One Pound Charles

http://www.friziodesign.it/coins/charlesIII.png


http://www.friziodesign.it/coins22.html

Interesting...

Yet, if we respect tradition, the profile should be to the left, so here's a slightly revised version:





I read somewhere that Canada would do away with the monarch's portrait after the passing of Elizabeth -- if that ever happens...

Quote: "Camerinvs"​Interesting...
​
​Yet, if we respect tradition, the profile should be to the left, so here's a slightly revised version:
​
​
​
​
​
​I read somewhere that Canada would do away with the monarch's portrait after the passing of Elizabeth -- if that ever happens...

​I also hear that Charles may not actually use his name, but one of his middle names instead. Apparently King Charles' have a bad rep.

Quote: "Camerinvs"​Interesting...
​
​Yet, if we respect tradition, the profile should be to the left, so here's a slightly revised version:
​
​
​
​
​
​I read somewhere that Canada would do away with the monarch's portrait after the passing of Elizabeth -- if that ever happens...

​That would be interesting. It'd give a fresh lease of life on numismatics in Canada in terms of having creative liberty to do something nice with the obverse. I think retaining a crown &/or insignia like some of the scandi countries would open up a lot of real estate on the coin

updated version  :-)

http://www.friziodesign.it/coins/carolusIII.png

http://www.friziodesign.it/coins22.html

Quote: "WHATEVERR"​

Quote: "Camerinvs"​Interesting...
​​
​​Yet, if we respect tradition, the profile should be to the left, so here's a slightly revised version:
​​
​​
​​
​​
​​
​​I read somewhere that Canada would do away with the monarch's portrait after the passing of Elizabeth -- if that ever happens...

​​I also hear that Charles may not actually use his name, but one of his middle names instead. Apparently King Charles' have a bad rep.

​Everytime I hear that reasoning the historian in me goes all ... I mean King Charles I did end up in a civil war and having his head chopped off, but he was only one of two monarchs called Charles; the other, his son Charles II, was restored to the throne in 1660, two years after Cromwell died, and his reign was relatively peaceful for England (sure, the Great Plague and Great Fire of London in 1665 and 1666, but there was also a Dutch invasion defeated in 1667).

So for English/British monarchs called Charles, statistically it's a 50/50 chance of things going off the rails.

For those interested we discussed the same issue some months ago starting at this post.

I am not particularly fond of the idea of a monarchy which, we are told, rules DEI GRATIA (yeah, right), but I like the combination of continuity, tradition, and change that monarchical portraits provide on coinage. The portrait is linked to the period when it is used on the coins unlike, e.g., abstract figures of Freedom or Republic, or portraits of dead leaders. Just a personal opinion.

Quote: "Camerinvs"​For those interested we discussed the same issue some months ago starting at this post.
​
​I am not particularly fond of the idea of a monarchy which, we are told, rules DEI GRATIA (yeah, right), but I like the combination of continuity, tradition, and change that monarchical portraits provide on coinage. The portrait is linked to the period when it is used on the coins unlike, e.g., abstract figures of Freedom or Republic, or portraits of dead leaders. Just a personal opinion.
​

​As long as it's just a declawed, purely ceremonial constitutional monarchy, and not some despotic, absolutist tyrant, I'm more than happy to keep a monarchy about, regardless of whether they claim to rule by the grace of some God.

It's not completely true that allegorical depictions are less representative of historical era; for example the Mariannes by Turin and Morlon in the 1930s bear distinctively more modern lines and flow than the Belle Époque era Ceres coins, very much more 19th century. On the other hand, Republican imagery can also represent continuity, with the recycled designs like Roty's Semeuse and Dupré's Herculean trio, both having been used at various intervals since their inception.

Quote: "CassTaylor"​​It's not completely true that allegorical depictions are less representative of historical era; for example the Mariannes by Turin and Morlon in the 1930s bear distinctively more modern lines and flow than the Belle Époque era Ceres coins, very much more 19th century. On the other hand, Republican imagery can also represent continuity, with the recycled designs like Roty's Semeuse and Dupré's Herculean trio, both having been used at various intervals since their inception.
​

​Oh, if you put it that way, sure. I was thinking of countries like Switzerland where the allegories on the circulating coinage have remained the same pretty much since the later 19th century, but of course this could be taken to reflect the neutral political status of the country. Likewise, I find most of Roman Republican coinage quite boring.

Yeah, and conversely some monarchies' coins can be extremely boring; think about Chinese cash, for example; literally millennia of the same sort of coins, differentiable only by rulers' names and the occasional variety, being issued, and in the case of one type, the "Wu Zhu" coins, the same type being issued for 736 years, from 118BC to 618 AD.

Less extreme cases include the Russian Empire's designs from the late 18th to early 20th centuries, featuring only the Romanov eagle without attribution or much change in theme, or the Dutch East Indies coinage, whether duits or the decimalised currency, which maintained the same crowned arms until 1945 on most coins.

http://www.friziodesign.it/coins22.html

@frizio

Those are all interesting, but I just noticed your coins have monarchs' names in English, wheras British coins have always had them in Latin (e.g. GEORGIUS V instead of George V).

Charles would be CAROLUS III, as seen on Spanish coins of the Bourbon monarch with the same name in the 18th century, and William would be GULIELIMUS V, like Queen Victoria's uncle and predecessor. That's assuming they take those as their regnal names, of course.

see my website, have other version with latin names..  :-)

Quote: "CassTaylor"​Yeah, and conversely some monarchies' coins can be extremely boring; think about Chinese cash, for example; literally millennia of the same sort of coins, differentiable only by rulers' names and the occasional variety, being issued, and in the case of one type, the "Wu Zhu" coins, the same type being issued for 736 years, from 118BC to 618 AD.
​
​Less extreme cases include the Russian Empire's designs from the late 18th to early 20th centuries, featuring only the Romanov eagle without attribution or much change in theme, or the Dutch East Indies coinage, whether duits or the decimalised currency, which maintained the same crowned arms until 1945 on most coins.

​Oh yes, of course, but that's why I was specifically talking about monarchical portraits.

And most Islamic caliphate coinages will remain much more affordable than they should be since, with few exceptions until the modern world, they bear only inscriptions that few people can decipher (intentionally using an Arabic word here). I remember an old collector telling me basically that Islamic coinage was a sleeper, but I had to disagree. It is not going to wake up from its "sleep" on the market because it is meaningless to most. Even Harun ar-Rashid means nothing, now, to most westerners — imagine the same name written in Arabic, barely legible on the edge of a thin dirham...

Ah, I see, gotcha!

Monarchial portraits are indeed more varied, but it comes down to phases; for example apart from a few tweaks, Queen Victoria's young head remained on British coinage for almost 50 years. Arguably the reverses of coins with long-running monarchial portraits are more relevant when it comes to historical flavour, but not with British coins it seems; just see how long the Royal Mint has been using some designs.

Absolutely true about coins with only Arabic script; even on the Identifications forum a lot of the requests we get are for modern coins from countries like Egypt, the Ottoman Empire, Iran, etc, and these coins often are undervalued in the West. So just armed with a bit of basic knowledge you can spot an old coin in a junk bin the dealer missed.

Quote: "CassTaylor"​Monarchial portraits are indeed more varied, but it comes down to phases; for example apart from a few tweaks, Queen Victoria's young head remained on British coinage for almost 50 years. Arguably the reverses of coins with long-running monarchial portraits are more relevant when it comes to historical flavour, but not with British coins it seems; just see how long the Royal Mint has been using some designs.

​True, though you had the "Bun Head" and Gothic portraits, and then –admittedly after 50 years– the Jubilee and Old Head portraits. A lot more variety than in Canada. We have the young head and then, for denominations that changed in some way after 1859, a more mature portrait – that's it.

Well, the mature portrait was slightly modified to look older over time. Is it not the same with the "bun head" in the UK?

I believe so, yes. I'm not sure what the difference in the bun head types are, but I've long thought it was a variety of the bust, like how they modified the young head's ponytail a bit midway through it's lifespan.



Here are halfpennies from the Numista catalogue; the left is KM#748 and the right is KM#754, although I see no difference in the busts (she seems a little stouter in the second, which I presume is what you mean?). If it's a difference in the reverse, or something else instead, feel free to enlighten me on that.

The leaves on one version almost touch the D:G: lettering, the hair on
top goes in different directions, the ribbon looks redesigned, and so on ...
[click to enlarge]

Thanks Zac, for the illustration.

That’s a nice one, but I really hope Canada and other similar countries get rid of monarch’s portrait from their national coins soon...

Here are two portraits from Canadian 50¢ coins:



Can you tell which one was struck in 1870 and which one in 1900?

Quote: "Camerinvs"​Here are two portraits from Canadian 50¢ coins:
​
​
​
​Can you tell which one was struck in 1870 and which one in 1900?

​I think the left is 1870 with the slightly curved upper lip, the right being 1900 with more double chin.

I actually heard a few months ago from a finnish newspaper that queen Elizabeth would possibly resign during the next 5 yrs.

Quote: "Monninen1"​I actually heard a few months ago from a finnish newspaper that queen Elizabeth would possibly resign during the next 5 yrs.

I very strongly doubt that. It may come to a time when Charles becomes Prince Regent, but Queen Elizabeth would not abdicate.

Quote: "WHATEVERR"​

Quote: "Monninen1"​I actually heard a few months ago from a finnish newspaper that queen Elizabeth would possibly resign during the next 5 yrs.

​I very strongly doubt that. It may come to a time when Charles becomes Prince Regent, but Queen Elizabeth would not abdicate.

​Agreed.

There's a whole bunch of gossip going around that QEII will abdicate soon, after her diamond jubilee, or some other unspecified date in the future. I honestly want her to rule at least until 2026, would be pretty cool to have a reigning centenarian monarch.

Yep, sometimes Finnish newspapers cannot be trusted.
They wrote tens of articles about a Finnish member of parliament. (he has done many things before for example sexually harassing other members) The man lived in a sauna.


But I think elizabeth will live for atleast 100 years. His mother lived for 101

Everybody --politicians, journalists, etc.-- is ready in case Elizabeth dies. There were several reports, about two years ago, that Charles had started to take over some of the duties, and she has cut back on most ceremonial functions, and on pretty much all travels of course. But she remains the head of state.

I doubt she would abdicate. This is not much in the British tradition, unlike the Dutch tradition. OK, sure, Edward VIII abdicated, but it's a special case. And if I'm not mistaken George III was basically incompetent to rule in the last decade or so of his reign, when his son basically ruled for him until his death.

By the way, I don't know if it's true, but there is a story that the film "The Madness of George III" was renamed "The Madness of King George" for the North-American public (and this part is true), because (and this is the part I don't trust) the producers/distributors were afraid the Americans would stay away thinking that "III" was a sequel !!! "I've not seen "I" and "II", I'm not going to "III" either!"

Oh! And yes, atdavid: 1870 on the left; 1900 on the right.

Quote: "Camerinvs"​​
​By the way, I don't know if it's true, but there is a story that the film "The Madness of George III" was renamed "The Madness of King George" for the North-American public (and this part is true), because (and this is the part I don't trust) the producers/distributors were afraid the Americans would stay away thinking that "III" was a sequel !!! "I've not seen "I" and "II", I'm not going to "III" either!"

That's a sad state of affairs. Of all British monarchs he would be the one whose reign intersected with US history the most. I reckon it's partly due to America's sense of rugged individualism and rejecting of royal patronage.​

There's a probably true story that America's pale version of the great C.B. Fry, Jim Thorpe, was being presented with his Olympic gold medal (later unjustly stripped) by Sweden's King Gustav who congratulated on his many achievements. To which Thorpe replied "Thanks King!"

It's hard not to love that guy. I know he's been on a postage stamp but not as far as I know on a coin. If anyone deserves a spot it's Jim Thorpe.

Quote: "Camerinvs"​I doubt she would abdicate. This is not much in the British tradition, unlike the Dutch tradition. OK, sure, Edward VIII abdicated, but it's a special case. And if I'm not mistaken George III was basically incompetent to rule in the last decade or so of his reign, when his son basically ruled for him until his death.
​
​By the way, I don't know if it's true, but there is a story that the film "The Madness of George III" was renamed "The Madness of King George" for the North-American public (and this part is true), because (and this is the part I don't trust) the producers/distributors were afraid the Americans would stay away thinking that "III" was a sequel !!! "I've not seen "I" and "II", I'm not going to "III" either!"
​
​

I have very little trouble believing that.

I've watched that film, and personally I think it overdramatises the narrative for story/plot purposes (somewhat expected from a film, but still).

At the end King George ends up reconciled with his family and all is well, but in reality he slipped back into "madness" (historians still debate the exact cause of his illness), and in 1811 Parliament passed the Regency Act, making his son, the future George IV Prince Regent until the old king's death in 1820. Pretty tragic if you ask me, but it's not like the Hanoverians were known for great father-son relationships.
​

Quote: "CassTaylor"​​At the end King George ends up reconciled with his family and all is well, but in reality he slipped back into "madness" (historians still debate the exact cause of his illness), and in 1811 Parliament passed the Regency Act, making his son, the future George IV Prince Regent until the old king's death in 1820. Pretty tragic if you ask me, but it's not like the Hanoverians were known for great father-son relationships.
​​

​And that's why you have a historical period called the Regency, and the Regency style in furniture as well.