Guernsey square 10 shillings, plus alternative design

Started by Galapagos, May 16, 2009, 01:45:56 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Galapagos



Guernsey, 10 shillings, 1966.


I've always liked this design. It's a non-circulating coin, of course, but an attractive one, to commemorate William the Conqueror.

It was designed by Arnold Machin, whose portrait of Queen Elizabeth graced many coins, including the obverse of this one.

Mr Machin also designed the beautiful reverses of the first modern coins of the Bahamas of 1966 onwards.

chrisild

Ah yes, the Beginning of England. ;D

The shape of the coin is interesting. Square coins with rounded corners can even be found as circulation coins, especially some British and Dutch overseas territories, but in Europe there aren't many. What I find a little strange is that, while the shape is square, the design does not reflect that: The inscription is perfect for a perfectly round coin ...

Christian

Figleaf

The design is rather romanticized, but still very attractive. Warriors in those days normally had scarred faces from the battles they fought.

The standard fight was one of shield walls: the two armies would line up long lines of men, with interlocking shields. A man behind each fighter would defend the front man's head and shoulders, while the front line men would fight with the heavy iron or brass knobs of their shields, spears, battle axes and short swords, poking at each other as they stood only a few decimeters apart. Maiming and wounding was common and there was little knowledge on how to treat wounds.

Cavalry was pretty useless against a shield wall, as horses will not go into a range of spears pointed at them. Only when an enemy shield wall broke, would cavalry come into action to kill stragglers and fugitives. High nobility would be expected to dismount and fight in a shield wall until it would break from time to time, so any duke could expect to have a couple of ugly scars in due time, if only to get some respect from his warriors.

Peter
An unidentified coin is a piece of metal. An identified coin is a piece of history.

Galapagos

#3
Norman_style.jpg

Norman style.


Mr Machin did experiment with different styles.

He portrayed William in both Norman (longer hair + moustache) and Saxon styles.

The Saxon style won, so William appears with a sort of 1970s look.  :)


Christian makes the percipient point that the coin is square, yet the inscription is circular.

Yet still this mixture seems to work very well, design-wise.


Above is a photocopy of Arnold Machin's alternative design.

I found it in the National Archives at Kew.

It resembles something on a beer bottle label. I'm glad it wasn't adopted.


See also: Guernsey Decimal Variations.

Figleaf

I agree. This design really looks like a round die on a square planchet. FWIW, the Bayeux tapestry shows both parties clean shaven.

Peter
An unidentified coin is a piece of metal. An identified coin is a piece of history.

Galapagos

Norman-style negative.jpg


On a hunch, I've just used my graphics package to put this image into negative.

Does it look any better?

Figleaf

I guess this is how it was drawn. Good hunch.

Peter
An unidentified coin is a piece of metal. An identified coin is a piece of history.

translateltd

Quote from: Figleaf on August 26, 2009, 11:03:43 PM
I guess this is how it was drawn. Good hunch.

Peter

Not necessarily, though - James Berry reversed out his drawings for the 1967 NZ decimal coins, which made them quite striking (no pun intended), but he was criticised at the time for using a technique that differed from that of his competitors, seemingly giving him an unfair advantage when a row of proposed designs for individual denominations was considered!


Figleaf

I wouldn't have agreed. Presentation is important. A good presentation implies creativity and and raises the chance that the designer will be communicative, attentive to detail and open to technical issues that will rise when the design is made into a working die. It is incumbent on the others to come up with a good presentation, not on the good presentor to level down to the worst.

Peter
An unidentified coin is a piece of metal. An identified coin is a piece of history.

<k>

I am looking back over my old notes about National Archives, and this is what I found:

Discussion of whether inscription referring to William I should be abbreviated and in Latin, or in English. English won.  Also whether "double crown" or "ten shillings" in inscription. Guernsey keen for "double crown" at first.

Evidently I was more interested in posting alternative designs, when I wrote this topic. I have never heard of a double crown before.
Visit the website of The Royal Mint Museum.

See: The Royal Mint Museum.

Figleaf

Quote from: <k> on September 28, 2018, 12:04:58 PM
I have never heard of a double crown before.

Several flyspeck territories issued pseudo-coins denominated in multiple crowns. The Isle of Man is a prime example.

Peter
An unidentified coin is a piece of metal. An identified coin is a piece of history.

<k>

It is true. Generally Guernsey has been much more conservative in its "collector coin issuing" policies than the Isle of Man, though.
Visit the website of The Royal Mint Museum.

See: The Royal Mint Museum.

malj1

There were several "double crown" but issued in gold.

Notably Charles I and James I but also Commonwealth gold Double-Crown 1651 under Cromwell.
Malcolm
Have a look at  my tokens and my banknotes.

<k>

I see. I'd never heard of it. I usually don't stray that far back in history, but I'll google it.
Visit the website of The Royal Mint Museum.

See: The Royal Mint Museum.