors. I have already figured out how to spend the $500 grading credit generously provided by our hosts to further my collecting goals, which I hope to detail in a future journal.
I want to thank NGC and the staff for their consideration, and I look forward to competing again this year!
Once again, congratulations to all of the winners!