Owner Comments:
At the time of writing this entry, I have built two NGC Custom Registry sets. The current set explores the coinage struck at the Soho Mint, and the other explores the Medals. A third set, which explores the provincial tokens struck at the Soho Mint, has been a work in progress for some time. The true focus of the latter set is the token coinage struck for use in England, Ireland, Scotland, and Wales. To this end, other pieces that circulated as currency but were not issued by a recognized government (or quasi-government agency) have been included in the current set among their coinage counterparts. For example, the large 5 Sols struck for the Monneron Brothers in 1791 and 1792 are an excellent example because they were private ventures that lacked a sanction from their respective government. As is almost the case, the lines can become a bit blurred at times. The current piece, struck at the Soho Mint for Macaulay and Babington, is an excellent example. On one hand, a strong argument could be made that this piece is a medal issued to commemorate the abolition of the slave trade in Great Britain. It is included in several major references as a medal. However, as argued by Vice (1983), an even stronger argument can be made that it circulated as a token. Most examples that come up for sale show evidence of heavy circulation. Truly gem uncirculated examples are very difficult to locate. I have acquired several over the years, but they remain raw for now. They will be included within this set once graded. It is important to note the current piece is a bronzed proof and therefore should not be used as an example of a piece which was intended to be used as a form of currency. I will discuss this point in more detail within the notes section below.
 |
Obverse: The obverse design exudes symbols of peace and friendship that were the hallmarks of the anti-slavery movement. Two men are depicted in the center shaking hands. The man on the left, in contemporary European clothes, appears with his left hand over his chest. His gaze is directly centered on his counterpart to the right, who is meant to depict an African man wearing traditional clothing. They are standing on a patch of land with numerous blades of grass. A village of four circular buildings with domed roofs appears in the background to the left. Three large palm trees appear in the near distance behind the houses. A series of hills is depicted in the far background, which roll smoothly to form a small valley that appears in the background between the two central figures. It is important to note that two smaller palm trees appear in this area, which are accompanied by two men farming in the near background between the men shaking hands. In the background to the right appears a large tree of a different variety. A group of five figures can be seen holding hands and dancing under it. A wide exergual line appears in the foreground, which is superseded by the inner raised rim. In the exergue appears
SLAVE TRADE ABOLISHED BY GREAT BRITAIN 1807 in three lines. The date is in a slightly larger font than the first two lines. The engravers' initials,
G. F. P. appear centered below the date, albeit weakly. Centered above the main device is the legend
WE ARE ALL BRETHREN. The entire design is contained within a raised outer rim. Despite some weakness in the lettering, this is a relatively well-struck example of the type.
Reverse: The reverse design is relatively simple, with an Arabic legend appearing in five lines. The fourth and fifth lines are sharply divided by a relatively narrow exergual line, which does not bisect in the inner rim. Immediately below appears a pair of palm leaves tied together by a ribbon with a single bow and two loose ends. The loose end on the left overlaps under and behind the stem of the right twig. The loose end on the right flows in front and over the stem of the left twig. In English, the legend translates to
THE SALE OF SLAVES PROHIBITED IN ENGLAND IN 1807 OF THE CHRISTIAN ERA IN THE REIGN OF GEORGE THE THIRD – VERILY WE ARE ALL BROTHERS. The engraver’s initials,
J. P., followed by
FECIT., appear centered below the main legend.
Edge: Plain
Notes: Oddly, NGC opted to denote this piece with the “MS” designation although it has all of the hallmarks of a bronzed proof and was retained within a pair of silver-lined brass shells. The latter point was a practice strictly preserved for proof strikings of certain coins, tokens, or medals. For the general coinage (e.g., 1799 farthings), NGC and PCGS reliably provide the proper designation; however, this same general rule does not apply to tokens or medals. For instance, I have several gilt tokens and medals in my collection that are clearly byproducts of a special minting process but are nonetheless designated as “MS”. The fact that they are officially gilt should have been a substantial indication to warrant the proof designation, but when taken with the squared rims and clear evidence of multiple strikes, it should have been an easy determination. For what it is worth, they are highly consistent with the improper designation. This fact is especially true when it comes to the 18th-century provincial token coinage.
The current example is lot 1781 from the Russell B. Patterson Collection, which was sold in March of 1986 by Bowers and Merena. Here is the provided auction description:
Proof restrike of the famous bilingual anti-slavery medal. BCM-258.3. Bronze. 36mm. Proof. The original was struck in November 1814, and this is a very early restrike also from the Soho Mint at Birmingham. This piece is made particularly interesting in that it is accompanied by the original brass shells which housed it and which were issued by the mint to protect the piece. Obverse and reverse types and inscriptions identical to the preceding. A very attractive medium chocolate brown in color with full Proof surfaces. The motifs in the background of the obverse are fully struck up and nicely detailed. The Arabic script on the reverse is full, complete, and very finely detailed, unlike the reverses of the majority of these, which are found somewhat softly struck. For the serious collector of anti-slavery pieces, this is a perfect example of its type. I mostly agree with the above description; however, I think the term “restrike” is misapplied. As I have discussed elsewhere, the term "late Soho" is reserved for pieces struck at the Soho Mint, possibly after that date indicated on the piece. Although these pieces were struck later, they are not classified as restrikes but rather as "late Soho" pieces. The term "restrike" denotes pieces that were not struck at the Soho Mint but were instead struck by Taylor using Soho dies after the mint's demise. The terminology here is very important, as both late Soho strikes and Taylor restrikes are argued to exist (Vice, 1983).
The minor spots of die rust scattered throughout the lower extremities of the main figures and the background between them are the first indication that the current piece is not one of the original bronzed proofs struck in 1814. Improper storage over a long period of time would be necessary for such imperfections to develop. The next obvious question is whether this piece is a product of the Soho Mint or the work of Taylor from retouched Soho dies. It is here that Vice (1985) provides some critical information. It appears the dies continued to rust in the decades between the late Soho strikings and when the dies came to be used well after the Soho Mint closed in 1850. In consequence, they were touched up and reengraved to remove the most distracting imperfections. Most notably, the two palm trees that appear between the clasped hands of the main figures are missing on the restrikes. Due to excessive polishing of the die, the outstretched hand of the African man is often weak or missing, and parts of the large fold of fabric falling from his right shoulder are completely obliterated. Although the weight of this piece is not recorded in the 1985 auction description, and it is now in an NGC holder, it is clear this piece was struck on a very thick, heavy flan. This fact substantiates the claim that this piece is a late Soho strike, as Vice (1985) notes that the increased thickness and weight are the only major distinction between the early and late Soho products.