Royal Mint Announces Plans for New Effigy of Queen Elizabeth II

[malj1]

Here is a better image.

Taken from the April edition of The Australasian Coin & Banknote Magazine.

[Alan71]

I've got the Royal Mint set of the eight denominations with the new portrait.  As others have said, it isn't all that different to the Rank-Broadley one.  It's the difference in the inscription that is more significant.  For once we have the date the right way up!  To me it's the most important thing on a non-commemorative coin so it's good to see it at the top.

However, I don't really see the point in expanding the abbreviation.  Either in Latin or English, it means fairly little in modern Britain.  It's time it went really.  Other than those with an interest in coins (or Latin), who would know what it means?  By the grace of God, Queen, Defender of the faith. It makes her sound like she stands outside churches all the time, warding off some sort of threat!

A little known fact about the new design is that it means, for the first time since 1981, all circulating denominations have exactly the same inscription (including the date) on the obverse.  Either the 20p or £2 (or both) have scuppered that from 1982 onwards.

[Figleaf]

Defender of the Faith is traditionally and religiously correct, which is not a great argument, but there you are. The Arabic equivalent would be amir al-muminin, a popular title among dead despots.

It has an important difference in connotation, though. The English variant is conjuring up a picture of a well-fed royal (say Henry VIII) on a somewhat inelegant, but big, strong horse saying: now watch, rabble while I defend the faith. The Arabic version reminds you more of a despot suffering from a severe case of conspicuous consumption on a fiery horse saying: all right, rabble. This is your chance. Go down and defend the faith while I watch. It's just a bit more practical, more realistic and less dangerous to the ruler's health.

Peter

[Bimat]

Coins with new portrait of Queen have been struck. Watch your change!

Aditya

[Alan71]

They were struck before the unveiling of the new portrait, in order for sets to be produced!

It will be interesting what we will get this year.  The 1p with the old portrait dated 2015 has been issued, but I hope not all the denominations are.  There are three potential £1 coin types and three £2 coins with either old or new standard designs.  And will the commemoratives be issued with the new portrait?

I do hope the Royal Mint's monopoly on collector coins is broken at some point.  It's long overdue.

[Figleaf]

I do hope the Royal Mint's monopoly on collector coins is broken at some point.  It's long overdue.

You would be disappointed if it was. As the Greeks put it, the gods fulfil the wishes of those they want to condemn. In economic-technical terms, this is a monopolistic market: one seller, many buyers*. Putting dealers in the distribution chain would make it a oligopoly. The remedy for a monopoly is government oversight. That is in place. Therefore, to change the pricing behaviour, you should start a political lobby. I predict failure. To short-term oriented politicians, price gouging of government institutions is an opportunity for non-tax income that must not be missed (compare passport pricing, which is tempered only by potential charges of hindering international mobility, not by actual cost.)

There is no remedy for an oligopoly where demand is so small that you cannot get to the point where sellers do not dominate buyers. The result is a kinked demand curve, which is a recipe for overpricing and anti-competitive behaviour. In other words, dealers would all charge the same price. If any dealer would charge a higher price, he would sell nothing. If any dealer would sell at a lower price, he could sell more than his stock. There is therefore a very large incentive to stick to the price all other dealers charge.

People often think supply and demand curves will solve all problems. It's almost the contrary.

Peter

* It's not a pure monopoly, as there is (weak) competition from coins not in sets, sets of other countries, stamps, electronic games etc.

[Alan71]

Do you work for the Royal Mint by any chance? 

Well, anyway, I managed to get the Royal Arms £1 for £11 off eBay (postage included in that) so that's £2 less than the Mint.  Still extortionate though.  There's no way of buying this coin otherwise as it isn't included in any set, this is the first £1 coin to only be available separately.

I would like to see circulation-quality coins made available at the start of the year.  For instance, each coin in the year set available to buy at a fraction above face value.  They could just put them in a plastic pocket sheet and let the buyer (or dealer/seller) assemble a set.  The reason for my buying the year sets is to get all the coins at the start of the year.  Apart from the £5 coins, all of them tend to end up in circulation by the end of the year anyway.  In the 1980s and 1990s, you'd get the year set knowing that at least one of the coins (but often two or more) would never enter circulation.  Since 2000, this hasn't been the case and (apart from a few shield design 50p coins and rarities such as Kew Gardens) they're fairly easy to get from circulation.

Guessing the reason they won't do this is because it would mean even fewer people would bother with the expensive year sets.  BU or uncirculated, there isn't that much difference, and certainly not worth what they charge for them. 

[tonyclayton]

One important point to remember is that British Tradition decrees that successive portraits of the Monarch should become LARGER.   This proves to me yet another failing with our current (2008+) coinage.

Bill.

What tradition is this?  Never heard of it. George IV went smaller. William IV did not change
Victoria went smaller then larger
E VII, GV, EVIII and GVI did not change

[Alan71]

^^ Guessing Bill was just referring to the portraits of the current Queen, but if it is a tradition, it's only a recent one.

Not sure what Bill means about the 2008+ coinage being a failure in that respect though.  The portrait didn't change in 2008, it continued to use the Rank-Broadley one introduced in 1998.  It did, however, become very slightly larger on circular coins issued from 2008 due to the beading on those coins being removed.

It would have been difficult to make the portrait larger than the Rank-Broadley one without shrinking the lettering!  This has been done anyway due to longer abbreviations being used.

[Pabitra]

What tradition is this?  Never heard of it. George IV went smaller. William IV did not change
Victoria went smaller then larger
E VII, GV, EVIII and GVI did not change

I think that it was referring to some tradition about successive portraits of the same monarch. Which monarchs other than the queens have had more than one portrait?

[FosseWay]

I think that it was referring to some tradition about successive portraits of the same monarch. Which monarchs other than the queens have had more than one portrait?

Starting from 1816 when the coinage was reformed:

George III (1816-20) - at least 3 portraits ("bull" head, the less unflattering one it was replaced with, and the one used on the crown)
George IV (1820-30) - as mentioned by someone above, the first head was a rather portly-looking laureate effigy, while the second was a slimmer, smaller, bare head
William IV (1830-7) - only one head AFAIK
Edward VII (1901-10) - ditto
George V (1910-36) - 3 portraits, but the differences are for technical reasons rather than a desire to portray the passage of time in the monarch's features.
Edward VIII (1936) - one
George VI (1936-52) - one

[Alan71]

New portrait 2015 1p coins are now being issued... Got my first one on change yesterday.

[eurocoin]

I asked the currency managers of the treasuries of all countries that currently use a portrait of Queen Elizabeth II on their circulating coins* whether they are planning to introduce the new effigy by Jody Clark in the near future:

Australia: No
Belize: No
Bermuda:
Cayman Islands:
Cook Islands:
Eastern Caribbean States: No
Gibraltar: No
Guernsey: No
Falkland Islands: No
Isle of Man: No
Jersey: No
New Zealand: No
Saint Helena & Ascension:
Solomon Islands: Perhaps on circulating commemoratives; no plans to mint new circulating coins in the near future.

*Excluding Canada.

[Alan71]

I'm wondering what's really going on here.  Is the Royal Mint imposing some charge for using the new portrait, hence no where wanting to use it?  Presumably the Royal Mint as it used to be offered the portrait to any country that showed an interest.  Or is it the fact that it's not that much different to the Rank-Broadley one?  All previous portraits have been significantly different to the one before it, clearly showing an ageing Queen.  This one almost seemed like a change for the sake of it, because the Rank-Broadley one had been in use for longer than any other (narrowly beating the Machin's 17-year UK run by a few months, although Australia had used the Machin for longer).

I don't blame them really.  The Queen still looks like she does in the Rank-Broadley portrait, so no reason for them to change.

[<k>]

Yes, the IRB portrait is far superior to the Clark effigy. No reason to change it.