Jump to content
CoinPeople.com

Recommended Posts

IMG_1689_edited.jpg

IMG_1690_edited.jpg

 

Passage of the Reform Bill 1832. Earl Grey. WM.51 mm by Halliday. Well here goes:

 

The REFORM BILL Passed The Commons March 23.

The Lords June 4.

Recd. The Royal Assent June 7

2nd William IV.1832

 

56 Boroughs Disfranchised

30 Old Bor. To Return 1 Member Ea.

22 New Bor. To Ret. 2 Mem. Ea.

21 New Bor. 1 Mem. Ea.

 

 

The Elective Franchise Vested In Freeholders Copyholders Of 10 Pounds P. An.

Leaseholders 50 Pounds P. An.

Householders 10 Pounds P. An.

 

Rt. HONble. EARL GREY.

 

Rev: BRITANNIA SUPPORTED BY JUSTICE DRIVES CORRUPTION FROM THE CONSTITUTION

 

King Lords Commons in Triangle.

 

Gatton Sarum on scroll under Britannia's Foot.

 

MDCCCXXXII

Halliday. F.

Link to post
Share on other sites
WOW. I tried reading those on my own. I couldn't, gave up, read your translation, and I'm glad to know there were so many non-words there!

 

You need to drink a glass of wine or better still 2 glasses. At the very least have a cuppa Earl Grey tea!

 

Mem. = Member

Bor. = Borough

Ea. = Each

P.AN = Per Annum

 

Gatton Sarum was a Rotten Borough.

 

Hope that helps.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Wordy, yes, but consider Farren Zerbe's 1904 advertising token listing his prices paid for collector's coins:

 

921721.jpg

Link to post
Share on other sites

This is rather strange.

 

"Recd. The Royal Assent June. 7

2nd William IV.1832"

IMG_1689_edited_2.jpg

 

The Royal assent was granted on June 7 1832, but why is '2nd' inserted between the date & 'William IV' It surely cannot be for seconded! Can it?

 

Your link worked at this moment in time elverno, have you seen this posting of mine LINK of a medal of the Milan Cathedral. I think I need your help, had no replies yet. There is a Napoleonic connection, the cathedral had needed finishing, but money restraints had prevented this. Napoleon with his usual bold stroke made the church sell off its land holdings to pay for the cathedral to be finished.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I thought I'd submit my entry for the wordiest medal competition:

IMG_2769.jpg

IMG_2774.jpg

 

white metal, 42 mm. Chronology of the Kings of England [ending with Victoria 1837], neatly divided between pre- and post-Norman rule: William the Conqueror starts the list on the reverse.

It's signed W[illiam] J[ohn] Taylor 33 Little Queen St Holborn.

Link to post
Share on other sites
I thought I'd submit my entry for the wordiest medal competition:

IMG_2769.jpg

IMG_2774.jpg

 

white metal, 42 mm. Chronology of the Kings of England [ending with Victoria 1837], neatly divided between pre- and post-Norman rule: William the Conqueror starts the list on the reverse.

It's signed W[illiam] J[ohn] Taylor 33 Little Queen St Holborn.

 

I just learned a lot of British history.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 7 years later...

I thought I'd submit my entry for the wordiest medal competition:

IMG_2769.jpg

IMG_2774.jpg

 

white metal, 42 mm. Chronology of the Kings of England [ending with Victoria 1837], neatly divided between pre- and post-Norman rule: William the Conqueror starts the list on the reverse.

It's signed W[illiam] J[ohn] Taylor 33 Little Queen St Holborn.

 

Okay so as a first post I do appreciate that replying to a topic from 2008 may seem a bit odd, however I just had to find out a bit more about this medal!

 

It looks incredible and I cant find any information about it anywhere.. I'd love to try and have it replicated you see.

 

Anybody got anything?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hello and welcome to CoinPeople. That is a great medal. Wordy - for sure. I don't recall this post and so I thank you for breathing new life into it.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I remember looking up William John Taylor in Holborn on old lists... He's listed as being there around the middle of the 19th century, as an engraver.

 

I certainly didn't pay the equivalent of AU $94.50, though. I have no idea how rare or common it may be.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 5 years later...
On 8/27/2008 at 9:51 PM, constanius said:

This is rather strange.

 

"Recd. The Royal Assent June. 7

2nd William IV.1832"

IMG_1689_edited_2.jpg

 

The Royal assent was granted on June 7 1832, but why is '2nd' inserted between the date & 'William IV' It surely cannot be for seconded! Can it?

 

Your link worked at this moment in time elverno, have you seen this posting of mine LINK of a medal of the Milan Cathedral. I think I need your help, had no replies yet. There is a Napoleonic connection, the cathedral had needed finishing, but money restraints had prevented this. Napoleon with his usual bold stroke made the church sell off its land holdings to pay for the cathedral to be finished.

Can someone tell me about this coin 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...