The UK 1935 George and the Dragon crown + unadopted version

Started by <k>, May 18, 2021, 02:24:56 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Whose 1935 version of George and the Dragon do you prefer

The issued version by Percy Metcalfe
4 (44.4%)
The unadopted version by George Kruger-Gray
3 (33.3%)
I like both equally
2 (22.2%)
I do not like either version
0 (0%)
Don't know
0 (0%)

Total Members Voted: 7

Voting closed: July 19, 2021, 02:24:56 PM

<k>



Image copyright of the Royal Mint Museum.

George Kruger-Gray's pattern crown design of 1935.






Percy Metcalfe's design on the reverse of the issued crown.
Visit the website of The Royal Mint Museum.

See: The Royal Mint Museum.

<k>

There is much to enjoy about both designs. For me, Kruger-Gray's design looks too medallic, simply because the text does not take up enough space. For that reason I will choose Metcalfe's design, though I might have preferred Kruger-Gray's more traditional but technically superior design, if it had had a different style of text.
Visit the website of The Royal Mint Museum.

See: The Royal Mint Museum.

andyg

Be careful <k> else we'll have the league against cruelty to dragons emailing in.
always willing to trade modern UK coins for modern coins from elsewhere....

<k>

I know. Probably dragon pie is a luxury food for the British upper classes, though.
Visit the website of The Royal Mint Museum.

See: The Royal Mint Museum.

SandyGuyUK

What I don't understand about Kruger Gray's design is where is George's left arm??  I appreciate it must be hidden behind his armour or something but it just looks like it's missing?

Did the dragon have something to do with this and that was why he wanted to run it through with that very sharp looking lance?!  8)
Ian
UK

Figleaf

It's a bit like wondering if the fridge light really goes off when the fridge door closes, but in this case, both arms are accounted for. In K-G's design, the knight holds his sword in his right hand (makes sense) and that's the arm you don't see, but it must be there. How else can he hold the sword in that position? The shield is in his left hand (since he doesn't have any other hand left :)) but it's covered by the shield. Yet, you can see part of it. That triangular harmonica sticking out behind the shield on the viewer's right is in fact the left elbow and you can spot the fingers on the right of the shield. Now THAT's the incongruous part, since the fingers should be busy holding the shield, not the reins.

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

<k>

Do I take it you voted for Metcalfe's version, then, SandyGuyUK?

I don't know which Figleaf might have for voted for, if anything.
Visit the website of The Royal Mint Museum.

See: The Royal Mint Museum.

Prosit

He seems to be missing a right leg too.
Dale



Quote from: Figleaf on May 18, 2021, 07:13:32 PM
It's a bit like wondering if the fridge light really goes off when the fridge door closes, but in this case, both arms are accounted for. In K-G's design, the knight holds his sword in his right hand (makes sense) and that's the arm you don't see, but it must be there. How else can he hold the sword in that position? The shield is in his left hand (since he doesn't have any other hand left :)) but it's covered by the shield. Yet, you can see part of it. That triangular harmonica sticking out behind the shield on the viewer's right is in fact the left elbow and you can spot the fingers on the right of the shield. Now THAT's the incongruous part, since the fingers should be busy holding the shield, not the reins.

Peter

Figleaf

Quote from: <k> on May 18, 2021, 08:40:46 PM
I don't know which Figleaf might have for voted for, if anything.

Metcalfe's version. It is of his time. Gaudi, Bauhaus, De Stijl. Kruger-Gray's version is stick-in-the-mud, Victorian fake middle ages, romantic, Walter Scott.

Peter

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

<k>

I see. And it's Metcalfe with an 'e' on the end. I saw his signature on a Royal Mint document some years ago, at the National Archives in London.
Visit the website of The Royal Mint Museum.

See: The Royal Mint Museum.

SandyGuyUK

Quote from: Figleaf on May 18, 2021, 07:13:32 PM
It's a bit like wondering if the fridge light really goes off when the fridge door closes, but in this case, both arms are accounted for. In K-G's design, the knight holds his sword in his right hand (makes sense) and that's the arm you don't see, but it must be there. How else can he hold the sword in that position? The shield is in his left hand (since he doesn't have any other hand left :)) but it's covered by the shield. Yet, you can see part of it. That triangular harmonica sticking out behind the shield on the viewer's right is in fact the left elbow and you can spot the fingers on the right of the shield. Now THAT's the incongruous part, since the fingers should be busy holding the shield, not the reins.

Peter

So that's a shield on the left?!  I never realised!  That would explain possibly what's going on arm-wise.

<K> - I actually voted that I liked both of them equally as I think they both have their merits - the KG one just because it's KG and he was so talented at coin designs and the PM one because it's so reflective of the time in which it was issued.
Ian
UK

andyg

Since in the Metcalfe version he's holding his sword - what was he holding his lance in? (and where is the other (broken) half?)
always willing to trade modern UK coins for modern coins from elsewhere....

FosseWay

He's chucked the broken half away and got his sword out instead  :)

Figleaf

FosseWay and Metcalfe got it right. The knight's way of jousting was to use the lance first. His lances were single use. He'd throw away whatever remained of the lance and turn the horse around, drawing his sword.* Metcalfe pictured Mr. S. George as he rides back to finish the job or perhaps let the horse finish it for him. That's necessary, because the dragon, in spite of having the lance kebab him, is alive and unhappy.

The only fault I can find is the left hand on the rein. During battle, knights guided their mount with their knees.

Peter

* This was a moment of great vulnerability. The Mongols let Hungarian knights come, evaded the lance, let the knight thunder past, turned around and put an arrow in his back. Napoleon-era soldiers fought mounted lancers the same way: get past the tip of the lance and shoot him from behind.
An unidentified coin is a piece of metal. An identified coin is a piece of history.

andyg

Quote from: Figleaf on May 19, 2021, 04:54:57 PM
FosseWay and Metcalfe got it right. The knight's way of jousting was to use the lance first. His lances were single use. He'd throw away whatever remained of the lance and turn the horse around, drawing his sword.* Metcalfe pictured Mr. S. George as he rides back to finish the job or perhaps let the horse finish it for him. That's necessary, because the dragon, in spite of having the lance kebab him, is alive and unhappy.

The only fault I can find is the left hand on the rein. During battle, knights guided their mount with their knees.

It's a nice story, but we all know that he'd killed the dragon sometime previously and this little display had all been staged especially for the sculptor - so that George looks extra brave and dashing.  Why else would his sword be sticking up at such an angle?
always willing to trade modern UK coins for modern coins from elsewhere....