Brad Posted July 18, 2009 Report Share Posted July 18, 2009 Another piece I can't seem to find a reference to online...probably 1815 vintage. He passed in 1819. Approx 34MM, copper. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
elverno Posted July 18, 2009 Report Share Posted July 18, 2009 Unlisted in British Historical Medals. Almost certainly 1814-1815 and I'd guess RRR+ Could trend upward of $100 or more in value. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brad Posted July 20, 2009 Author Report Share Posted July 20, 2009 Does the intial stand for the bust artist or the medal engraver? I did some looking and came up with two possible choises: M. Denon M. Cattanco excerpted from "Medallic History of Napoleon" Or does M. simply denote Mr. in this reference??? VI PREFACE. It is curious to trace, in how short a space of time, under a govern- ment which affords sufficient encouragement, and has taste to give a proper direction to the Arts, they will rise from a state of inferiority to elegance and perfection. The first Medals of Napoleon, struck between 1796 and 1802, are of very indifferent design and execution. But under the direction of M. Denon, they gradually improved, and at length at- tained a high degree of beauty. The heads by Andrieu and Droz, from the bust of Chaudet, are some of the best executed since the revival of the Arts. To a striking resemblance, they unite ideal beauty and character. This union is what distinguishes the portraits of ancient artists, and what ought to be the principal object with sculptors and painters when they take resemblances The reverses of many of the Paris Mint Medals are distinguished by elegance of composition ; particularly those imitated from monu- ments of antiquity, the true school for good taste. The adulation dis- played in some of the types and inscriptions, is deserving, however, of severe censure. The Medals of the Milan Ivlint, executed under the direction of M. Cattanco, although few in number, vie, in point of beauty and exe- cution, with those of Paris. As most of the Medals occur in gold, silver, and copper, the metal has not been indicated. The Medals of the Paris Mhit are distinguished by the mark ('.ai.) Unlisted in British Historical Medals. Almost certainly 1814-1815 and I'd guess RRR+ Could trend upward of $100 or more in value. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
elverno Posted July 20, 2009 Report Share Posted July 20, 2009 "Does the initial stand for the bust artist or the medal engraver?" Could be either. But in this case it's almost certainly a British artist or engraver. I'm surprised it's not listed in British Historical Medals since it almost certainly was produced during Blucher's trip to London in summer 1814. I would have guessed Mossop as the artist because of the style except a) He almost always signed MOSSOP F. and Forrer doesn't list a Blucher piece for him. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brad Posted July 20, 2009 Author Report Share Posted July 20, 2009 Thanks, again!!! Brad I found a good reference to the son Willaim Stephen here. http://books.google.com/books?id=qkdmAAAAM...lt&resnum=1 "Does the initial stand for the bust artist or the medal engraver?" Could be either. But in this case it's almost certainly a British artist or engraver. I'm surprised it's not listed in British Historical Medals since it almost certainly was produced during Blucher's trip to London in summer 1814. I would have guessed Mossop as the artist because of the style except a) He almost always signed MOSSOP F. and Forrer doesn't list a Blucher piece for him. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blackhawk Posted July 20, 2009 Report Share Posted July 20, 2009 You might remember his wife "Frau Blucher" from the movie Young Frankenstein. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
elverno Posted July 20, 2009 Report Share Posted July 20, 2009 Supposedly Mel Brooks is also interested in Napoleonic history. The joke about the horses was based on Blucher's tendency to have his horses shot out from under him, sometimes two or three in a single battle. So, from a horse's perspective "Blucher!" evokes horror... A guy I knew in Los Angeles who had worked with Brooks told me that story. Even if it isn't true it's a pretty good story. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
constanius Posted July 20, 2009 Report Share Posted July 20, 2009 Another piece I can't seem to find a reference to online...probably 1815 vintage. He passed in 1819. Approx 34MM, copper. The 'M' is possibly for George Mills (1793?-1824). In the combined index of British Historical Medals Vol. 3 it lists under Blucher BHM#817A and under Mills it also lists BHM#817A the medal is similar to yours except Blucher is facing R. with the inscription G. L. VON BLUCHER PRINCE DE WAGSTADT below AGED 71 and the reverse says THE SUPPORT OF HIS/ KING/ THE /DELIVERER OF HIS/ COUNTRY/ AND THE ADMIRATION / OF/ EUROPE/ MDCCCXIV The image of Blucher on both medals is very alike but that could also be because, if there were two different engravers, they were working from the same bust/portrait. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
constanius Posted July 20, 2009 Report Share Posted July 20, 2009 One thing against it being Mills is he normally signs Mills. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NumisMattic2200 Posted July 20, 2009 Report Share Posted July 20, 2009 I like that medal - that's the guy who turned up on the battlefield of Waterloo and gave Napoleon a nasty fright... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brad Posted July 20, 2009 Author Report Share Posted July 20, 2009 I am not an expert by any means but the book rendering does not look related to the medal? Profile outline, jaw, eye, etc. The widows peak is more pronounced in mine? The cursive "M" seems to fit the engraving style of the bust and does not match the block lettering used? The M seems more feminine, more french? The last reference I found online for BHM#817A was an auction in 1998, listed as 40MM. http://www.artfact.com/auction-lot/peace-o...-1-c-hbp5ih43oh Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
constanius Posted July 21, 2009 Report Share Posted July 21, 2009 The inscription being in english is almost a certain indication that it was produced in England for the english market, if it was a french medal you would expect it to have a french, latin, or less likely german(just because of Blucher being Prussian) inscription, you would not anticipate it being in english. I have an english medal(1814) of Princess Charlotte which has a block letter inscription but is signed in cursive script by Webb. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NumisMattic2200 Posted July 21, 2009 Report Share Posted July 21, 2009 LOL Brad, why are the French feminine in your macho opinion Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brad Posted July 21, 2009 Author Report Share Posted July 21, 2009 LOL Brad, why are the French feminine in your macho opinion The French are more elegant (much better word) than the English, based on my isolated rocky mountain upbringing and being a baby-boomer... sorry for the stereotyping... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
elverno Posted July 28, 2009 Report Share Posted July 28, 2009 Found this searching Google Books: Numismatic Chronicle Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brad Posted August 2, 2009 Author Report Share Posted August 2, 2009 Thanks Vern!!!! John Milton was not a name that cropped up during my searches... Found this searching Google Books: Numismatic Chronicle Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NumisMattic2200 Posted August 2, 2009 Report Share Posted August 2, 2009 The French are more elegant (much better word) than the English, based on my isolated rocky mountain upbringing and being a baby-boomer... sorry for the stereotyping... Hmm so you should be, plenty of un-elegant femmes over here in sunny UKland!.. Plenty of smelly Frenchmen over in La France too ;) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
constanius Posted August 2, 2009 Report Share Posted August 2, 2009 Thanks Vern!!!! John Milton was not a name that cropped up during my searches... John Milton (b 19 July 1759; d London, 11 Feb 1805). English medallist, die-sinker and gem-engraver. It is not known where Milton was first trained, but he is most likely initially to have studied seal-engraving. His earliest known works, a medal for the Society of Industry, a seal and an engraved gem, date from 1785. From 1787 to 1797 he was employed at the Royal Mint where he received training in die-engraving. He is thought to have executed a number of dies designed by Lewis Pingo as well as executing his own designs. Besides official work, Milton, encouraged by Pingo, developed a thriving private business. He was forced to leave the Mint, following the discovery that he had supplied dies of foreign coin to counterfeiters, but his career does not appear to have suffered unduly, and he continued working until 1804. Medals such as those for the Society for the Improvement of Naval Architecture of 1791 or the Bath and West of England Society (1802) display his skill as an engraver, although his compositions can appear stilted. He also executed dies for coins and tokens, including the celebrated Anglesey pattern penny of 1786 bearing a druid's head (which was not adopted) and the 1788 and 1792 Barbados pennies, as well as a number of passes and tickets. He exhibited at the Royal Academy, London, from 1785 to 1802. All sources BHM, Forrer etc seem to agree on his date of death 1805? Mind BHM also has one medal for J. Milton 1819 Winchester College Prize Medal BHM#931 a bit odd as the last medal listed for J. Milton before that was 1802? Very strange indeed? If he died in 1805, how could he still produce a medal 14 years later!!! Plus, everything I can find of his, he signs 'Milton' or 'J. Milton' for example LINK GOOGLE BOOK I tend to think both the BHM 1819 and the Blucher are misattributed to him. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brad Posted August 8, 2009 Author Report Share Posted August 8, 2009 I tend to think both the BHM 1819 and the Blucher are misattributed to him. Excellent information!!!! So the plot thickens...anyone got a time machine they can use? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
constanius Posted September 1, 2013 Report Share Posted September 1, 2013 A bit late but the same bust was used on this unsigned medal issued by EdwardThomason & Co of Birmingham, which in all probability means the M is for George Mills and is the reason why he only signed M not MILLS, as per usual, on the medal he issued himself. Thomason used the best engravers for his medals but they often did work for others & of course for themselves, so for Mills to engrave this for use by Thomason & also issue a smaller medal of his own, using the same bust but everything else different, seems to be what occurred. Obverse: Bust, l.: CASTRENSIS PRAEFECTVS PRINCEPS WAGSTADT MDCCCXIV Reverse: Wreath surrounding legend: PRINCEPS CREATVS A REGE SVO APVD DVBRIM|IVNII VI MDCCCXIV 52 mm Bramsen.1475 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ccg Posted September 2, 2013 Report Share Posted September 2, 2013 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.