NumisMattic2200 Posted September 28, 2009 Report Share Posted September 28, 2009 Can anyone tell me exactly what these are - are they modern or produced circa 1937? They appear to be some sort of base metal, not sure what the scratched effect is about, but they look interesting.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Drusus Posted October 1, 2009 Report Share Posted October 1, 2009 they look like maybe alumnium? Are they light weight? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NumisMattic2200 Posted October 1, 2009 Author Report Share Posted October 1, 2009 It's not alu - they'd be lighter, my estimate would be some sort of steel. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Art Posted October 1, 2009 Report Share Posted October 1, 2009 All three pieces seem to have hallmarks on the reverse. Can you show us a closeup of them? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NumisMattic2200 Posted October 2, 2009 Author Report Share Posted October 2, 2009 I'm going to get them later...(more like tomorrow or the weekend) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NumisMattic2200 Posted October 4, 2009 Author Report Share Posted October 4, 2009 There we go! First pic of the three singles is clearest - it looks like an anchor, a lion and an 'M'. Any clues?? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Art Posted October 4, 2009 Report Share Posted October 4, 2009 You've got me on those. I can't find anything that matches. The anchor along side the lion is a mark for Birmingham when found on silver. The M would be a date indicator. BUT these don't appear to be silver and I didn't find a W.H.H. manufacturer in Birmingham. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NumisMattic2200 Posted October 4, 2009 Author Report Share Posted October 4, 2009 Well thanks for trying... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
constanius Posted October 10, 2009 Report Share Posted October 10, 2009 3 British Kings of the year 1936: A set of three medals AR, AE 32mm manufactured by Messrs W. H. Hasler Ltd. These were sold in a blue leatherette case and comprised unifaced medals commemorating the following: Silver Jubilee of King George V, # 4260 Abdication of King Edward VIII # 4275 Coronation of King George VI # 4324 A complete set in case can be considered RR. very rare. So unless yours is a fake set, they are silver. M is the date letter for 1936 in Birmingham. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NumisMattic2200 Posted October 10, 2009 Author Report Share Posted October 10, 2009 3 British Kings of the year 1936: A set of three medals AR, AE 32mm manufactured by Messrs W. H. Hasler Ltd. These were sold in a blue leatherette case and comprised unifaced medals commemorating the following: Silver Jubilee of King George V, # 4260 Abdication of King Edward VIII # 4275 Coronation of King George VI # 4234 A complete set in case can be considered RR. very rare. So unless yours is a fake set, they are silver. M is the date letter for 1936 in Birmingham. SILVER!! I wonder how they created the unusual effect and why?? Maybe they seem light (not alu-light) because they are just so thin?? How can I verify if these are the real thing? Do you have a value for weight of each coin? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
constanius Posted October 10, 2009 Report Share Posted October 10, 2009 The BHM# for the set is 4365 no info for weight, but as you state if they are very thin unifaced medals then they would seem lightweight. The Birmingham silver marks would normally be enough proof and being in the original case would also seem to confirm your medals as genuine but why they look so unusual is a mystery & a bit of a worry too, you could ask a silversmith to have a look at them for another opinion. Appears to be a great find, nice one Matt. The 'walking lion' mark is for .925 purity. Hope they turn out to be kosher! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ian Posted October 10, 2009 Report Share Posted October 10, 2009 The BHM# for the set is 4365 no info for weight, but as you state if they are very thin unifaced medals then they would seem lightweight. The Birmingham silver marks would normally be enough proof and being in the original case would also seem to confirm your medals as genuine but why they look so unusual is a mystery & a bit of a worry too, you could ask a silversmith to have a look at them for another opinion. Appears to be a great find, nice one Matt. The 'walking lion' mark is for .925 purity. Hope they turn out to be kosher! The date on the George VI medalet is 1937.......... I would have thought the medal is very unlikely to have been struck in 1936 . George VI's coronation was on 12th May 1937 (the date originally intended for Eddie VIII).....but more importantly, Eddie VIII did not abdicate until 10th December 1936. Would anyone have started minting medals in December 1936 to commemorate an event that, at that time, had not been determined? Perhaps the blank planchets had been hallmarked in 1936 as `stock' ready for future use (?) Ian Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NumisMattic2200 Posted October 10, 2009 Author Report Share Posted October 10, 2009 The date on the George VI medalet is 1937.......... I would have thought the medal is very unlikely to have been struck in 1936 . George VI's coronation was on 12th May 1937 (the date originally intended for Eddie VIII).....but more importantly, Eddie VIII did not abdicate until 10th December 1936. Would anyone have started minting medals in December 1936 to commemorate an event that, at that time, had not been determined? Perhaps the blank planchets had been hallmarked in 1936 as `stock' ready for future use (?) Ian All I can say is why did they have to be made in 1936?? I don't know where Constanius go his information from - maybe it's a secret Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NumisMattic2200 Posted October 10, 2009 Author Report Share Posted October 10, 2009 On the Maker's marks: 'W.H.H.' is for William Hair Haseler. http://www.925-1000.com/bx_whHaseler_B.html http://www.925-1000.com/dlBirmingham6.html#M And the anchor is of course Birmingham - this is a very cool site http://www.925-1000.com/british_marks.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
constanius Posted October 11, 2009 Report Share Posted October 11, 2009 The title '3 British Kings of the year 1936' is the correct one. In that year the old king died, the new king abdicated and another king ascended to the throne. The last of these medals was obviously struck for 1937 as it is dated, but it was struck on a 1936 planchet, as is the 1935 Jubilee medal and the Edward medal. They all have the same date letter 'M' = 1936. The same 1937 obverse is used with a reverse for the coronation also on a 1936(M) planchet. Hasler is the spelling in BHM & a few other sites, but Haseler appears to be the most common spelling. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NumisMattic2200 Posted October 11, 2009 Author Report Share Posted October 11, 2009 The title '3 British Kings of the year 1936' is the correct one. In that year the old king died, the new king abdicated and another king ascended to the throne. The last of these medals was obviously struck for 1937 as it is dated, but it was struck on a 1936 planchet, as is the 1935 Jubilee medal and the Edward medal. They all have the same date letter 'M' = 1936. The same 1937 obverse is used with a reverse for the coronation also on a 1936(M) planchet. Hasler is the spelling in BHM & a few other sites, but Haseler appears to be the most common spelling. Constanius, I had too see for myself what the date marks are and according to this chart which ends in z at 1924... an 'M' in the alphabet sequence would be thirteen places forward, which corresponds to the year 1937. So I'm convinced now that its 1937!? Or have I missed something? http://www.925-1000.com/dlc_birmingham.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ian Posted October 11, 2009 Report Share Posted October 11, 2009 All I can say is why did they have to be made in 1936?? I don't know where Constanius go his information from - maybe it's a secret ....and all I can say in response is that it is unlikely that at least one of them was. Not impossible, but unlikely. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ian Posted October 11, 2009 Report Share Posted October 11, 2009 The title '3 British Kings of the year 1936' is the correct one. In that year the old king died, the new king abdicated and another king ascended to the throne. The last of these medals was obviously struck for 1937 as it is dated, but it was struck on a 1936 planchet, as is the 1935 Jubilee medal and the Edward medal. They all have the same date letter 'M' = 1936. The same 1937 obverse is used with a reverse for the coronation also on a 1936(M) planchet. Hasler is the spelling in BHM & a few other sites, but Haseler appears to be the most common spelling. Not doubting your info in the slightest. I was just drawn to the differing dates (M= 1936 + `1937') and observing that it is unlikely that the set was actually struck in 1936 as the hallmark might otherwise lead one to believe. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hiho Posted October 11, 2009 Report Share Posted October 11, 2009 Great set and I love the various mysteries, the date being off and the coins odd condition. Cool find! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
constanius Posted October 11, 2009 Report Share Posted October 11, 2009 Constanius, I had too see for myself what the date marks are and according to this chart which ends in z at 1924... an 'M' in the alphabet sequence would be thirteen places forward, which corresponds to the year 1937. So I'm convinced now that its 1937!? Or have I missed something? http://www.925-1000.com/dlc_birmingham.html Your logic is faultless but for some reason they did not use the letter 'I' in that date run. Perhaps they thought it might be confused with the 'J' but the next date run it was included again, go figure. The chart you posted shows that they dropped 'J' for 1909 & 1884 whereas they used both 'I' & 'J' for 1857 & 1858. In your chart, 1900 = 'A', 1924 = 'Z' only 25 letters! See chart below for 1936 = M. The medal dated 1937 probably was struck in 1937 as might the other medals have been, but all were definitely struck on 1936 planchets. I only posted the Title given to the set '3 British Kings of the year 1936' and the date of the silver-marks, not when any medals were struck. BHM states that The Birmingham Assay Office confirmed W.H.H. = W. H. Hasler & 1936 as the date of hallmarking. The set is placed under 1937 in BHM because of the date on the last medal in the set. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
constanius Posted October 11, 2009 Report Share Posted October 11, 2009 Not doubting your info in the slightest. I was just drawn to the differing dates (M= 1936 + `1937') and observing that it is unlikely that the set was actually struck in 1936 as the hallmark might otherwise lead one to believe. Always happy for anyone to query what I post Ian, I would have queried it myself, it is points like this that make our hobby so interesting. I hate doing a post and getting no response because it is the feedback, positive or especially negative(in a good way) which causes us to dig deeper, both in our research & in our thought processes. We have a great community here, it is a pleasure to be a small part of it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NumisMattic2200 Posted October 11, 2009 Author Report Share Posted October 11, 2009 Your logic is faultless but for some reason they did not use the letter 'I' in that date run. Perhaps they thought it might be confused with the 'J' but the next date run it was included again, go figure. The chart you posted shows that they dropped 'J' for 1909 & 1884 whereas they used both 'I' & 'J' for 1857 & 1858. In your chart, 1900 = 'A', 1924 = 'Z' only 25 letters! See chart below for 1936 = M. The medal dated 1937 probably was struck in 1937 as might the other medals have been, but all were definitely struck on 1936 planchets. I only posted the Title given to the set '3 British Kings of the year 1936' and the date of the silver-marks, not when any medals were struck. BHM states that The Birmingham Assay Office confirmed W.H.H. = W. H. Hasler & 1936 as the date of hallmarking. The set is placed under 1937 in BHM because of the date on the last medal in the set. I don't know where you got your list from - I didn't notice the weird system of dropping the j's either!.. Yes, I was going to say they must've just used the last year's planchets or the only other solution they thought very quickly and minted then at Xmas and knew about George VI's coronation..what a puzzle!.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
constanius Posted October 11, 2009 Report Share Posted October 11, 2009 I don't know where you got your list from - I didn't notice the weird system of dropping the j's either!..Yes, I was going to say they must've just used the last year's planchets or the only other solution they thought very quickly and minted then at Xmas and knew about George VI's coronation..what a puzzle!.. Here is the site I used Matt LINK I guess the date they had set for Edward's coronation would be the obvious choice for George's. When you consider the guest list and the logistical problems for an English coronation, why change the date just because it would be a different king being crowned! Mind, your medal being unifaced and just dated 1937 would cover any date in that year. Since the time available to prepare portraits effigies was limited 3 artists were simultaneously allowed access to the King & Queen, the model by John Langford was chosen from the 3 to be made available to medal manufacturers. The Mint Report for 1935 & 1936, page 9, records that 11 firms took advantage of this arrangement. So there was a portrait of the King & Queen available in 1936 according to the Mint Report. W. H. Hasler did not use that design though. I think the most likely solution is that they just used pre-hallmarked 1936 planchets in 1937. Another interesting point, there were 29 medals issued for Edward's non-coronation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.