Royal Mint Announces Plans for New Effigy of Queen Elizabeth II

[<k>]

I was only referring to how I personally think of it.  I wasn't planning on starting a debate about sovereignty!

Legal issues have everything to do with sovereignty, so you are guilty of incorrect thinking. The Jody Clark portrait is official in the UK, whether countries or territories elsewhere use it or not. You could mislead people, who come here looking for accurate and factual information, into thinking it is unofficial.

[Figleaf]

Come on <k>, he was just saying even the crypto-colonies don't use the Clark portrait. Maybe they know your queen is sick and are plotting for independence Besides, the UK has too much sovereinty as it is, you don't need you to add to it Rather beware of those guys in raincoats with upturned collar and homburg carrying an umbrella when it doesn't rain.

Peter

[<k>]

Come on <k>, he was just saying even the crypto-colonies don't use the Clark portrait. Maybe they know your queen is sick and are plotting for independence Besides, the UK has too much sovereinty as it is, you don't need you to add to it

Peter

He wasn't just saying that. He was suggesting it was unofficial. That is exactly the wrong word to use, because it will confuse the readers. In the coin world, if something is not official, then it is not legal. If it is not legal, then it is not legal tender. And if it is not legal tender, then it is not a coin: it is a fantasy. Apart from that, if people believe the portrait is "unofficial", it's a short leap from that to suggesting it will become rare and valuable.

So, I am arguing from the point of view of legality, as it affects sovereignty. Once upon a time, of course, Britain dictated what effigy the Dominions (overseas realms) and colonies (overseas territories) should have. I think it is a good thing that they can choose or reject the portrait that the UK uses. I would actually have made the same choice as many of them and continued with the IRB portrait. However, my opinion on all this doesn't matter. What matters is the situation on the ground. The Clark portrait is official in the UK, whatever the Commonwealth realms choose to use. By that logic, you would have to say that the stand-alone Canadian portraits have NEVER been official, and then it just gets silly because that is plain wrong.

If Britain had joined the euro under Blair, then we would have had different rules, and I would have accepted them. There is no chance I would have declared the Queen's euro unofficial and thrown it away in the street. So I think you and Alan71 should both be sent to bed without any supper for arguing such nonsense. Goodness knows where we'd be, if we had people like you as lawmakers. 

[Alan71]

Thanks Peter for coming to my defence!!

I didn't think it was worth getting into a flap over, let alone creating a separate topic for.

I'm not a fan of the Jody Clark portrait.  It was change for change's sake.  The Rank-Broadley one was the most realistic portrait so far and it was recognisably the Queen.  The new one isn't that different so I'm not surprised no other countries/dependencies/territories have taken it.  And the new, commercially-minded Royal Mint is probably charging too much for its use in comparison to the old portrait (again, that's just my opinion before anyone takes me to task over it!)

[eurocoin]

The design competition for the Fifth Effigy of HM Queen Elizabeth II was a standard Royal Mint Advisory Committee Competition which means that also invited designers outside the Royal Mint were allowed to submit designs. Above the 2 portraits that were made by Jody Clark can be seen. The portrait on the left will only be used on coins of the UK. This was done for public recognition and security reasons. The portrait to the right was developed specifically for use on the coins of British Overseas Territories, British Crown Dependencies and the British Commonwealth Countries. There do not exist any further variants nor are any such new variants planned.

[<k>]

The portrait on the left will only be used on coins of the UK. This was done for public recognition and security reasons. The portrait to the right was developed specifically for use on the coins of British Overseas Territories, British Crown Dependencies and the British Commonwealth Countries.

So now we almost have a similar situation to that before 1936, when the Overseas Territories (colonies, in those days), Crown Dependencies and Commonwealth countries (or Dominions) were not allowed to use the British portrait, which was always uncrowned in those days. The Machin portrait was happily used by everybody, but in the 1990s some of the Overseas Territories and Commonwealth Realms took pride in using a different portrait from the UK. It remains to be seen how many of these will use Jody Clark's uncouped portrait.

[Figleaf]

The pharaonic portrait is only one line away from being obscene. If that line becomes indistinct on the real coins, there'll be letters to the editor pointing out that the design looks like Dorian Grey posing for a jewellery ad. Haven't they learned anything since 1953?

Peter

[eurocoin]

UK (2015)
Isle of Man (2017)
Saint Helena and Ascension (2018) (So far only collectors coins)
Australia (2019)

As for the others we know that the East Caribbean States continued to use the Ian Rank-Broadley portrait on recently issued coins of 2017 and that Gibraltar currently uses the Pobjoy Mint portrait.

[eurocoin]

I just came across this rip-off of the portrait that Jody Clark made for exclusive use on the coins of the UK, on a collectors coin of Ghana.

[eurocoin]

An unused design by Jody Clark for the fifth coinage portrait of Queen Elizabeth II. This design was made for possible use on the coins of the Crown Dependencies, British Overseas Territories and Countries of the Commonwealth