Owner Comments:
This piece is undoubtedly one of the most obscure products of Matthew Boulton’s Soho Mint. This degree of ambiguity raises a lot of questions. Who engraved the dies? More importantly, what is it, and what role did it play in the Mint’s history? Unfortunately, the information I currently have at hand does not allow me to answer all this definitively. The goal is to address related questions during my next visit to the Boulton archives. In the meantime, I will present the earlier work of others and supplement it with what I have since discovered to address three main questions: who, what, and why.
Who: The most obvious answer to this question is Jean-Pierre Droz, given his early work producing patterns to help Boulton’s lobbying efforts to secure a regal coinage contract. For what’s worth, we know from the Boulton archives that Droz was working on the dies for a pattern shilling by March of 1787. Pollard (1968) reproduces part of Boulton’s letter to Droz, directing him to produce pattern shillings using an enclosed 1787 regal Shilling designed by Pingo as a model. Despite a slow start, Droz sent Boulton several samples of his pattern shilling on May 31st. In the meantime, Boulton had expanded his vision to include sixpence pieces, which he proposed to Droz on March 10th (Pollard, 1968). There is no evidence to suggest this project was completed in 1787; however, this does not imply that Droz did not eventually produce a pattern sixpence for Boulton. Savvy readers are likely aware of the 1788 dated “pattern” sixpences engraved by Droz that are somewhat frequently encountered, but it is doubtful these were produced before the summer of 1788. This idea comes into focus when considering this project was almost certainly tabled as Boulton made a decisive effort to refocus on his true mission, a reform of the copper coinage. Nonetheless, the story continues. We know the original proposed design for both denominations changed several times, but there is an extra layer of mystery associated with the sixpence pieces. In a letter dated May 7th, Boulton makes one final revision to the reverse design (Pollard, 1968). He proposed the reverse should depict the Star of the Order of the Garter. More importantly, he sent Droz two pieces with this design for his consideration, suggesting a piece was already made for the purpose but perhaps not to the required quality. Beyond the particulars above, a close comparison of Droz’s work on the 1788 pattern halfpence relative to the current piece makes it clear that they were not engraved by the same artist. One could argue that the smaller scale and different metal might be a contributing factor, but that is insufficient to negate the clear contrast in skill displayed between these two pieces.
Setting aside Droz, who else could have engraved the dies to strike this piece? Thanks to the work of Dykes (2005), we know that Samuel Garbett was directly involved in the development of this piece. In his letters to Boulton, we learn that he suggests one of the Eginton brothers be entrusted with the project but does not directly name either Francis or John. By 1787, Francis was already deeply involved in establishing his own glass painting business and would soon go on to be one of the more celebrated artists of this craft. Before his eventual success, he had a failed joint business venture with Matthew Boulton, which put considerable strain on their professional relationship. To this end, it is unlikely that Francis would have the time or inclination to accept such a minor commission. However, his brother John was actively employed by Boulton. Among his many responsibilities, he was tasked with teaching engraving, albeit otherwise unrelated to the Mint (i). Although John was a proprietor of several relatively small-scale ventures, his continued employment at Soho suggests the need to supplement his income. In concurrence with Dykes (2005), the facts suggest that John is the most likely of the Eginton brothers responsible for the current piece. Unlike Francis, John was relatively available, currently employed by Boulton, had a financial need, and possessed the requisite skills to get the job done. Of course, this evidence is circumstantial and may not hold up to further scrutiny, considering what may be left to discover in the Boulton archives.
(i) The prevailing contemporary thought dictated a separation between artistry and skilled labor. Those interested are encouraged to read the relevant section of the introductory text of my other registry set, “The medals of Soho near Birmingham”.
What: It is important to note that Garbett, Boulton, Droz, and presumably John Eginton were conscious that extreme effort must be exerted to avoid any potential claims of counterfeiting. After all, such a claim would be a devastating blow to Boulton’s reputation and would undoubtedly destroy any chance at a regal coinage contract. Boulton even warned Droz that care must be taken to avoid undue criticism. Dykes (2005) makes it clear that Garbett was just as cautious, explicitly crossing out “coin” and replacing it with “little medal” to describe this work. As such, we do not have a specific title affixed to these pieces from those directly involved that would help definitively conclude its proposed denomination. Boulton’s letter dated March 7th set the stage for shillings, but this plan was revised the following month to include sixpence. So, which is it? The easiest way to address this would be to examine the weight relative to that affixed to contemporary regal pieces. Unfortunately, the current piece is a trial struck in white metal, making its weight inconsequential. Instead, we must rely on the weight included in the auction description for the Selig example, which was 2.59 grams. At the time, a Tower Mint shilling weighed 6.0 grams, while a sixpence weighed 3.0 grams. To this end, the weight paired with the relative size compels reason to conclude that the current piece is meant to approximate a sixpence, not a shilling. This conclusion is bolstered when considering why these pieces were produced.
Why: Like any other early pattern produced at the Soho Mint, it had one main purpose: to impress upon those in power Matthew Boulton’s immense skill and unequivocal ability to usher in a coinage reform. Unlike the pattern halfpennies produced by Droz, the pattern shillings and sixpence were heavily influenced by Boulton’s friend, Samuel Garbett. Samuel Garbett was a staunch lobbyist for monetary reform, but like so many of his contemporaries, he mostly fixated on reforming the silver coinage of the realm. Garbett proposed a new silver coinage of a substantially lighter weight. Dykes (2005) notes that Garbett’s plan would allow an extra 28 sixpence to be struck from a troy pound of standard silver (i.e., 152 instead of 124). The reduced weight would further widen the discrepancy between the intrinsic of the metal and the assigned nominal value. The government feared this disproportion would invite rampant counterfeiting, thus further exasperating an issue that had already plagued the country’s small change for centuries. Garbett already had his answer from the government but thought he could change minds if he had a tangible representation of his theory. The solution was to persuade Boulton to produce “little medals” to his weight specifications that he could then compare to the contemporary Tower Mint pieces (Dykes, 2005). Presumably, the goal was to demonstrate that the quality of the coinage would not suffer from the weight reduction. At the same time, he could persuade the government on the usefulness of the profit realized by their production. Unfortunately, it appears that Garbett was not overly impressed with Eginton’s work and requested revisions, which do not seem to have been made. He was also unwilling to share this piece with the Privy Council until the design was perfected and the edge was properly milled. Dykes (2005) suggests that Eginton’s pattern was likely dismissed in favor of Droz’s version of the sixpence piece (i.e., the pieces dated 1788), which also adhered to Garbett’s specified weight.
Obverse: The obverse depicts the laureate, draped, and cuirassed bust of George III facing right. He wears a laurel wreath with five leaves and two berries. It appears the wreath, his hair, or perhaps both are tied behind his head with a ribbon of one bow and one loose end. The bow protrudes outward towards the rim while the loose end flows slightly down and comes to a pointed tip just below the first letter of the legend. His hair is pulled tightly back and lacks any notable detail. A series of circular squiggly marks, presumably meant to represent hair, are obscured by the uppermost leaves of the wreath. A series of tightly formed curls appear near his temple and supersede the upper part of his ear and the lower part of the wreath. The king's hair falls behind his neck before terminating in ill-defined curls. A large curl falls on his right shoulder, which is covered in armor. An oblong clasp appears at the center of his right shoulder, holding what appears to be the top of a cloak. The ruffled top of the King’s shirt protrudes from his chest plate, which is separated into two sections. Three distinct circular rivets appear in the uppermost section of his armor. The date “1787” appears in the field below the king. The legend is bisected by the King’s head. It reads “
GEO” on the left and “
III ꞏ D ꞏ G ꞏ REX” on the right. There is clear evidence that a toothed border was intended to surround the bust, but the current example was not struck centered on the flan, so the toother border is partially missing. The entire design is weakly struck with multiple areas devoid of detail. The most notable are the King’s eye, the tips of the wreath, and the lock of hair on his right shoulder. There are also two notable planchet flaws. The obverse design is a fair reproduction of Tower Mint pieces designed by Lewis Pingo, but it is crude in execution and fair below the work one would expect from a more experienced engraver. This is a point made by Garbett to Boulton when he requested that the upper part of the King’s head be reduced.
Reverse: The reverse is unique relative to all other pieces struck at the Soho Mint. It depicts a rendition of the Order of the Garter. The main design is meant to represent the heraldic shield of St. George’s Cross, which is subsequently contained within the Garter. The garter presents the Order’s motto: “
HONI SOIT QUI MAL Y PENSE, which translates from French to “
shame on him who thinks evil of it”. The garter is secured by a simple buckle. This entire design supersedes the center of a large eight-point star badge. Each point consists of a series of rays of different lengths protruding from the center. The true Order is designed such that the points corresponding to the cardinal directions are longer, but this is not entirely clear in Eginton’s work. The toothed border was intended to surround the entire design but is partially missing due to the lack of centering before being struck. Likewise, the reverse is also weakly struck, and the same planchet flaws are just notable on the reverse.
Edge: Plain
Notes: The facts presented above suggest the current piece appears to be a trial in white metal of a pattern sixpence engraved by John Eginton and commissioned by Matthew Boulton at Samuel Garbett’s request. Dykes (2005) argues that Boulton sent Droz two of Eginton’s pattern in May of 1787, but he does not directly state if they were struck in silver or white metal. At first, it would seem odd that Boulton would send anything in white metal, but this is something Boulton would do with increasing frequency, especially during a project's earliest phases. We also know that Boulton sent Droz silver flans that were the correct weight and size for his project, which suggests that the weight of the Eginton patterns would not be as crucial (i.e., it would not matter if they were struck in white metal). We may never know beyond a reasonable doubt, but we can be confident that these pieces are extraordinarily rare in either silver or white metal. It is worth noting that Rayner (1993) classifies this piece (ESC-1641) as an R3 rarity but does not distinguish between silver or white metal pieces. I agree with Dykes (2005) that this rarity rating substantially overestimates how many of these pieces were struck, as it implies twenty or more were struck. This is especially apparent when considering the number of examples that have come up for sale. Independent of metal type, I can only trace seven public appearances of these pieces, most of which are the same piece selling multiple times. The first is from the 1891 Samuel Marshall collection. The next example would not appear at auction until 1999 as part of the Selig Collection, which would be sold again in 2012. The third silver example (albeit pierced) came up for sale in 2016 with a provenance to the F. S. Cokayne Collection. Unfortunately, the Marshall example was not illustrated, so the Marshall and Selig example may be the same coin. Those four auction appearances are the extent of public offerings for this pattern struck in silver. I am aware of only two white metal trials that have been publicly offered for sale. The example from the Watt Jr. Collection was sold in 2002 and then again in 2012. I bought my example from a reputable dealer in Austria, who acquired it from a small Austrian auction firm. The local nature of this Austrian auction firm has made it impossible to track it any further. On any note, the auction records suggest that, at best, three silver and two white metal examples have been publicly offered for sale in seven different offerings spanning the last 134 years.
 |
It is worth noting that a third example struck in white metal (although described as lead) exists but does not appear to have publicly come up for sale. This final example is erroneously listed in Dalton and Hamer as a Middlesex-1132 bis. A quick comparison of the Middlesex 1132 to the purported bis (both pictured above -thanks to Jeff Rock for sharing the image of the Middlesex D&H-1130) makes it undeniably clear that these pieces were not engraved by the same artist. Removing any subjectivity, the Middlesex 1132 is signed by the artist – “C I”. We learn from Neilson and Warburton (2013) that this is the signature of Charles James. The only thing these two pieces have in common is that they were both produced by Birmingham artists in the late 1780s. Setting this fact aside, there is no discernable logic to include the current piece within Dalton and Hamer as it is not a token (i.e., there is no declared value or promise of exchange). Furthermore, the note that these pieces were used in Woolwich Arsenal is misguided at best, as such a commission would most certainly be recorded within the Boulton archives. Likewise, such use would necessitate a supply substantial enough to meet demand, which logically would likely yield more examples eventually coming to the market.
References:
Dalton, R. & Hamer, S. H. (2015). Reprint by William McKivor: The Provincial Token-Coinage of the 18th Century. Gettysburg, PA: Thomas Publications.
Dykes, D. W. (2005). Mr. Garbett’s ‘Sixpence’. Spink Numismatic Circular, 113 (3), 169-172.
Neilson, W. B. & Warburton, M. R. (2013). A Thousand Guineas + Plus + A Checklist of Imitation Guineas and Their Fractions. Llanfyllin, UK: Galata Print Ltd.
Pollard, J. G. (1968). Matthew Boulton and J.-P. Droz. The Numismatic Chronicle, 8, 241-265.