• When you click on links to various merchants on this site and make a purchase, this can result in this site earning a commission. Affiliate programs and affiliations include, but are not limited to, the eBay Partner Network.

Spinks retro/patina collection fantasy coins...
1 1

46 posts in this topic

Digging through my drawers I found this set...IIRC a bunch of these were made in 1999 and were sold in a 2001 Spinks auction and the sets go by 'Spinks Patina or Retro'. It was a bunch of fantasy styles including this set.

 

Also, I'm sure I've seen a few in NGC slabs (different version but same series) ages ago and I THINK these are in the Krause unusual coins catalog (or whatever it's called). If anyone has that catalog I'd really appreciate it if someone could take a peek and let me know if they're there (and what number they are).

 

 

Quickie photos:

 

IMG_4824_zpsouxgdmyx.jpg

 

IMG_4825_zpslnilqpvs.jpg

 

IMG_4826_zpsx2salnhn.jpg

 

IMG_4827_zpsvkfonzhy.jpg

 

 

I'm asking on multiple sites, so please forgive the repetitive nature of the question.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That one was struck in 2000, sold in 2001 (and after).

 

The Spink Sale in July 2001 was mostly the sell-off of the unique strikes (in gold, aluminum, and a few other metals). The more common ones were sold to dealers, and then to collectors.

 

The one you posted is in the Krause Unusual World Coins book, and is given the number X-83 (silver), X-83a (goldine/bronze), and X-83b (copper). The mintage of this 3-piece fantasy set was 800 pieces.

 

My example in silver is below:

 

1879_X83_silver_stgeorge_dragon_composite_zpslgffnlh9.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You are too fast :). Thanks for the info, I knew I'd seen something about them before and my library is lacking that book. I thought I had the book too, but apparently not (or I've misplaced it).

 

 

Cathy

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You are too fast :). Thanks for the info, I knew I'd seen something about them before and my library is lacking that book. I thought I had the book too, but apparently not (or I've misplaced it).

 

 

Cathy

 

Your silver example should be hallmarked on the edge. It's 0.925 silver, from the London Assay Office (LAO), just like this 1910-dated piece I have (below).

 

1910-Dated_Crown_Fantasy_Edward7_NGC_PF68UC_composite_zpsch5jkf2e.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

(I think I'm talking to you on two threads...) Thanks for the other pictures. I called NGC just now, and the rep was able to look up the cert # on the coin you posted and these are slabbed as coins. I would have guessed medals.

 

Not sure if I'm slabbing these, but it sure is nice to have a reference to look at. The price guide link shows there are aluminum and gold versions. THAT would be nice to find...

 

Cathy

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have one or two of them, cannot remember. The one I know is a Victoria obverse with the Three Graces reverse in silver.

 

That would be the X-81 (see below).

 

1879_FantasyCrown_Silver_X81_raw_composite_zpsgwsx7d7x.jpg

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have one or two of them, cannot remember. The one I know is a Victoria obverse with the Three Graces reverse in silver.

 

That would be the X-81 (see below).

 

1879_FantasyCrown_Silver_X81_raw_composite_zpsgwsx7d7x.jpg

 

Is the mintage of the gorgeous copper version you have on Collective Coin the same? How much do these sets run? I must admit that this thread (and Brandon's postings on CC) have piqued my interest in the sets.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Is the mintage of the gorgeous copper version you have on Collective Coin the same? How much do these sets run? I must admit that this thread (and Brandon's postings on CC) have piqued my interest in the sets.

 

Kenny, yes the mintage of the silver, bronze/goldine, an copper versions of that fantasy crown were 790. It was also struck in gold (2 examples, one medal alignment, one coin alignment), and in aluminum (one piece struck as a trial).

 

 

Below is the copper example you are referring to that I have photographed on CollectiveCoin.

 

1879_X81b_copper_Victoria_3graces_composite_zpss940do5s.jpg

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Man, those are ultra cool! I have always thought the St. George reverse was cool! Where could I find something like that??

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Man, those are ultra cool! I have always thought the St. George reverse was cool! Where could I find something like that??

 

You best best is eBay and patience. Sometimes you can find an example straight away, other times there are none listed.

 

Also, don't fall for the ridiculous prices that some people list these for. For a silver medal from the 2000 series, you can find an example for $60 -- for the copper and bronze/goldine versions you should be able to find an example for $25-30.

 

Some of the lower mintage (< 500 pieces) ones go for a bit more. But, the mintages are somewhat misleading as there are very few of us who are collecting these...at least now. The most absurd price I have seen paid for one of these was the one below. You don't want to be "that guy who got stuck with that example! :o

 

I paid around $30 for my example of the same piece. :grin:

 

1879_PCGS_Victoria_Fantasy_Crown_eBay_Auction_20160103_zpslshyqech.jpg

1879_PCGS_Victoria_Fantasy_Crown_eBay_Auction_20160103_slab_zpsn0hu2x3o.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So are these restrikes/copies of coins that were originally struck in 1879? Does anyone have any of the originals to compare?

 

No, they are fantasy pieces. There are NO originals from 1879, thus they can't be "restrikes".

 

The obverse is modeled off of the 1837 medal bust of Victoria by William Wyon known to most as the "Penny Black" bust -- it was used on the original Penny Black stamps as well as on numerous medals of Queen Victoria since.

 

WWyon_medal_penny_black_zpsalqusl6a.jpg

 

 

The reverses are modeled off of earlier designs also. The St. George and the Dragon on the 1879 from the OP is from a medal with Prince Albert by William Wyon in 1845.

 

1845_Albert_Medal_zpsoklmgytu.jpg

 

 

The Three Graces reverse is modeled off of an 1817 pattern crown of George III that was never minted for general circulation.

 

1817_three_graces_pattern_zpsfkxmyuov.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ah, cool stuff. I really like that George III crown.

 

When they seldom come up for sale, you can have one for a paltry $50,000 or so. Give or take...

 

;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Is that Prince Albert medal yours???? I would give my firstborn for one (especially the gold version...but I do warn everyone the firstborn is starting college this fall and will be very expensive to maintain for the next 4 years).

 

Other than these fantasy pieces the closest I've gotten is this silver one (and a similar one in copper that I don't have a photo of handy). This version is by James Restall "after Wyon".

Wyon%20combo%20resize_zpsqlvoczcn.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Is that Prince Albert medal yours???? I would give my firstborn for one (especially the gold version...but I do warn everyone the firstborn is starting college this fall and will be very expensive to maintain for the next 4 years).

 

Other than these fantasy pieces the closest I've gotten is this silver one (and a similar one in copper that I don't have a photo of handy). This version is by James Restall "after Wyon".

Wyon%20combo%20resize_zpsqlvoczcn.jpg

 

Ha, no, definitely not mine. Nor is the Three Graces Crown Pattern. ;)

 

Your medal is superb!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ah, cool stuff. I really like that George III crown.

 

Interesting that you of all people think these are cool, or like them or whatever. Where are all the haters talking about how these coins are counterfeits and that whoever made them is this or that and should be in prison and all that nonsense?

 

Are these OK because they are foreign?

Why are these not controversial but DCARR fantasy pieces are? They are essentially the same thing, some poor helpless collector could definately be "taken" by one of these pieces 100 years from now could they not?

 

Im fascinated by the fact that these pieces would be totally acceptable but DCARR's wouldn't. Why is that?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ah, cool stuff. I really like that George III crown.

 

Interesting that you of all people think these are cool, or like them or whatever. Where are all the haters talking about how these coins are counterfeits and that whoever made them is this or that and should be in prison and all that nonsense?

 

Are these OK because they are foreign?

Why are these not controversial but DCARR fantasy pieces are? They are essentially the same thing, some poor helpless collector could definately be "taken" by one of these pieces 100 years from now could they not?

 

Im fascinated by the fact that these pieces would be totally acceptable but DCARR's wouldn't. Why is that?

 

They are okay because they are not exact replicas of any real coins...with some microscopic inconsequential detail like the date changed as DCARR does.

 

Borrowing designs to strike a fantasy piece from a medal or from a pattern that never circulated is not the same as creating exact replicas of US coins and changing a date or a mint mark...if you can't see the difference...then wow, just wow! You're making an apples to orange comparison.

 

I've never heard anyone claim that DCARR's original creations are in violation of any law. The complaint with DCARRs items is with the ones that are rip-offs (fakes) of real circulating US coinage designs.

 

:makepoint:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ah, cool stuff. I really like that George III crown.

 

Interesting that you of all people think these are cool, or like them or whatever. Where are all the haters talking about how these coins are counterfeits and that whoever made them is this or that and should be in prison and all that nonsense?

 

Are these OK because they are foreign?

Why are these not controversial but DCARR fantasy pieces are? They are essentially the same thing, some poor helpless collector could definately be "taken" by one of these pieces 100 years from now could they not?

 

Im fascinated by the fact that these pieces would be totally acceptable but DCARR's wouldn't. Why is that?

 

You strongly misinterpret my post. I have absolutely zero interest in the modern fantasy restrike counterfeits.

 

I was saying the *original* George III crown pattern was cool stuff.

 

The restrikes are on exactly the same level as the Dcarr .

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ah, cool stuff. I really like that George III crown.

 

Interesting that you of all people think these are cool, or like them or whatever. Where are all the haters talking about how these coins are counterfeits and that whoever made them is this or that and should be in prison and all that nonsense?

 

Are these OK because they are foreign?

Why are these not controversial but DCARR fantasy pieces are? They are essentially the same thing, some poor helpless collector could definately be "taken" by one of these pieces 100 years from now could they not?

 

Im fascinated by the fact that these pieces would be totally acceptable but DCARR's wouldn't. Why is that?

 

You strongly misinterpret my post. I have absolutely zero interest in the modern fantasy restrike counterfeits.

 

I was saying the *original* George III crown pattern was cool stuff.

 

The restrikes are on exactly the same level as the Dcarr .

 

 

They are NOT restrikes. There was NEVER a coin made of these types....EVER. :facepalm:

 

A fantasy coin and a restrike are two completely different things. And, a counterfeit is neither. Think you have some wires crossed Jason. And, don't let AHFreak get to you too much -- he's always baiting people to get a rise out of them. Seems to be his M.O.

 

Can we please not turn this thread into yet another DCarr train wreck please???

 

(shrug)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Interesting that you of all people think these are cool, or like them or whatever. Where are all the haters talking about how these coins are counterfeits and that whoever made them is this or that and should be in prison and all that nonsense?

 

Are these OK because they are foreign?

Why are these not controversial but DCARR fantasy pieces are? They are essentially the same thing, some poor helpless collector could definately be "taken" by one of these pieces 100 years from now could they not?

 

Im fascinated by the fact that these pieces would be totally acceptable but DCARR's wouldn't. Why is that?

 

I understand the ‘interesting’ comment was not directed at me, but I certainly am included in it as I find the items in this thread ‘cool and like them or whatever’. I even have a DCarr UnaAmero given the equine/mythological design (winged horse version). Because it was ‘cool’.

 

I collect medals and have always loved the Wyon design for St. George (and wished his had been chosen as the reverse for the sovereigns, but Pistrucci won that contest).

 

I will never buy the George III pattern and I find it equally unlikely I will ever own an original Wyon medal given the deep pockets of the current collector bases involved. However, I now have two items (the INA retro and the 'after Wyon' medal) that allow me to have something reflective of the original but that are clearly not THE original.

 

As for being deceptive, counterfeit-like, or controversial, how is that?

 

The medal is clearly engraved as ‘after Wyon’ and the engraver’s name is included.

 

The ‘retro collections’ of the OP do not resemble struck coins (circulation, pattern, proof or otherwise). Period. Well, they are round and one of them is silver, so there is that. However a simple look in the standard references makes it pretty clear what their status is…including the fact they carry the X# that I was looking for in the OP.

 

The 'retro collection' items revive historical themes for coin designs that were either considered, or were similar to others being considered. In fact, they make some pretty amazing designs available for people of more modest budgets.

 

Not sure why you feel it is important to denigrate someone's choice of collecting material. Your off the cuff use of the word ‘foreign’ and the phrase ‘think these are cool, or like them or whatever' is insulting. It’s a passive aggressive way of reducing the validity of the material preferred by others. If someone’s taste differs does not automatically make it wrong or less worthy. Normal people don’t tear down the preferences of other normal people.

 

 

You strongly misinterpret my post. I have absolutely zero interest in the modern fantasy restrike counterfeits.

 

I was saying the *original* George III crown pattern was cool stuff.

 

The restrikes are on exactly the same level as the Dcarr *spoon*.

 

edited to add, I should have read more before my initial response. The above comments cover this too. Just because you don't care for the same material as others doesn't mean you need to be insulting. No reason not to have an 'after' medal or a modern 'fantasy' piece that is neither a restrike nor a counterfeit.

 

It would be a boring world if everyone had exactly the same taste, goals and aspirations. Not that the administrator mentality doesn't try to shoehorn people into cookie-cutter solutions. People aren't cookies. People like and want different things. Not cool to call another person's taste *spoon*.

Edited by Stork
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Fantasy pieces are just what they are. Unmarked replicas of real coins are illegal. Their manufacture and/or sale is unethical in my opinion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Fantasy pieces are just what they are. Unmarked replicas of real coins are illegal. Their manufacture and/or sale is unethical in my opinion.

 

The pieces that are the topic of this thread are not unmarked replicas of real coins. They are effectively medals, they do not carry a denomination anywhere in their design, and they are not mimicking the design of any coins issued by Great Britain (or any other country).

 

Not sure what you are referring to in your latest (tangential) post Roger, but the topic of this thread (until DCarr was brought up) was with regard to a set of medals issued in 2000-2001 by a private minting company in England. They are called "Fantasy" pieces in name only, and alternatively have been called "Retro patterns" and many other things. That doesn't change the reality of what they really are -- which are medals.

 

A few of the posters in this thread need to either troll elsewhere or learn how to read.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Fantasy pieces are just what they are. Unmarked replicas of real coins are illegal. Their manufacture and/or sale is unethical in my opinion.

 

 

An unmarked replica of a real coin is a counterfeit, not a 'fantasy piece'. :eyeroll:

 

The set in the OP is mine. The set is clearly an art piece that is reflective of historical designs. Odd as it is that it would be submitted as a 'coin' (given that the items were never used as a means of payment), that is an issue with the organizations that classify them. There is no previous coin to be replicated that has those designs. It is 'fantasy' only in that it is a concept model of what might have been.

 

The medal posted later is clearly described as an 'after' piece on the medal itself and in no way could be mistaken for the original Wyon medal. No deception.

 

Why the hate on what other people like? Would you like to disparage Art Deco vs. Art Nouveau style medals? Would you like to explain to me why one is better than the other just because that is your preference? Is it 'wrong' that to collect Japanese coins and not Chinese coins? German States instead of British?

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree --- these are not problem items. That's what I thought my comment made clear.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree --- these are not problem items. That's what I thought my comment made clear.

 

Ah, I see. I read that as the third sentence referring to both the previous sentences. And, that you were equating a fantasy piece to a counterfeit. You meant to draw a distinction not show a similarity.

 

My apologies for being so snippy...I was getting irritable from earlier comments and did not read that correctly in my haste.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
1 1