the cromwell dunbar medals by simon

Transcription

THE CROMWELL DUNBAR MEDALS BY SIMON
Marvin
Lessen
Foreword
The
most famous of Thomas S i m o n ' s medals of Oliver Cromwell are those
conceived
as military r e w a r d s for the 1650 battle of D u n b a r .
Struck in
small a n d large sizes of identical design (Medallic
Illustrations
391/13 and
392/14),
these medals may be considered as common, in the sense of being
readily obtainable b u t , as this p a p e r will s h o w , most of them are in reality
either restrikes of the eighteenth a n d nineteenth centuries or nineteenthcentury forgeries from false dies.
Genuine contemporary D u n b a r s are so
rare that the commonly held view that the medal w a s a n extensive general
r e w a r d stands in need of revision.
161+9150
Naval
Reward
S i m o n ' s small n a v a l medal {MI 3 9 0 / 1 2 a n d P I . 2 , 1 ) p l a y s a n important role
in the D u n b a r series for it shares a common reverse die with the later small
Dunbar medal.
The historical b a c k g r o u n d to the issuance of this n a v a l
r e w a r d is quite clear, a n d both H a w k i n s 1 a n d H e n f r e y 2 h a v e written on the
subject.
In 1648,
following
a revolt in the p a r l i a m e n t a r y fleet, about a dozen
ships
went
to Helvoetsluys
in
Holland
where
they
were organised
as a
royalist s q u a d r o n b y Prince Rupert.
In November of that y e a r , after a
parliamentary
blockade
was
lifted,
Rupert
decided
to take the ships to
Ireland.
To raise money for the refitting a n d the p a y of the seamen he
sold the b r a s s g u n s of the
Antelope
a n d p a w n e d the queen of B o h e m i a ' s
jewels.
Eventually he w a s able to send most of the s q u a d r o n to I r e l a n d ,
but the Antelope
a n d Blackamoor
Lady
were left b e h i n d , the former b e c a u s e
she w a s mainly d i s a r m e d ,
a n d the latter b e c a u s e she could not be m a n n e d
for lack of f u n d s . 3
In April 1649 the Council of State ordered the destruction of the Antelope"
a n d in M a y a boat expedition, o r g a n i s e d in the Downs with some officers
a n d men d r a w n from the
Happy
Entrance
( C a p t . R i c h a r d B a d i l e y ) u n d e r the
command of Lt.Stephen Rose, successfully surprised a n d burnt the Antelope
as she l a y at anchor in Helvoetsluys. 5
A regular w a r s h i p of 450 tons a n d
34 g u n s , built in 1618 for James I , 6 the Antelope w a s p e r h a p s the least seaworthy of R u p e r t ' s s h i p s , but p a r l i a m e n t ' s n a v y , then in a very depressed
state, must h a v e g a i n e d some prestige for a well-conceived a n d accomplished
r a i d , obviously in violation of Dutch territorial waters. 7
According
to the
minutes of the Council
of State a n d the
Admiralty
Committee, 27-29 October 1649, the r e w a r d s which were intended to commemorate this exploit were as follows: Stephen Rose £ 5 0 , of w h i c h £2 w a s to be
in the form of a gold m e d a l ; James P a r k e r , volunteer, a n d Thomas T u l l e y ,
corporal, £10 each a n d a gold medal worth £ 1 ; a n d £5 each to the accompa n y i n g mariners ( T h o m a s Y o u n g , Thomas C o w d e r y , Richard K n i g h t , Bartholomew F e r d i n a n d o , J n o . M u m f o r d , E d w a r d Giffin, Thomas Sexton, Robert Garret,
113
a n d Richard B e n n e t ) . 8
The gold rewards fit the numismatic evidence for at
least one is certainly k n o w n , but the absence of a n y mention in the minutes
of silver medals is inconsistent with the existence today of at least five
examples in that metal.
Most likely the minutes simply fail to go into such
detail,
or the resultant r e w a r d s represent subsequent c h a n g e s .
Whatever
the c a s e ,
we
are
left with
an
unusually
high
survival
rate,
a n d the
possibility that this r e w a r d might also be associated with some other, later
exploit should not be ruled out. 9
Further minutes from 15-21 November 1649 specify the m e d a l ' s design of
the arms,
'Mervisti',
a n d the House of Commons, a n d the assignment of a
Tower press to Simon for m a k i n g medals ( a n d for no other p u r p o s e ) . 1 0 On 8
M a r c h 1650 an account of S i m o n ' s w a s mentioned, w h i c h included the m a k i n g
of medals for s e a m e n , 1 1 a n d a week later he w a s a g a i n bonded not to put the
press to a n y u n l a w f u l u s e . 1 2 F i n a l l y , on 22 July 1650, £276 w a s p a i d to him
for e n g r a v i n g , although this would h a v e represented a cumulative p a y m e n t . 1 3
A n examination of the reverse of the n a v a l a n d D u n b a r medals failed
to reveal a n y sequencing
relative to die w e a r or f l a w s , but this is not
surprising with such a small s a m p l i n g , all of w h i c h could h a v e been produced within a y e a r .
Although it does not seem possible to date the actual
issuance of the n a v a l medal it is clear that it w a s designed c.November
1649, authorized the previous month for specific services performed in M a y
1649,
a n d likely issued b y mid-1650, months before the battle of D u n b a r .
There
are
no k n o w n
records of S i m o n ' s ,
such as accounts or sketches,
regarding
this
medal.
Considering
that the parliamentary
reverse
was
somewhat of a s t a n d a r d for medals of this period, a reason for the size of
the later small D u n b a r medal,
which also required the Commons reverse,
becomes a p p a r e n t , i . e . , half the medal a l r e a d y existed.
This reasoning can
p e r h a p s be projected further to imply that the small D u n b a r medal preceded
the l a r g e .
The
Battle
of
Dunbar1"
The
English
army,
under
Cromwell at his new post of C a p t a i n or Lord
G e n e r a l , entered Scotland 22 July 1650 with about 1 6 , 0 0 0 men.
The weeks
of unsuccessful manoeuvering around E d i n b u r g h resulted in the w i t h d r a w i n g
English being trapped near D u n b a r in south-eastern Scotland,
which h a d
been established earlier as a supply port.
At the d a w n of 3 September 1650
the English
army
saw its chance at surprise,
turned on D a v i d
Leslie's
l a r g e r , but inexperienced forces, a n d virtually destroyed them.
Cromwell's
own account claimed that the Scots suffered casualties of some 3 , 0 0 0 killed
and
1 0 , 0 0 0 captured against
about 20 killed on the English side.
Even
allowing for e x a g g e r a t i o n s , there can be no doubt that this w a s a resounding victory, a n d it w a s b y Cromwell's request that the English a r m y ' s word
or slogan at the battle, 'The Lord of H o s t s ' , should a p p e a r as the legend
on the medals struck in commemoration.
It is of some interest to attempt to detail the structure of the English
army at D u n b a r , especially because the contention has a l w a y s been that the
medals were issued to all participating troops.
Prior to D u n b a r some 4-5,000
men were lost, mainly through sickness, leaving possibly 11-12,000 at Dunbar,
made up of about 7 , 5 0 0 foot a n d 3 , 5 0 0 horse.
The v a n g u a r d of the battle
w a s undertaken b y L a m b e r t ' s division of six regiments of horse (Lambert,
Fleetwood, W h a l l e y , Twistleton, L i l b u r n e , H a c k e r ) , a n d M o n c k ' s b r i g a d e of
three a n d a half regiments of foot.
Secondary forces were a b r i g a d e of foot
u n d e r Overton, a n d O k e y ' s dragoons commanded by an u n k n o w n officer.
In
reserve
were
Cromwell's
regiment
of
horse
(Capt.
Packer)
and
Pride's
brigade
of three
regiments of foot (Cromwell's under Goffe,
Pride's
and
Lambert's).
It seems the forces included three generals (Cromwell, M a j . G e n .
H
E CROMWELL DUNBAR MEDALS BY SIMON
Lambert,
Lt.Gen.
Fleetwood - four if commissary-general W'halley should be
counted as a g e n e r a l ) ,
a n d eleven or twelve colonels ( W h a l l e y ,
Twistleton,
Robert
Lilburne,
Hacker,
Monck,
Overton,
Coxe,
Charles
Fairfax,
Daniel,
Pride,
Lt.Col.
Goffe,
a n d possibly M a u l e v e r e r ,
with Bright a n d O k e y not
b e i n g in S c o t l a n d ) .
No records
are k n o w n
assigning
a medal to a n y particular person or
g r o u p , but obviously t h o u s a n d s of men w o u l d theoretically h a v e been entitled
to a r e w a r d .
H o w e v e r , the g e n e r a l s a n d colonels w o u l d h a v e been the most
likely recipients.
Documentary
Evidence
From v a r i o u s House of Commons a n d Council of State records, a n d from other
contemporary w r i t i n g s ,
it is clear that an enthusiastic parliament intended
to p r o v i d e medals to all the victorious participants at D u n b a r .
The n e w s
of the battle r e a c h e d L o n d o n on 7 September 1650, a n d b y 10 September the
House a n d the Council h a d initiated action to ' . . . . c o n s i d e r w h a t M e d a l s m a y
be p r e p a r e d ,
both for Officers a n d S o l d i e r s . . . '
a n d to send
a letter to
Cromwell e x p r e s s i n g t h a n k s to the officers a n d s o l d i e r s . 1 5
V/hitelock
recorded
more
interesting
details
when
he
wrote
that
parliament:
ordered that the Colours w h i c h were taken from Hamilton at the Battle
of Preston a n d D u n b a r r e ,
should be h a n g e d up in Westminster H a l l ,
a n d the M e d a l s of Gold a n d Silver should be g i v e n to the Souldiery,
in remembrance of Gods
M e r c y , a n d of their Valour a n d V i c t o r y . 1 6
Here is the first direct evidence we h a v e that matches the few original gold
a n d silver medals in existence t o d a y .
Abbott references some similar notices
in the press for the same date (Perfect
Diurnal
a n d Mercurius
Politicus)
Several Council minutes for November a n d December 1650 refer to the
allocation of a press to Simon to make some medals for the public service,
There is no evidence to associate these
a n d to T h o m a s Violet's objections. 1 8
actions with the D u n b a r m e d a l , w h i c h h a d yet to be finally d e s i g n e d .
The
press could h a v e been part of the future p l a n s ; alternatively it could h a v e
been required for further n a v a l m e d a l s , the Lord General m e d a l , or prelimi n a r y D u n b a r trials, the only possible medallic works I c a n relate to Simon
at that period.
Cromwell's
famous
letter of 4 F e b r u a r y
1651
( P l . l ) , 1 9 directed to the
Committee of the A r m y , is of real importance, for it shows that Simon w a s
in E d i n b u r g h to make a live portrait a n d discuss the d e s i g n of the m e d a l .
It is the only record of the m e d a l ' s specifications, a n d indicates that the
design
had
generally
been
decided
upon
in
London
beforehand,
except
p r o b a b l y for the ' L o r d of Hosts' legend a n d the battle scene.
Cromwell's
request that he be not depicted w a s obviously i g n o r e d .
Both C a r l y l e 2 0 a n d
21
H e n f r e y quote some u n k n o w n , seemingly related references that mention Simon
taking C r o m w e l l ' s portrait a n d a Council p a y m e n t .
Here the records seem
to e n d ,
for I k n o w of no other documentary
material,
a n d no
financial
account of S i m o n ' s either mentions or implies the D u n b a r m e d a l s .
The Genuine
Dies
1 have
been u n a b l e
to trace the original Simon dies into the
twentieth
century,
but I am confident that both large dies a n d p e r h a p s the small
obverse
die
still
exist.
I w o u l d anticipate their structure to be very
similar to that of the Lord General die, v i z . each a steel shouldered die
h a v i n g a round die face on a s q u a r e s h a n k ,
the d e s i g n b e i n g within an
oval on the round f a c e . 2 2
The large dies did not h a v e provision for an
integral suspension loop; the small dies possibly d i d .
The history of these
dies, long after their 1651 o r i g i n , is quite
documented, yet obscure details r e m a i n .
interesting
and
115
reasonably
well
Vertue (1753) mentions a D u n b a r die ( s i n g u l a r ) as being found in the
wall of a house in Suffolk, w h i c h once belonged to Richard Cromwell.
In
the 1780 edition b y R i c h a r d G o u g h the county w a s c h a n g e d to H a m p s h i r e , a n d
an additional footnote discussed a die for a seal of P a r l i a m e n t , w h i c h w a s
found in the wall of R i c h a r d Cromwell's house at H u r s l e y , H a m p s h i r e , w h e n
the house w a s pulled d o w n .
Vertue supposedly s a w this die in 1741. 2 3
A 1799 pamphlet on the exhibit of Cromwell's embalmed h e a d 2 " is of great
importance for both obverse D u n b a r
dies were also on d i s p l a y
(although
apparently
not the
large
reverse d i e ) ,
and
a good description of their
eighteenth-century history w a s i n c l u d e d .
Of the two dyes now exhibited
it only remains to s a y , that they
were f o u n d , nearly fifty y e a r s a g o , b y M r . T h o m a s G a r d n e r , comptroller
of the salt-works at Southwold in Suffolk, in the shop of a blacksmith
at that p l a c e , w h o asserted that h e , or his father, h a d
purchased
them (with other articles of iron w o r k ) out of a house at Southwold
that h a d belonged to the protector R i c h a r d .
V e r t u e ' s account of their
h a v i n g been found at Hursley may therefore be erroneous; but it is
not
at
all
material to the subject.
This u n l u c k y
fellow,
wholly
ignorant of the nature a n d v a l u e of those exquisite monuments both
of art
and
of the E n g l i s h history,
had
already
appropriated
the
reverse of the lesser d y e , to make one of those steel instruments with
w h i c h iron is d i v i d e d on the a n v i l .
M r . G a r d n e r instantly rescued
all the parts w h i c h r e m a i n e d ; a n d on one of his a n n u a l journies to
London,
presented
them
to M r . C o x ,
on
condition
that
the
latter
should
occasionally
furnish him with impressions
from them.
Mr.
Gardner
w a s then far a d v a n c e d in y e a r s , a n d died soon after, w h e n
but a very few of the impressions e n g a g e d b y M r . C o x h a d been t a k e n ;
a n d it is now more than twenty y e a r s since the dyes were used at
all, except for a few impressions from the remaining obverse side of
the smaller one.
It has a l r e a d y been shewn from V e r t u e ' s opinion
that these medals exhibit the best likeness of Cromwell, that h a v e
ever been obtained in this mode of imitation.
The late M r . P i n g o .
e n g r a v e r to the mint, out of a generous r e g a r d to the arts, undertook
to inclose both parts of the larger d y e ,
at his own e x p e n s e , in a
strong iron frame, in order to its greater safety, a n d better preserv a t i o n ; a n d it w a s done a c c o r d i n g l y , in the m a n n e r in w h i c h it now
appears.
Earlier in the pamphlet it w a s mentioned that M r . J a m e s Cox w a s formerly
the proprietor of the celebrated museum, w h i c h bore his n a m e .
Cox obtained
the h e a d of Cromwell in 1787, a n d a p p a r e n t l y sold his museum, with the
h e a d a n d the dies, close to 1799 (the pamphlet said ' r e c e n t l y ' ) .
According
to Forrer, both John a n d Lewis P i n g o , sons of T h o m a s , died in 1830, so the
person mentioned here as 'late' would be Thomas P i n g o (1692-1776), who w a s
assistant e n g r a v e r at the mint from 1771 to his d e a t h .
Thomas G a r d n e r w a s
a D u n w i c h historian who died in Southwold, Suffolk, in 1769 "
I believe a r e a s o n a b l y coherent picture c a n be derived from this background,
a n d from information on the Cromwell family that D r . O c k e n d e n has
suggested
to me.
When Richard Cromwell returned from the continent he
lived at C h e s h u n t ,
a n d w a s buried (1712) at his w i f e ' s estate at Hursley,
Hampshire.
In 1718 his two surviving d a u g h t e r s sold the Hursley manor to
Sir William Heathcote
(d.1751),
who pulled it down at an u n k n o w n
date.
I w o u l d propose that the seal die alone w a s found between 1718 and 1751.
This is considered to be the steel die (matrix) for a Parliament s e a l , 2 6 which
116
seems to h a v e been temporarily at the British Museum early in the nineteenth century w h e n
electrotypes
a n d w a x impressions were t a k e n .
It is
best to leave Hursley to this sole die a n d not attempt to relate the D u n b a r
dies to this location or to R i c h a r d .
Hursley a n d Southwold are about 150
miles a p a r t .
I see no reason to doubt the general a c c u r a c y of the story told in the
Narrative,
a n d I accept G a r d n e r ,
Southwold, a n d the b l a c k s m i t h .
As Miss
Foster, w h o w a s treasurer of the Southwold Archaeological Society,
pointed
out there is no evidence that R i c h a r d Cromwell o w n e d a house at Southwold 2 . 7
H o w e v e r , there is a possible relation, a n d this is Bridget B e n d i s h , O l i v e r ' s
g r a n d d a u g h t e r a n d d a u g h t e r of Bridget Cromwell a n d H e n r y Ireton.
She w a s
a staunch Cromwellian
whose residence w a s called the Salt-Pans at Great
Yarmouth,
actually South-Town at the southern end of Y a r m o u t h .
She died
there in 1727 or 1728, a n d a description of her life c a n be found in Noble 2 . 8
Dr.
Ockenden
has
a note of R i c h a r d W a r n e r ' s 2 9 s a y i n g
'Oliver
Cromwell's
granddaughter
Bridget
Bendish
had
the
saltings
at S o u t h w o l d ' ,
but the
a c c u r a c y of this has not been confirmed.
For the present I am inclined to
conclude that Bridget could well h a v e been the Southwold connection (Southwold is approximately twenty miles south of Y a r m o u t h ) , she h a d the dies as
mementoes, a n d w h e n her possessions were dispersed they somehow got to the
blacksmith as s c r a p .
This could be a fantasy w h i c h fits the p u z z l e , but
the assumptions are not u n r e a s o n a b l e .
In s u m m a r i z i n g this train of reasoning it is found that the D u n b a r dies
m a y h a v e been a Cromwell family possession in the h a n d s of Bridget Bendishj
some y e a r s after her death they were disposed of a n d became the property
of a Southwold b l a c k s m i t h , w h o destroyed the small reverse die ( w h i c h could
also h a v e a l r e a d y been d a m a g e d ) before selling the r e m a i n i n g three dies to
Thomas G a r d n e r c . 1 7 5 0
(although
I w o u l d not place too much faith in the
a c c u r a c y of the 'fifty y e a r s ' prior to the 1799 pamphlet d a t e ) .
Between 1750
and
1776 some restrikes were m a d e for James C o x , most likely b y Thomas
P i n g o , a n d P i n g o enclosed the cracked large dies with frames.
After P i n g o ' s
death (1776) some further restrikes were possibly d o n e , i n c l u d i n g those from
the small obverse die.
About 1799 the dies were transferred to the new
owners of the Cox m u s e u m , d i s p l a y e d , a n d fortunately p u b l i s h e d .
The next record is b y Henfrey w h e n he states, for the date of 16 July
1874, 'The
original
dies
of the large
Dunbar
medal,
two
(obverse
and
r e v e r s e ) , of steel, much worn a n d c r a c k e d , a n d enclosed in a clumsy iron
In his p u b l i s h e d
frame,
are now in the possession of M r . A . B . W y o n
. ..'30
book he a d d s
' T h e dies were p u r c h a s e d
many
years
ago b y M r . W y o n ' s
A . B . Wyon (1837-84) w a s the son of B e n j a m i n W y o n (1802-58), so the
father'.31
implication is that Benjamin bought the dies a n d p a s s e d them on to his son,
or more likely they were the property of the Wyon firm.
No mention w a s
made of the small obverse die, w h i c h d i s a p p e a r s from view after 1799.
F i n a l l y , a p a i r of large dies a p p e a r e d at S o t h e b y ' s auction 21 July 1898
(lot 2 3 5 ) , where they were sold to Williams for £ 2 1 .
The description w a s
'Cromwell.
The original Steel Dies for the O b v e r s e
and
Reverse of the
celebrated D u n b a r M e d a l (large s i z e ) , by T . S i m o n ,
that of the reverse is
cracked1.
Unfortunately the D u n b a r lot description lacks sufficient detail,
such as a mention of the s u r r o u n d i n g iron frames, so it is not possible to
be certain these dies were the originals a n d not the forgeries.
However,
the Lord General die w a s included in the same sale (lot 234, where it sold
to W a r r e n for £ 5 - 1 0 s . ) , a n d its s u r r o u n d i n g frames v/ere not mentioned either.
K n o w i n g the Wyons h a d all these dies twenty y e a r s before, it is fairly safe
to assume the, D u n b a r dies h a d the frames, originated from the same Wyon
source, a n d were those made by Simon.
I am not familiar with the b u y e r ,
Williams.
This 1898 sale is the last trace I h a v e found of the large dies.
SMALL
DUNBAR
11
MEDALS
General
The small medal shares its reverse with the earlier n a v a l m e d a l , a n d therefore p r o b a b l y preceded the large D u n b a r .
The obverse die w a s p r e s u m a b l y
m a d e about mid-1651 after S i m o n ' s return from his J a n u a r y or F e b r u a r y trip
to E d i n b u r g h .
What use w a s made of the resultant strikings, which are
v e r y r a r e , is not clear, a n d the discussion will be left to a later section.
There are two forms of this m e d a l : the flawless originals h a v i n g both obverse
and
reverse;
and
the
post-blacksmith
eighteenth-century
restrikes,
which
are
uniface
(obverse
only)
and
exhibit
die
deterioration.
Even
without the blacksmith
story a n d the destruction of the reverse die, the
simple
separation
between
originals
and
restrikes
is
an
obvious
one,
b e c a u s e of the quality of the two-face strikings a n d the perfect condition
of the dies w h e n they were m a d e .
At least one of the two dies may h a v e
included
an impression for a suspension loop, for the two British Museum
specimens retain their original integral loops.
Original
Small
Medals
I h a v e been able to record only seven original specimens, at least three of
w h i c h w o u l d be die trials.
There are three medals in gold, a n d one each
in silver, copper, pewter, a n d an u n k n o w n alloy.
In the following corpus
each example currently k n o w n has been illustrated, but the g e n u i n e n e s s a n d
location of the others is u n k n o w n .
A fuller description of each illustrated
example will be found in the key to the plates.
1.
Gold, not traced.
ex E d w a r d , earl of Oxford M a r c h 1742 (lot 157) £9.
to West; James West sale J a n u a r y 1773 (lot 6 l ) £ 2 7 . 1 0 s . to Morrison.
This
information supplied to me b y O . F . P a r s o n s .
The weight is suspiciously that
of the British Museum medal ( N o . 3 ) , but the pedigree requires that it be
treated as a separate e x a m p l e .
The weight w a s 105 g r .
2.
Gold,
Lessen
collection
3.
Gold,
British Museum ( P I . 2 , 3 ) .
4.
Silver,
5-
Copper,
O.F.Parsons
British
(PI.2,2).
collection
Museum
(PI.2,4).
(PI. 3 , 5 ) .
6.
A strange specimen in the Fitzwilliam Museum ( P I . 3 , 6 ) , a p p e a r s to be
of a silverish composition, but has a specific gravity of 11.45.
The overall
quality
and
s h a r p n e s s of devices make the medal a p p e a r struck, but the
r o u g h n e s s of the fields imply a cast.
The u n u s u a l metallic composition is
d i s t u r b i n g for I know of no other metals used in the mid-seventeenth century
for medallic work other than gold,
silver,
copper, l e a d , a n d pewter, at
least by Simon.
A laboratory examination ( A p p e n d i x A) concluded that the
medal w a s struck on a cast flan, w h i c h still retains some of its casting
characteristics.
Interestingly
enough,
assuming
the
metallic
composition
includes a large percentage of l e a d , the implication is that X-ray diffraction
techniques c a n be used successfully with soft metals that re-crystallize to
some degree b a c k to their cast structure after striking.
Admittedly,
known
lead a n d silver casts of the period were not subjected to these same tests
at the time, but it is hoped the investigation c a n be p u r s u e d further.
7.
Pewter, not traced,
ex Montagu
1897 (lot 210) £ 2 . 2 s . , no loop.
This
is p r o b a b l y
the one in tin Henfrey ( p . 2 2 5 ) mentioned he bought for 15s.
from Lincoln on 1 M a r c h 1876; called lead in the British Museum duplicates
sale of 10 F e b r u a r y 1876 (lot 2 5 ) , it sold with another item to Lincoln for
15s.
118
In the publication of the T a n g y e collection 3 2 two silver specimens with
both obverse a n d reverse were listed, but I doubt that these were g e n u i n e
two-face m e d a l s .
The best of his material seems to h a v e gone to the Museum
of L o n d o n .
Restrike
Small
Medals
The uniface restrikes are not uncommon, a n d p r o b a b l y a few dozen exist in
copper a n d silver.
It is possible all of these were m a d e at v a r i o u s times
between c . 1 7 5 0
and
1799 as the discussion of the dies implies,
and
the
medals themselves tend to confirm they were not all m a d e at once, but in
at least two g r o u p s .
The examples illustrated are very typical.
The copper
medal ( P I . 3 , 7 ) is the earlier of the two for it shows no die c r a c k s .
It has
rust a r e a s , is struck on w h a t a p p e a r s to be a cast b l a n k ,
has
doubling
about the face, a n d d i s p l a y s very w e a k areas on some of the letters.
All
in all it is a professional quality striking as is the somewhat later example
(Pi.3,8),
but b y the time this latter medal w a s m a d e severe c r a c k i n g h a d
occurred between
12 a n d 2 o ' c l o c k .
This possibly w o u l d h a v e led to an
eventual b r e a k i n g a w a y of the die in that region, although I am not a w a r e
of a n y
strikings with this extreme b r e a k .
The earlier g r o u p exists
in
copper, but I am not certain if silver ones also exist; the later group exists
in silver a n d copper of identical characteristics.
U n d o u b t e d l y it w o u l d be
possible to find these medals with lesser a n d greater degrees of die deterioration.
That they were made b y P i n g o a n d at the Royal Mint is impossible
to confirm, but reasonable to a s s u m e .
The Royal Mint e n g r a v e r s did h a v e
access to the use of the medal (or proof or die) press for private w o r k ,
w h i c h this would h a v e b e e n . 3 3
LARGE
DUNBAR
MEDALS
General
The large medals are identical in d e s i g n to the small, except the signature
is T H O . S I M O N . F E instead of T . S I M O N . F , a n d my feeling is that they followed
the small ones in time.
Fortunately the large D u n b a r s fall into distinct
g r o u p i n g s fairly neatly, b a s e d on die f l a w s , but there are some reservations.
There is a minute group of original 1651 period strikings (silver a n d g o l d ) :
a moderately w i d e group of mid- to late-eighteenth-century restrikes ( l e a d ,
copper, silver, a n d g o l d ) , w h i c h c a n be sub-divided into e a r l y , middle a n d
late periods;
a small group of mid-nineteenth-century restrikes,
presumably
b y the Wyons (white metal a n d s i l v e r ) ; a n d a final group of h i g h quality
late-nineteenth-century forgeries from false dies (silver a n d g o l d ) .
It will
be seen that the rarity of the originals precludes the possibility of a widespread general issue, if indeed they were issued at all.
Original
Large
Medals
(Pl.b)
M a n y years ago my intention w a s to gather sufficient samples of the large
Dunbar
medal,
sort them b y die flaw characteristics
and,
if a distinct
earliest
grouping
was
uncovered,
categorize
that
group
as
the
issued
originals.
This seemed a r e a s o n a b l e
a p p r o a c h since the
seventeenth-century
documentation implied there w a s such a thing as a large contemporary issue,
and
eighteenth-century literature said there were restrikes.
Unfortunately
the g r o u p i n g s did not align as neatly as expected, partly b e c a u s e forgeries
were included but m a i n l y ,
as it developed, b e c a u s e I h a d no originals to
record.
In corresponding with O w e n Parsons I found he w a s convinced that
there
should
be versions earlier than a n y we then k n e w
about,
on the
11
g r o u n d s that these w o u l d h a v e the full extremities of the horizon a n d battle
scene struck up as on the small m e d a l .
In fact he p u b l i s h e d his views some
years b e f o r e . 1
remained u n c o n v i n c e d , but a few years later some examples
of the proper original types were f o u n d .
It becomes a simple matter to determine the originality of a struck large
Dunbar
medal.
If it exhibits characteristics that show the dies were in
perfect condition a n d the striking procedures were of the highest q u a l i t y ,
then the medal is o r i g i n a l .
This is especially easy since there are so many
non-contemporary
examples
available
for
comparison.
Conversely,
all
strikings
showing
later
characteristics,
and
these
characteristics
are
drastically
later
not
simply
normal
die
wear,
must be non-contemporary
restrikes.
This is an important point to u n d e r s t a n d , for the originals form
a discrete g r o u p , far removed from all other specimens.
The characteristics of an original
medal include
a full horizon
and
battle scene, a wide flan (although this could be trimmed so it is not a
necessity),
minimal
or virtually
no letter
bifurcation,
no trace of a n y
obverse
or reverse die cracks or rust pits, a n d a relatively thin flan (see
F i g . l thickness measurement points a n d the plate descriptions).
I suggest
the weight would be quite consistent with the few I h a v e r e c o r d e d , v i z . 290gr.
in gold a n d 162-174 g r . in silver.
The full battle scene is the most obvious
feature.
I h a v e recorded four original large medals, u n f l a w e d a n d with the full
battle scene, i . e . ,
perfect m e d a l s , but I can only be positive about three
of these.
One e x a m p l e , in gold, is pierced a n d w e i g h s 2 8 6 . 2 g r .
(PI.4,9).
In 1976 it w a s e x a m i n e d visually a n d with X-ray diffraction by D r . M . S . T i t e
at the British Museum Research Laboratory a n d declared not to be a cast.
The examination
w a s u n d e r t a k e n mainly because the surface exhibits some
granularity
or pitting,
but
unfortunately
there
was
insufficient
time to
a n a l y z e the cause of the surface characteristics,
w h i c h could possibly be
the
result
of removed
gilding
or h a r s h
cleaning.
Of the three
silver
specimens
(PI . 4 , 1 0 , 1 1 , 1 2 ) ,
the last is somewhat questionable for it has an
a d d e d loop, a normal-width flan, a n d the all important struck/cast criterion
is difficult to determine because of the quality of the illustration a n d the
degree of w e a r .
Silver D u n b a r s were seldom illustrated in sale catalogues until recent
times, and it is difficult to estimate the quantity of original examples in
existence t o d a y , but experience implies there must be a few others.
Silver
casts from originals are surprisingly not uncommon.
Three examples were
chosen for illustration because they a p p e a r to h a v e been made by three
separate processes, a n d could be from three different masters ( P I . 4 , 1 3 , 1 4 , 1 5 ) •
H o w e v e r , I h a v e been u n a b l e to relate these to a n y specific master or masters
with w h i c h I am familiar.
Several other casts identical to No.14 h a v e been
e x a m i n e d , two of w h i c h were lighter at 1 4 1 . 2 a n d 1 4 4 . 4 g r . , a n d all of these
a p p e a r to h a v e been cast from the same master a n d at the same time.
No.15
is a very distinct type of cast with the ' s o a p y feeling'
finish,
a n d an
identical example w a s sold at S o t h e b y ' s on 5 June 1975 (lot 1 3 1 ) .
I have
not e x a m i n e d No.13-
Restrike
Large
Medals
The die discussions
showed that restriking did not begin before the mideighteenth c e n t u r y , a n d continued into the era of the W y o n s .
I h a v e classified the non-Wyon restrikes into early, middle, a n d late eighteenth-centurv
groups.
Die flaws allow straightforward chronological s e q u e n c i n g , but the
assignment of dates to these groups can be no more than conjectural.
120
I prefer not to place too much importance on the groups
while they are sometimes contiguous a n d sometimes discrete,
to each a n y verified m a n u f a c t u r i n g information.
themselves for,
I cannot a s s i g n
Of most importance are the criteria used to relegate these medals to the
restrike c l a s s .
Although
I h a v e defined o r i g i n a l , contemporary
strikings
as flawless,
it does not a l w a y s follow that die flaws mean restrikes;
die
deterioration is to be expected with continued use.
H o w e v e r , for the large
Dunbars
the conditions
separating
original
medals from all others are so
definite, that the firm conclusion must be that the dies were put aside for
a long period (not for just a few y e a r s d u r i n g the Commonwealth) before a n y
subsequent
productions
were
made.
Some die c r a c k i n g
could
have
been
expected d u r i n g S i m o n ' s time, but the rust pitting a n d loss of definition in
the battle scenes, p r o b a b l y due to cleaning a n d polishing of the die, would
not h a v e occurred then, a n d it will be seen that the major reverse c r a c k
developed while restriking.
The restrikes are consistent with w h a t might
be expected from the information a v a i l a b l e about the recovery of the dies
in the eighteenth c e n t u r y .
The die flaws sketched in F i g . l will be referred
to in the discussion, a n d all of these can be seen on the last ( W y o n ) medals
(PI. 6 , 2 3 ) .
All restrikes e x a m i n e d
were made on thicker flans t h a n
the
originals,
a n d this is a normal trait w h e n d a m a g e d dies are u s e d .
Some
thickness measurements were taken at the p e r i p h e r y of several medals at the
points a , b , c , d of F i g . l . , a n d the actual measurements are included in the
key to the plates.
The earliest
restrikes simply exhibit the fewest f l a w s , while at the same
time b e i n g
distinctly
separated
from
the o r i g i n a l s .
There
are
so
few
examples in this category they almost seem to be a testing of the recovered
dies.
Their main feature is a lack of the major d i a g o n a l reverse crack 6 •
The flaws that do a p p e a r are rust 1 b e h i n d the h e a d , w e a k horizon/battle
scenes 2 , early stages of the sash knot crack 3,
a n d some reverse rust 5 ;
letter crack If is not present.
I h a v e recorded three e x a m p l e s , a n d all are
illustrated.
P I . 5 , 1 6 , in l e a d , is a most important a n d interesting specimen
for it depicts the s h a p e of the die faces, a n d in this respect it properly
matches the much later Wyon
strikings ( P I . 6 , 2 3 ) .
Its flaws are
1,2,3,5,
P I . 5 , 1 7 , in silver, is very u n u s u a l in h a v i n g an untrimmed w i d e flan as
on the original strikings.
Its flaws are 1,2,3,5,
a n d its weight at 237 g r .
is much different from the original strikings of about 170 g r .
P I . 5 , 1 8 , in
l e a d , is in poor condition with a considerable amount of lead d i s e a s e . Careful examination leads me to be fairly certain it is struck, although this is
often a difficult decision to make for l e a d .
Because of the corrosion the
rust areas a n d the status of the battle scenes are not d i s c e r n a b l e .
There
is no evidence of a n y c r a c k s .
Although this medal could be an o r i g i n a l ,
11
1 feel on b a l a n c e that it is an early restrike.
Other lead medals h a v e been
noted, all in poorer condition, but it w a s not possible to determine if they
were early or late, cast or ' struck.
An estimated date for these earliest
restrikes is -the early part of the 1750-76 period, possibly m a d e b y Thomas
P i n g o using a Royal Mint press.
T h e y were professionally d o n e , a n d may
well be those medals G a r d n e r originally requested Cox to h a v e m a d e .
Middle
period restrikes are the first to show the major reverse die crack
6, a n d it must h a v e been sometime d u r i n g this series that P i n g o a d d e d the
strengthening frames.
Since all medals in this group seem to show the reverse
c r a c k , a n d none of the previous g r o u p does, it a p p e a r s the fracture occurred
rather s u d d e n l y .
Within this period the early medals do not show die crack
k while the later ones do, a n d there is the expected tendency for the flaws
to increase slightly with time.
I h a v e failed to include an illustration of
the early striking,
a n d my w o r k i n g materials include only a plaster cast
of a copper example in the British M u s e u m , w h i c h lacks flaw kEarly
middle restrikes are uncommon,
a n d crack k formed r a p i d l y .
However, t-he
obverse false die to be discussed later w a s m a d e from an early middle type
for the false medals also lack flaw k .
A typical later middle period silver
medal is illustrated
(PI.6,20),
and
it h a s flaws 1,2,3,^,5,6.
All middle
period medals are in silver, except for the sole copper e x a m p l e .
There are
copper casts of very poor q u a l i t y .
P r o b a b l y the work of Thomas Pingo at
the Royal Mint, the middle g r o u p m a y be dated to late in the 1750-76 period,
although occasional strikings could h a v e been m a d e after his d e a t h .
One
of the main features of this group is the h i g h quality of m a n u f a c t u r e .
I h a v e established a further g r o u p as late restrikes,
a n d these h a v e
flaw characteristics
much like those 6f the later middle period, but are
s e p a r a t e d from that g r o u p by their poor quality of m a n u f a c t u r e .
I consider
these medals to be struck, yet there is considerable doubt in my m i n d .
The
flaws a g a i n are 1-6.
The silver example shown ( P I . 5 , 1 9 )
has a polished
a p p e a r a n c e , very faint reverse floor b o a r d s , rust a r e a s polished a w a y , some
w e a k n e s s in the lettering,
a n d some flan pitting.
The gold example ( P I .
although
6,21) is virtually identical to another in the Ashniolean M u s e u m , 3 5
the latter is of better q u a l i t y .
Both gold medals h a v e excessively polished
fields, no floor b o a r d s , a similar trace-only of the right-hand battle scene,
a n d similar weights a n d specific g r a v i t i e s .
These u n u s u a l field characteristics were not in the dies, because the next ( W y o n ) series, with its far
more extensive a n d later die f l a w s , h a v e none of those characteristics, just
a great deal of rust.
Since the dies are not reflected in the medals of this
group,
the conclusion
must be that the medals were either poor
quality
strikings,
individually
polished afterwards
to remove the rust traces, or
casts from a sole poor-grade mould.
These would not h a v e been Pingo or
Royal Mint productions.
If struck, these medals fall between the previous
middle g r o u p a n d the W y o n s : if cast they could h a v e been made at a n y time
prior to 1904 ( M u r d o c h ) , a n d after c . 1 7 7 6 .
I consider them late eighteenthor early nineteenth-century w o r k .
To designate the final productions from the original large dies as Wyon
restrikes
may be i n a c c u r a t e ,
but it is b a s e d on reliable p u b l i s h e d information by H e n f r e y 3 6 that the Wyons possessed the large dies at least as late
as the 1870s.
That they are the last of the large D u n b a r s
(unless the
missing dies should be found a n d re-used) is u n d e n i a b l e from the state of
the die cracks as illustrated by the silver ( r a r e ) a n d white metal (normal)
examples ( P I . 6 , 2 2 , 2 3 ) .
There is a similar white metal specimen in the Fitzwilliam M u s e u m ,
interestingly ticketed as being
'from the residue of M r s .
E . M . W y o n ' s material 1 9 6 3 ' .
These last strikings are important in showing
the extent to w h i c h the cracks a n d rust finally evolved, a n d the size a n d
a p p e a r a n c e of the die face outside the oval d e s i g n .
They are second best
122
to possessing the dies.
The large white metal strikings .relate directly to
the much earlier large lead example ( P I . 5 , 1 6 ) .
I k n o w of no medals m a d e
between the moderately flawed middle/late periods a n d the extremely flawed
Wyon period, yet these final cracks h a d to form from u s e , not d i s u s e .
False
Large
Dies
D u r i n g 1962 a n d 1963 enquiries as to the w h e r e a b o u t s of the original dies
were initiated by O . F . P a r s o n s to G . P . D y e r of the Royal Mint.
Contact w a s
made with John Pinches L t d . whose response, in s u m m a r y , w a s that for a
great m a n y y e a r s they held a p a i r of D u n b a r dies for a jeweller n a m e d
Phillips of New Bond St. W . l , w h o died some y e a r s before the second World
W a r . The dies were then returned to his brother, Henry Phillips of Aldershot,
who w a s interested in determining if they were o r i g i n a l s , but it w a s 'established that they are copies made b y someone in B i r m i n g h a m ' . 3 7
This correspondence m a d e little sense until I recently found the dies in the British
M u s e u m w h e n c a s u a l l y p e r u s i n g the die collection ( P I . 7 , 2 4 a - g ) .
The dies could h a v e been m a d e by a hot stamping method
(sometimes
referred to as impact d i e s ) , in w h i c h early middle period eighteenth-century
restrike silver medals would h a v e been used as p u n c h e s to stamp a p a i r of
Alternatively,
perhaps
hard
bronze
dies
in
hot,
softened
steel s t o c k . 3 3
'punches'
were made from silver restrikes using some form of electrotype
process.
R e g a r d l e s s , in some m a n n e r they were created from Simon m e d a l s ,
for they are precise replicas
and
assuredly
the dies were not h a n d cut
copies.
The
steel
stock
was
supplied
commercially
by Moss &
Gambles
(presently Moss & Gamble B r o s . L t d . , S h e f f i e l d ) ,
a firm formed in 1853, whose
current catalogues still list similarly m a r k e d materials.
The firm w a s not
able to determine the earliest date at w h i c h the particular m a r k i n g s on the
stock were used ( ' M O S S & G A M B L E S S H E F F I E L D W A R R A N T E D CAST S T E E L E X T R A ' ) ,
although the e n d i n g date w a s 1946.
Its records do not show stock ever being
supplied to W y o n s , P i n c h e s , or Phillips.
P r e s u m a b l y stock could h a v e been
p u r c h a s e d b y anyone through distributors.
A whole group of gold a n d silver large D u n b a r s originated from these
false dies.
The earliest sale record I h a v e uncovered for a n y large gold
medal is 1902, a n d this w a s specifically one of the false specimens. H o w e v e r ,
a note b y a J . A . H a d d e n in 1884 represents the earliest reference I h a v e to
a large gold m e d a l :
I enclose you a r u b b i n g of a medal g i v e n b y Oliver Cromwell to
one of his men who participated in the battle of D u n b a r , F e b . (sic)
3,1650.
The original is in fine gold a n d w e i g h s a little less than
three-quarters
of an ounce, is oblong in s h a p e ,
a n d is one a n d
fifteenth-sixteenths of an inch long a n d one a n d a half inches w i d e .
About ten y e a r s ago I s a w a notice from some a n t i q u a r y that there
are only three in existence. Last y e a r I visited the British Museum
a n d noticed a bronze medal this size a n d a gold one only half the
size.
1 should be much obliged if you could inform me how m a n y
there are k n o w n to be a n d in whose possession they a r e . 3 9
It would
be
interesting
to know
w h a t those three medals noted b y
the
antiquary were.
We do know that H a d d e n ' s large medal w a s of a weight
very close to some of the false medals, but too h i g h for the original a n d
too low for the late group restrikes.
It is surprising that Henfrey in the
1870s recorded no gold m e d a l s , nor h a v e 1 found a single nineteenth-century
sale record.
The H a d d e n specimen is a strong contender to be the earliest
known
false m e d a l .
A manufacture date c. 1875-1900 may be a reasonable
estimate within the 1853-1902 outer limits.
The dies would h a v e been made
in order to strike a few e x p e n s i v e gold medals; the silver strikings were
1
p r o b a b l y a secondary consideration.
I do not know if the Pinches letter
about the dies being m a d e in B i r m i n g h a m w a s b a s e d on fact or presumption
b u t , if the latter, it w a s a reasonable one.
The h i g h quality of the false dies a n d the resultant strikings is very
disturbing.
E v e n though I h a d never been able to categorize this group
of medals to my complete satisfaction there w a s no suspicion that they were
other than eighteenth-century restrikes from the original dies a n d ,
admittedly, if I h a d not accidently seen the false dies, the medals would h a v e
remained in the restrike category. The steel m a n u f a c t u r e r ' s name conveniently
stamped on the die stock aids in dating the production b u t , even without
that,
in h i n d s i g h t we c a n now see the medals are false.
This becomes
obvious b e c a u s e the characteristic false medal die f l a w s , w h i c h are detailed
in the next section, are missing from the final state of the original dies
as seen from the Wyon restrikes.
False
Large
Medals
(from
false
diesj
The examples shown on Plates 8 a n d 9 are all from the same false dies of
Plate 7, although their correlation is p e r h a p s not fully a p p a r e n t from the
illustrations.
Once the false dies were found an extensive examination w a s
made of existing m e d a l s .
Photographs a n d plaster casts from some of these
medals
a n d the dies were v i e w e d together a n d ,
at the same angles
and
l i g h t i n g , their uniformity became o b v i o u s . The actual specimens were similarly
studied w h e n a v a i l a b l e .
There are several gold m e d a l s , each of fine quality
workmanship,
and
quite
a
few
silver
specimens,
known.
While
certain
characteristics, such as letter b a s e bifurcation a n d a p p e a r a n c e of the reverse
d i a g o n a l f l a w , w o u l d be expected to v a r y from striking to striking, there
are specific features common to all false medals a n d these, unless they are
now
to be
removed
on
some
examples
because
of this
paper
(! ) ,
seem
irrefutable.
There are other characteristics,
but
I h a v e tried to define
those that are most obvious a n d u n i q u e :
a)
There is a raised dot u n d e r the A of AT ( P I . 9 , 3 0 a ) from a pit in the
false die.
For comparison see an original striking ( P I . 9 , 1 0 a ) a n d a g e n u i n e
die restrike ( P L 9 , 1 9 a ) .
b)
The top half of the S in SIMON is very faint a n d seems
although it is present u n d e r the proper lighting ( P I . 9 , 3 0 a ) .
c)
The
reverse
top left corner w i n d o w
d)
The obverse area above
milling left on the r a w steel
30a).'
details
are very
weak
to
disappear,
(PI.9,30a).
the word HOSTS shows distinct remains of rough
die stock before the obverse w a s p u n c h e d ( P I . 9 ,
e)
The D of DVNBAR is bifurcated
show this.
However,
medals from
d e p e n d i n g on the striking mode a n d
on the false die so all false medals will
genuine dies may also show bifurcations
the use of a collar.
f)
The major reverse d i a g o n a l flaw shows very characteristic flattened men
at the top left although this may v a r y a bit from medal to m e d a l . The false
die itself is of course not cracked - it simply has the impression of the flaw
stamped into it.
g)
The developing flaw at the left of the sash knot is a l w a y s in the same
state, but it should be realized that some of the genuine die restrikes would
be in a similar state.
h)
Some minute pits
right reverse fields.
in the false die show as raised spots in the left a n d
These h a v e not been illustrated here with enlargements.
It is difficult to estimate the rarity of the false silver medals, or
percentage within the entire silver class.
The weights of those I
their
have
124
recorded
fall
between
250 a n d 290 g r .
They range
in condition
from
u n u s u a l l y worn ( P I . 9 . 3 0 ) to beautifully struck a n d toned examples ( P I . 9 , 3 1 ) .
They
are thicker t h a n the o r i g i n a l s , but not necessarily so thick as the
restrikes.
The more I e x a m i n e the marketplace the more common they seem,
a n d my impression is that m a n y of the h i g h quality silver strikings encountered are false.
A majority of the false medals h a v e a n a d d e d w i d e suspension loop.
The
1.-5.
gold
medals
are
important
(PI.8,25,26,27,28,29).
enough
See the key
to attempt
to the plates
a corpus
for
of them
here.
details.
6.
The following are from v a r i o u s listings in the Numismatic
Circular,
some
or all of w h i c h must be duplicates of one another: Oct. 1902 ( 8 7 8 2 0 ) ; F e b . 1905
( 1 2 1 5 1 1 ) ; M a r c h 1908 ( 5 0 7 8 2 ) ; June 1913 ( 6 5 4 9 ) ; J a n . 1919 ( 6 9 8 2 6 ) ; July 1928
(79752).
7.
Hamilton-Smith
8.
Sotheby,
9-
Fitzherbert,
War
Medals,
20 December
1938
Glendining,
Glendining
(lot
1927
(lot
23).
32).
15 December
1939
(lot
138),
sold
to
Charles.
I believe specimens a p p e a r in other twentieth-century w a r medal sale catalogues., w h i c h I h a v e not recorded.
O v e r a l l , I estimate that there are six
to eight false gold m e d a l s , but I cannot be certain of the status of those
medals listed above that were not illustrated.
The Hitherto
Medals
Medallic
Illustrations
(392/15 ) lists a uniface lead medal in the British M u s e u m
with the legend H I T H E R T O HATH THE L O R D H E L P E D VS.
The description w a s
taken directly from H a w k i n s ' s u n p u b l i s h e d Numismata
Britannica,
1852, w h e r e
it w a s stated that the piece w a s b a d l y decomposed,
a n d the word DVNBAR
w a s no longer d i s c e r n i b l e . 1 , 0 This poor specimen is illustrated here ( P I . 1 0 , 3 5 ) .
I am able to read the legend from the p h o t o g r a p h , although it is p r o b a b l y
not legible in the reproduction.
H o w e v e r , I cannot read the word D V N B A R ,
w h i c h can only h a v e been located concentrically below the words HATH THE
a n d above the h a i r , w h e r e lumps of corrosion now exist - the other a r e a s
of the field are flat.
I am u n a b l e to say if the three-quarters right facing
bust is stylistically that of S i m o n ' s for only the outlines a n d d r a p e r y are
discernible.
It is similarly impossible to determine if it is die-struck or
cast from a w a x model.
My opinion is that it w a s struck, b e c a u s e of the
lettering, the integral loop at top, a n d a flan ( w i d e r than the oval d e s i g n )
that might represent the full die face.
These latter two features are typical
of S i m o n ' s w o r k .
If Simon m a d e this m e d a l , and the word DVNBAR did indeed exist at one
time, then its significance is a simple matter to define.
It w o u l d be a disc a r d e d pattern for the small D u n b a r m e d a l , with a W a l k e r bust b a s e d on
the earlier (?) c . 1 6 5 0 Lord General M e d a l , intended to mate with the existing n a v a l m e d a l ' s reverse die, whose size this exactly matches, a n d with
a legend d e s i g n e d prior to S i m o n ' s trip to E d i n b u r g h where the decision to
use the L O R D O F HOSTS seems to h a v e been m a d e . The chronological sequence
could thus h a v e b e e n :
small n a v a l m e d a l ,
Lord General m e d a l ,
Hitherto/
D u n b a r pattern, small D u n b a r , a n d finally the large D u n b a r .
This medal w a s copied a n d that
apparent
from
a comparison of his
eighteenth-century 'Stuart' type silver
devotes a line to this m e d a l , s a y i n g
work.
This is true for the copies .1
it w a s the copy Vertue illustrated is
plate
(PI. 1 0 , 3 6 )
with the two
known
copies ( P I . 10,37 a n d 3 8 ) .
Vertue only
that he does not think it w a s S i m o n ' s
presume he s a w .
In a previous p a p e r
15
I illustrated a n d discussed an imitation of the Lord General medal with a
bust b y the same h a n d as this imitation Hitherto medal. 1 , 1
In that case I
suggested
the
Lord
General
imitation
followed
the Vertue
illustration
of
Simon's
medal,
whereas
this Hitherto imitation
seems to h a v e the reverse
sequence.
Assuming
'Stuart' copied the lead trial or something identical,
the u n a n s w e r e d question arises w h y the word DVNBAR.- w a s not also copied,
for I should think it would h a v e been legible then (mid-eighteenth c e n t u r y ) .
A Simon
Trial?
A n interesting uniface silver piece is illustrated on P I . 9 , 3 2 .
I am confident
this medal is struck, although it has not u n d e r g o n e laboratory e x a m i n a t i o n .
The bust is that of S i m o n ' s large D u n b a r ,
a n d not a copy made by some
casting,
hot s t a m p i n g , or other counterfeiting technique.
If a n y t h i n g , it
seems to be an early form of the bust with more periphery h a i r details than
are u s u a l l y found in the m e d a l s , a n d the bust is at least as large as that
on the m e d a l s , a n d p e r h a p s minutely l a r g e r . 1 , 2 Both these features could be
a function of the striking or p u n c h i n g .
The d r a p e r y has been r e w o r k e d ,
p r e s u m a b l y b y tooling, to produce incuse results, w h i c h foreshadow that of
the c . 1 6 5 6 Lord Protector medal (MI
409/45).
I w a s not able to determine
if these m a n y new clothing details were in fact done with an e n g r a v i n g tool,
but that seems probable for a recut die would not h a v e produced the incuse
effects, a n d a recut p u n c h e o n used to sink a special die just to produce this
effect is impossible to i m a g i n e .
The flan field is c l e a n , relatively thin,
a n d c r a c k e d , but no legends or battlefield ever existed on it.
The reverse
toning outlines the obverse b u s t , yet the field is fairly flat - there is no
incusion.
No attempt w a s made to measure the height of the bust above the
flat field for comparison with a similar measurement on a r e g u l a r m e d a l ,
although this might be an interesting exercise.
The
question then is,
w h a t is the significance
of this piece?
One
s u g g e s t i o n , is that a few y e a r s
after the D u n b a r m e d a l , w h e n Simon w a s
d e s i g n i n g the new Lord Protector m e d a l , he considered the possibility of using
the D u n b a r bust (he u n d o u b t e d l y still retained the p u n c h e o n ) by modifying
the military d r a p e r y to that of a civil h e a d of state.
It is not unlikely
he h a d ' this trial striking of the bust r e m a i n i n g from the 1651 period, made
a n d used it for experimental p u r p o s e s .
If
before the die w a s completed, 1 , 3
he needed to make some new tools in 1656 to produce a model like this I
would h a v e expected the result to be in lead or w a x ,
much easier media
with w h i c h to experiment.
Whatever its origin, this example w a s modified
in the round a n d ,
if that modification w a s done b y Simon, he rejected it
in favour of an 'entirely new bust for the Lord Protector r e w a r d .
My belief is that this piece, before tooling, w a s a 1651 die trial by
Simon.
Whether he did the subsequent modification for practical purposes
c . 1 6 5 6 , or someone subsequently altered it, is an open question.
The tooling
w a s not a trivial u n d e r t a k i n g done on the spur of the moment, a n d eighteenthcentury connoisseurs,
in whose h a n d s this w a s likely to h a v e b e e n ,
were
u s u a l l y preservers of S i m o n ' s w o r k .
I h a v e made no mention of a w a x model
being the origin of this piece since I am assuming it is struck, but we know
Simon w o r k e d in w a x , a n d
the c a r v e d
bust
puncheon itself likely derived
from such a model. Speculation about S i m o n ' s w o r k i n g methods, the equipment
a n d tools he u s e d , a n d the tools, trials, a n d prototypes that might possibly
h a v e s u r v i v e d a l w a y s leads to the question of what the contents were a n d
w h a t became of the materials only v a g u e l y mentioned in his will.
Similarly,
one wonders w h a t became of the 150 Simon p u n c h e s a n d w o r k i n g tools from
the Stephen Wells sale (lots 10-15 auctioned by John Heath, 4 December 1 7 5 1 ) .
126
Miscellaneous
Copies
There are
several Interesting
copies of the large D u n b a r ,
a n d the most
elaborate of these is shown in P I . 1 0 , 3 3 .
It is a mo^t professional silver
cast, with the obverse of Cromwell, a n d his d a u g h t e r ,
Elizabeth Cleypole,
on the reverse, a n d h a n d - e n g r a v e d l e g e n d s .
This might be u n i q u e , a n d its
v i n t a g e a n d author are u n k n o w n ,
but it could conveniently be ascribed to
one of the eighteenth-century medallists such as Stuart.
It w a s p r o b a b l y
a commission, a n d w a s certainly not intended to deceive.
The same cannot
be said about the medal shown in P I . 1 0 , 3 4 , w h i c h is a grossly tooled a n d
reworked cast of the large D u n b a r .
I h a v e seen two or three virtually
identical e x a m p l e s , but they were never e x a m i n e d together for comparisons
to be m a d e .
It may be noted that this tooled version follows the original
style, u n f l a w e d a n d with full battle scene, a n d these m a y be directly related
to the v a r i o u s casts of the original medal discussed p r e v i o u s l y .
Early
Numismatic
Publications
The
earliest
publications
to
illustrate
the
Dunbar
medal
appear
to be
Raguenet,
Leti, a n d E v e l y n in the 1690s, a n d v a n Loon a n d Vertue in the
next century ( P I . 1 0 , 3 9 , 4 0 , 4 1 , 4 2 ) .
O n l y Vertue depicts both sizes of the medal.
These illustrations are interesting for they a l w a y s show the full battle scene,
w h i c h is the expected motif prior to the eighteenth—century restrikes. Evelyn's
second illustration
is a p u z z l i n g
one for it shows w h a t is a p p a r e n t l y a
normal large medal (the d r a p e r y on his two e n g r a v i n g s differ) without a
legend a n d with an integral loop.
I did not find a n y reference to the
D u n b a r s in the Vertue notebooks p u b l i s h e d by the Walpole Society.
Conclusions
and
Summary
Between late 1649 a n d mid-1650 S i m o n ' s small n a v a l medal w a s a u t h o r i z e d ,
designed,
and issued.
It seems likely his u n f i n i s h e d Lord General medal
w a s m a d e between July 1650 a n d J a n u a r y 1651.
On 10 September 1650 Parliament ordered gold a n d silver medals for officers a n d men as r e w a r d s for their
participation in the battle of D u n b a r .
It is very possible that after September 1650,
and
after he h a d made the Lord General d i e , Simon m a d e a
pattern for the D u n b a r b a s e d on the Lord General portrait, a n d with the
intention of using the Commons reverse from the n a v a l r e w a r d ; hence the lead
trial 'Hitherto' m e d a l .
If this design w a s rejected, it could h a v e led to
the unidentified order authorizing Simon to travel to E d i n b u r g h to discuss
the proposed medal with Cromwell a n d do a live portrait. This he did a r o u n d
early F e b r u a r y
1651 a n d
a design w a s f i n a l i z e d ,
being a combination of
Parliament's
request for a portrait a n d a depiction of the Commons,
and
Cromwell's request for the battle scene a n d the l e g e n d .
The small D u n b a r
w a s p r o b a b l y the first result of this effort, a n d it s h a r e d its reverse die
with
the n a v a l
medal.
After that the identical large D u n b a r
probably
followed.
The dates for these medals are a s s u m e d to h a v e been mid-1651.
I believe that most w o u l d now agree that the D u n b a r medals were never
a general issue, for the dozen or so small a n d large contemporary examples
known
are inconsistent with a w i d e s p r e a d distribution to 1 1 , 0 0 0 troops at
the battle.
The reason for this a p p a r e n t c h a n g e of p l a n is not k n o w n , but
it is not really s u r p r i s i n g .
The euphoria of the moment, although that
moment actually s p a n n e d several months, p r o b a b l y g a v e w a y to a realization
that the expense a n d logistics made a general distribution impractical. What
is u n u s u a l
is the effort e x p e n d e d ,
especially in the preparation of two
different sizes of the m e d a l , w h e n one size would h a v e seemed sufficient.
There is no p h y s i c a l evidence that Simon experienced die failure, but his
two sets of dies would never h a v e been enough to produce a large n u m b e r
1
of m e d a l s .
W h y there were two different sizes is a difficult question to
resolve.
P e r h a p s it w a s thought the first size w a s a bit c h e a p in intrinsic
v a l u e , or they could h a v e been d e s i g n e d to differentiate between officers a n d
men, or even between h i g h a n d low r a n k i n g officers.
W a s there a n y issue of these medals?
I think the a n s w e r is yes, for
the n u m b e r of s u r v i v o r s , few as they a r e , is too h i g h for a c a s u a l group
of pattern pieces.
I think the small base metal specimens are die trials,
as there could h a r d l y h a v e been a n attempt to give copper or lead to a n y o n e ;
the small silver medal is similarly a trial or pattern b e c a u s e of its uniqueness.
The same might be said for the s i n g u l a r large gold m e d a l , although
that w o u l d
not be a die trial, but more of a presentation/pattern piece. 1 , 5
The large silver medals are more of a problem since there are several now
in existence.
T h e y m a y h a v e been the ones intended for the troops, but I
doubt that even these, if they constituted some small issue, were g i v e n out
in a n y formal m a n n e r .
This leaves the small gold medals, a n d these are
the ones I consider m a y h a v e been actual r e w a r d s , a n d that a g a i n p e r h a p s
in the sense of informal
presentations
to several of the highest r a n k i n g
officers close to Cromwell,
such as L a m b e r t ,
Fleetwood,
and Whalley,
and
perhaps Monck.
The p a r a d o x is that the large medals would h a v e been more
suitable for these men than the small.
There is no evidence that a n y medals
were monetary r e w a r d s , w h i c h w o u l d h a v e included v a l u a b l e gold c h a i n s .
No official w a r r a n t s ,
sketches, invoices, or notes exist, a n d the only
written information we are left with are the various notices of P a r l i a m e n t ' s
early intent a n d C r o m w e l l ' s letter months later.
There may or may not be
significance to the lack of a financial accounting b y Simon.
Either he did
request government
payment (or invoiced his use of pre-payment) and the
records are lost, or he did not because the work became a private project.
If the dies really did get into the Cromwell family ( a n d this would be a
u n i q u e situation for a n y dies except the seal m a t r i x ) , it is not impossible
that Cromwell took this over at his own expense as an intended means to
r e w a r d his troops or officers.
Of course Cromwell w a s exceptionally b u s y
with his w a r a g a i n s t the Scots in the y e a r between D u n b a r a n d Worcester.
These
speculations
should be understood
as just that.
Unless a better
sampling of original medals or, p r e f e r a b l y , new documentation become availa b l e , neither of w h i c h are promising expectations, I do not think the problem
c a n be satisfactorily resolved.
Acknowledgements
I w i s h to t h a n k D r . R . E . O c k e n d e n for discussions,
material, a n d review of
this
paper:
O.F.Parsons
whose
original
work
a n d challenge b e g a n
these
studies; D r . P . P . G a s p a r , E . D . A i n s p a n , Dr. C . E . C h a l l i s , T . R a y m o n d - B a r k e r , The
P a u l Mellon Centre, a n d the following museum personnel for their cooperation
a n d for allowing me to photograph a n d use their material:
G . P . D y e r at the
Royal Mint, P . G l a n v i l l e "formerly at the Museum of L o n d o n , N . J . M a y h e w
and
the late J . D . A . T h o m p s o n
at the Ashmolean M u s e u m , J . G . P o l l a r d at the Fitzwilliam M u s e u m , a n d R . A . G . C a r s o n a n d the staff at the British M u s e u m .
128
THE
CROMWELL
DUNBAR
MEDALS
BY
SIMON
ser.
xiii
Footnotes
1.
E.Hawkins,
'Naval
Honorary
2.
H.W.Henfrey,
'Historical Notes Relating To The N a v a l Honorary M e d a l s
Of T h e C o m m o n w e a l t h ' ,
iVC n e w ser. x v ( 1 8 7 5 ) , 8 1 ,
and
'Supplementary
Note On The N a v a l M e d a l s Of The C o m m o n w e a l t h ' , NC new ser. xvi (1876).
3.
L a i r d Clowes,
( 1 9 2 8 ) , 330-8.
4.
Calendar
5.
The
Of State
Royal
Medals',
Navy
Papers,
NC
(1898),
Domestic,
old
ii,
118-20,
and
105.
Mariner's
Mirror
( 1 9 2 3 ) , 59 a n d ( 1 9 2 8 ) , 330-8,
In The English
Civil War ( 1 9 6 2 ) , p p . 187-8.
and
J.R.Powell,
6.
M . O p p e n h e i m , A History
1660 ( 1 8 9 6 ) , p p . 2 0 2 a n d
Of
7.
CSPD
me b y
l6k9-50,
206.
J.D.A.Thompson
8.
CSPD
16U9-50,
9.
But after the M a r c h
1652 Union with Scotland the St.
w o u l d h a v e been r e q u i r e d on the o b v e r s e .
Although the
never
made
this
change,
Simon's
1653 n a v a l m e d a l s ,
Protector m e d a l , a n d the 1656/58 Cromwell coins d i d h a v e
10.
CSPD
l6k9-50,
11.
CSPD
1650,
M u c h of
in 1967.
Administration
this
material
The
Royal
detailed
95.
Mariner's
(CSPDJ,
Of The
268.
l6k9-50
(1851-2),
and
Mirror
The Navy
Navy
1509-
referenced
for
367,368,591.
A n d r e w ' s cross
currency coins
the 1656
Lord
the cross.
394,399,401.
29.
12.
Ibid,
514.
13.
Ibid,
583.
14.
Material briefly s u m m a r i z e d from the following w o r k s : C . H . F i r t h ,
'The
Battle Of D u n b a r ' ,
Trans,
of the Royal
Historical
Society,
new
ser.
xiv (1900); C . H . F i r t h ,
Cromwell's
Army ( 1 9 0 2 ) ; C . H . F i r t h a n d G . D a v i e s ,
The Regimental
History
of Cromwell's
Army ( 1 9 4 0 ) ; M . A s h l e y , Cromwell's
Generals
( 1 9 5 4 ) ; a n d C r o m w e l l ' s letter of 8 September 1650 to parliament
as p u b l i s h e d in Cromwelliana
(1810), p . 8 7 .
15.
Journals
of the House
16.
B.Whitelock,
Memorials
of Commons
(CJ)
of English
vi,465,
Affairs
and
(1682),
CSPD
p.455,
1650,
for
10
333.
September
1650.
17.
W.C.Abbott,
Writings
18.
CSPD
19.
Property of Thomas Raymond-Barker a n d r e p r o d u c e d with his permission,
as well as that of the P a u l Mellon Centre, w h o m a d e the master photograph
(negative
C2284/22);
arrangements
originally
m a d e for me b y
Derek Allen.
20.
T.Carlyle,
Oliver Cromwell's
Letters and Speeches,
ed.Lomas
( 1 9 0 4 ) , ii,
177. where he ' references CJ, 4 F e b r u a r y 1651, a place one w o u l d expect
it in conjunction with the Cromwell letter (actually later t a k i n g postal
time into a c c o u n t ) .
However,
I h a v e been u n a b l e to find that entry
or a n y t h i n g related.
See A d d e n d u m .
21.
H.W.Henfrey,
22.
M.Lessen,
91.
1650,
And
Speeches
447,454,455,480
Numismata
'The
Cromwell
Of Oliver
from 29 November
Cromwelliana
Lord
General
(1877),
Medal
Cromwell,
ii
to 23 December
2,
By
from
an
Simon',
(1939),330.
1650.
u n k n o w n source.
BNJ
xlix
(1979),
THE C R O M W E L L
DUNBAR
MEDALS
BY
SIMON
1
23
Vertue, 1753, p . 13.
This footnote on the seal, a n d a similar footnote
in M a r k N o b l e ' s Memoirs
Of. The
Protectoral-House
Of Cromwell
(1787)
i,195,
both reference
Ant. Soc. Min.,
i v , 7 8 , a n d it is possible this
is w h e r e Vertue wrote it u p c . 1 7 4 1 .
24
Narrative
Relating
To The Real
In
Now Exhibiting
In Mead-Court
25
F.Foster,
26
Henfrey,
27
Foster,
28
Noble,
29
The O c k e n d e n a n d W a r n e r collections noted in this a n d previous p a p e r s
on
the
series
refer to R . E . O c k e n d e n ' s
collection of Cromwell
coins,
medals,
a n d Henfrey ms material, portions of w h i c h this writer now
has.
Many
of the
medals
and
the
Henfrey
material
Dr.Ockenden
acquired
from R i c h a r d Cromwell W a r n e r a n d his son Oliver
Warner,
the n a v a l historian (see SCMB,
October 1962, 3 8 8 ) .
30
Henfrey's
31
Henfrey,
32
Sir
33
John C r a i g , The Mint ( 1 9 5 3 ) , p . 2 0 3 , for I8th-century u s e , a n d P R O Mint
1/21,
199-200, minute of 27 J a n u a r y 1821 for implied similar concessions
to Pistrucci.
Information supplied b y P . P . G a s p a r .
34
Owen F. Parsons
'A
Note On
Thomas
Simon's D u n b a r Medals,
1650',
Cheltenham
Numismatic
Observer,
2,
(April
1956),
probably
the only
proper numismatic discussion.
35
1953 gift of H . H i r d , ex Murdoch ( 1 4 8 ) ,
a n d r i n g , specific g r a v i t y of 1 5 . 7 6 .
36,
Henfrey,
37,
Correspondence,
38,
'Dies
op.
op.
op.
cit.
Medals',
Head
Street
NCirc,
Of Oliver
Cromwell,
( 1 7 9 9 ) , b y John C r a n c h .
(Nov.1948).
Pl.vii/2.
cit.
ii,
329-346.
manuscript
op.
cit.,
to his
published
text,
Lessen
collection.
p.225.
Tangye,
supra;
The
Cromwellian
also Medallic
John
L.A.Lawrence,
and
Dunbar
p.220,
cit.,
Richard
See
Of The
Embalmed
Old Bond
Pinches
'The
6
Queries ,
Collection
weight
Illustrations
Ltd.
Coinage
(1905),
of
of
/Ethelbald',
gr.
with
loop
392.
4 October
3
NC
xiii
1963.
(1893),
42.
39,
Notes
40,
And
Henfrey,
op.
Numismata
Britannia,
D V N B A R himself.
41.
Lessen,
42.
B a s e d on measurements made u n d e r 30x magnification with reticle, use
of d i v i d e r s , a n d comparison p h o t o g r a p h s , yet this is not a conclusion
from precision studies.
The point here is that the bust is certainly
not smaller than on that of the r e g u l a r D u n b a r .
43.
This type of bust trial
h u n d r e d y e a r s later.
44.
F . R a g u e n e t , Histoire
d'Olivier
Cromwel
(1691),
p.235
or 250
(various
e d i t i o n s ) ; G . L e t i , Vita di Oliviero
Cromvele
(1692),
ii,2l8,
or
Vie d'
Olivier Cromwel ( 1 6 9 4 ) , ii, 187; J . E v e l y n ,
Discourse
Of
Medals
(1697),
p . 117; G . v a n Loon,
Beschryving
der
Nederlandsche
Historipenniger
( 1 7 2 3 ) , i i , 3 6 8 , or Histoire
Metallique
des XVII
Provinces
des
Pays-Bas
( 1 7 3 2 ) , p . 3 5 6 ; a n d G . V e r t u e , Works
of Thomas Simon,
(1753), pl.xii.
op.
cit.,
x , 4 0 7 , 22 November
426.4
(1885),
to O . F . P a r s o n s ,
p . 126.
cit.,
but
p.95
and
is
173.
I am
pi.
not
1884.
His description w a s also taken
not clear if H a w k i n s w a s able to
from
read
xviii,19.
that
uncommon
from
the
Royal
Mint
two
130
45-
Pattern in the sense of a n o n - s t a n d a r d metal for the type.
I doubt
it w a s so g l a m o u r o u s as a u n i q u e issue to Cromwell, a n d it is a pity
there is no w a y to k n o w if there were a n y other large strikings in
gold.
KEY
(Photographs
1.
by
the
author
unless
TO
PLATES
otherwise
noted.
Scales
(2x)
Simon's Naval Reward
{MI 3 9 0 / 1 2 ) ,
silver,
Lessen collection, bought B a l d w i n ,
C h r i s t i e ' s 25
the Patterson collection.
are
not
103.9 g r . ,
Nov. 1969
precise).
sg
10.18,
(137) from
2.
(2x a n d l x ) Small D u n b a r , o r i g i n a l , g o l d , 1 2 8 . 8 g r . , sg 1 8 . 5 7 , Lessen
collection, Sotheby 5 Dec. 1966 ( 2 9 ) , ex N o s e d a , George S p a r k e s 2 F e b .
1880 (329) £ 2 3 , Pembroke 2 A u g . 1848 ( 2 5 9 ) £ 1 1 . 1 0 s .
(Pembroke Plates
1746 P : 4 , T : 1 9 ) .
3.
( 2 x ) Small D u n b a r , o r i g i n a l ,
ex
Sloane collection
1753Lessen collection-.
Original
4-
(2x)
Small D u n b a r , o r i g i n a l ,
gift of Miss Lloyd B a k e r of
S h a r p collection (1687-1714).
5-
(2x)
Small
Dunbar,
original,
copper,
77-2 g r . , British M u s e u m , ex
Edward Hawkins,
bought b y Matthew Y o u n g from the Trattle sale 1832
(791) £ 1 2 . 1 5 s . , Dimsdale 10 June 1824 (636) £ 7 . 1 2 s . 6 d .
6.
( 2 x ) Small D u n b a r , p r e s u m e d o r i g i n a l , u n k n o w n composition, 5 0 . 0 3 g r . ,
sg 11-45, Fitzwilliam Museum lent b y E m m a n u e l College 1938, but further
tracing h a s not been possible.
See A p p e n d i x A .
7.
( 2 x ) Small D u n b a r , uniface
ex O c k e n d e n , W a r n e r .
restrike,
8.
( 2 x ) Small D u n b a r , uniface
ex O c k e n d e n , W a r n e r .
restrike,
9.
(1.5x)
Large Dunbar,
original,
gold,
286.2 gr.
(pierced),
sg
17.85,
Lessen collection, ex Melvin G u t m a n Jewelry & M e d a l sale, p t . V , ParkeBernet,
NY
15 M a y
1970
(151), catalogued by D . F e a r o n .
No further
tracing possible.
T h i c k n e s s measurements (see F i g . l ) a , b , c , d are 1 . 2 2 ,
0 . 9 4 , 1 . 1 3 , 1 . 1 4 mm.
10.
( 1 . 5 x ) L a r g e D u n b a r , o r i g i n a l , silver, 1 6 2 . 1 g r . , sg 1 0 . 4 , Lessen collection,
NCirc June
1970
(7284).
Also see illustration 1 0 a .
Thickness
measurements a , b , c , d are 1 . 1 2 , 0 . 8 9 , 1 . 1 2 , 1 . 2 2 mm.
11.
( 1 . 5 x ) L a r g e D u n b a r , o r i g i n a l , silver, 1 7 3 . 8 g r . , Bibliotheque Nationale,
p h o t o g r a p h e d from P I . 2 6 / 3 of J . B a b e l o n ' s La Medaille
et les Medailleurs
(1927).
Also illustrated in A . D a u b a n , Nicholas
Briot
(Paris,
1857),
PI.3-
12.
(lx) Large Dunbar,
J a n u a r y 1962 ( M 4 2 4 )
13-
(lx) Large
1978.
14.
( l x ) L a r g e D u n b a r , cast from o r i g i n a l , silver, 1 6 2 . 6 g r . , photo courtesy
S p i n k & Son 1975. Two others, virtually identical, in Lessen collection
w e i g h 1 4 1 . 2 a n d 144-4 g r . , sg 1 0 . 0 9 a n d 1 0 . 3 2 .
Dunbar,
g o l d , 104-7 g r . , sg 17-92, British M u s e u m ,
Photographed
from a gilt electrotype
in
from the Cratcherode collection.
original,
£15cast
silver 63-4 g r . ,
O.F.Parsons
Hardwicke
in 1965 from the
silver,
copper,
silver,
72.2
96.8
presumed
from o r i g i n a l ,
silver,
gr.,
gr.,
struck,
collection,
Archbishop
Lessen collection,
Lessen
34x29
photo courtesy
collection,
m m . , SCMB
B.A.Seaby
15
( l x ) L a r g e D u n b a r , cast from o r i g i n a l ,
photo American Numismatic Society.
16
(1.5x)
Large Dunbar,
Edward Hawkins.
17
( 1 . 5 x ) L a r g e D u n b a r , early
O . F . P a r s o n s collection.
18
( 1 . 5 x ) L a r g e D u n b a r , early group restrike, a p p e a r s
g r . , Lessen collection, bought Stanley Gibbons 1978.
19
(1.5x)
Large D u n b a r ,
late g r o u p restrike,
2 8 1 . 2 g r . , silver,
Lessen
collection,
ex O c k e n d e n ,
bought Spink 1947.
Also see illustration 19a.
T h i c k n e s s measurements a , b , c , d are 2 . 2 1 , 2 . 1 1 , 2 . 1 3 , 2 . 1 6 mm.
20
( 1 . 5 x ) Large Dunbar,
middle group restrike, silver, 3 0 6 . 0 g r . ,
Lessen
collection,
ex O c k e n d e n ,
Warner,
B.W.Harris
Glendining
20 Nov.
1923
(159),
A.C.Norman
(1758).
Thickness
measurements a , b , c , d
are 2 . 2 9 ,
2 . 2 1 , 2 . 3 4 , 2 . 3 5 mm.
21
(1.5x)
Large Dunbar,
late group restrike, gold, 4 4 0 . 9 g r . ,
sg 1 5 . 8 5 ,
H.Schulman,
NY Oct. 1972 (1262), ex L e s s e n , ex G l e n d i n i n g 26 M a y 1971
Nov-Dec 1946 ( G 2 5 ) .
( 4 2 6 ) , possibly SCMB
22
(1.5x)
Large
collection.
23
(1.5x)
Large Dunbar,
Wyon restrike,
white
collection, bought B a l d w i n 1970, ex O c k e n d e n .
24
L a r g e D u n b a r False Steel Dies, British
Sons 1965.
Negatives b y R a y G a r d n e r .
367.
25
( 1 . 5 x ) L a r g e D u n b a r from false dies, gold, 3 4 0 . 7 g r . , sg 17-51, Glendining
12 Sept.
1979
(74),
likely the Philip Spence specimen Sotheby
1 April 1947 ( 3 3 4 ) .
26
(1.5x)
Large
(1.5x)
A12358
L a r g e D u n b a r from false dies, gold, 4 0 8 . 4 g r . , Museum of London
from the Sir R i c h a r d T a n g y e collection ( a n d his book, The Crom-
27
28
29
30
31.
32.
wellian
Dunbar,
Dunbar
Collection
early
Wyon
from
group
group
silver,
restrike,
restrike,
restrike,
false
dies,
160.5
11
lead,
silver,
silver,
gr.,
British
237.2
278.4
gr.,
metal,
439.6
Sotheby
and
Museum,
gr.
struck,
M u s e u m , gift
The dies are
gold,
collection
ex
(pierced),
lead,
548.4
O.F.Parsons
gr. ,
Lessen
of A . H . B a l d w i n &
n u m b e r e d 366 a n d
26
May
1902
(280).
(1905 ), p. 126).
( 1 . 5 x ) L a r g e D u n b a r from false dies, gold, 374-5 g r . , G l e n d i n i n g 16 Nov.
1978 ( 7 6 7 ) G l e n d i n i n g 12 Oct. 1966 ( 1 3 7 ) , ex H e p b u r n - W r i g h t ,
ex Napier
1956 ( 5 5 ) .
( l x ) L a r g e D u n b a r from false dies, gold-gilt, 3 9 0 . 3 g r . , Christie's April
1967 ( 5 ) .
Photo courtesy C h r i s t i e ' s , a n d a plaster cast courtesy G r a h a m
Pollard.
( 1 . 5 x ) L a r g e D u n b a r from false dies, silver, 2 5 9 . 0 g r . , Lessen collection from Wilfrid Slayter 1965.
Also see illustration 3 0 a .
Thickness
measurements a , b , c , d are 1 . 9 3 , 1 - 9 3 , 2 . 0 3 , 1 - 9 8 mm.
(lx)
Large Dunbar
from false
photo courtesy National Museum
Dalrymple 1932.
dies,
silver, 2 9 0 . 2 g r . ,
of Antiquities, Scotland,
collection
and
gift of Sir H.
(1.5x)
Large
D u n b a r bust, modified,
silver,
132.3 g r . ,
sg 1 0 . 1 ,
34.7
x 3 1 . 1 m m . , Lessen collection, NCirc
June 1978 ( 8 4 1 9 ) , possibly Matthew
Young sale part I, 25 F e b . 1839 (765) sold to Goodall.
132
33-
(lx)
Large
Dunbar
obverse/Elizabeth
'Stuart' production,
silver, 703-3 g r . ,
NCirc
July-Aug. 1966 ( 4 2 7 6 ) .
34.
( l x ) L a r g e D u n b a r c o p y , cast a n d tooled ( ? ) ,
william M u s e u m C M 3 9 6 5 , gift of C . J . B u n n family
35.
( l x ) 'Hitherto' medal {MI
3 9 2 / 1 5 ) , u n i f a c e , l e a d , British M u s e u m M 7 3 3 5 ,
ex E d w a r d
Hawkins,
ex D u k e of Devonshire s a l e , although it is not
clear w h i c h lot (but c . f . lot 5 5 1 ) .
Photo courtesy M . M . A r c h i b a l d .
36.
(lx)
37.
(lx)
'Hitherto'
medal,
I8th-century
'Stuart'
copy,
Lessen collection, ex O c k e n d e n , W a r n e r , M o n t a g u ( 2 1 1 ,
38.
(lx)
'Hitherto'
medal,
I8th-century
' S t u a r t ' c o p y , silver, NCirc
June
1978 ( 8 4 1 8 ) , ex Stucker collection, Bourgey, P a r i s 21 Nov. 1977 ( 6 1 , p a r t ) .
Photo courtesy S p i n k & Son.
39-
( l x ) L a r g e ( ? ) D u n b a r , photocopy of illustration from Francois Ragunet's
Histoire
d'Olivier
Cromwel
( P a r i s , 1 6 9 1 ) , p . 2 5 0 (also same illustration,
but much finer q u a l i t y , in a smaller format volume with the same title,
p.235).
40.
41.
( l x ) L a r g e ( ? ) D u n b a r illustrations from John E v e l y n ' s
Medals
( 1 6 9 7 ) , p . 117.
Photos courtesy S p i n k & Son.
42.
(lx)
'Hitherto'
Large
medal,
Dunbar
illustration
illustration
Cleypole
reverse;
l8th-century
Lessen collection, ex O c k e n d e n ,
from Vertue
from Vertue
APPENDIX
silver,
1950.
1753,
1753,
210.7
gr.,
Fitz-
Pl.xii/D.
silver
part).
93.7
A Discourse
gr.,
of
Pl.xii/A.
A
Letter from D r . J . A . C h a r l e s , University of C a m b r i d g e , Department of Metallurgy
a n d Materials Science, to J . G . P o l l a r d , The Fitzwilliam M u s e u m , 16 December,
1980.
This is in response to a request for the small D u n b a r ( P I . 3 , 6 , with
a specific g r a v i t y of 1 1 . 4 5 ) to be e x a m i n e d in the l a b o r a t o r y .
T h e medal
is not silver.
We h a v e e x a m i n e d the silver medal b y T h o m a s Simon b y back-reflection
X-ray diffraction.
This technique e n a b l e s some distinction to be m a d e
between surfaces w h i c h h a v e been cold-worked a n d those w h i c h remain
in
an
unstrained
annealed,
hot-worked,
or
as-cast
condition.
The
patterns p r o d u c e d b y u n s t r a i n e d crystals c a n be resolved to consist of
separate
'dots',
the
number
of
'dots'
depending
on
the n u m b e r of
crystals on w h i c h the X-ray beam i m p i n g e s .
In cold-worked material
continual rings are formed.
The patterns m a d e b y the medal were comp a r e d b y those from a [Cromwell] shilling of the same period a n d with
those
from
annealed
and
cold-worked
silver
as
previously
reported
{Antiquity
X L 1 I 1968, P l . X L I V ) .
An image taken from one side of the coin, at a point representing the
floor of C h a m b e r ,
showed no indication of 'dots' at all a n d h a s been
cold-worked at the surface.
The shilling g a v e similar rings from both
faces.
On the other side, h o w e v e r , there were very faint indications
of 'dots' within the r i n g s , suggesting that the amount of cold work on
the
surface
w a s not as g r e a t ,
not h a v i n g
completely eliminated
the
a n n e a l e d or cast characteristic.
1 think it is worthwhile pointing out
that surface w o r k i n g does not necessarily imply die-striking.
It could
result from surface tooling ( i . e cutting or a b r a d i n g ) or from w e a r in
use.
In this c a s e , h o w e v e r , the expert eye of the numismatist would
clearly h a v e detected
normal c o i n a g e w e a r .
surface
tooling,
and
there
certainly
1
has
not
been
We must c o n c l u d e , therefore, that the surface w o r k i n g w a s the result
of die u s e , but that more w o r k i n g w a s effected on one side t h a n the
other, a n d that possibly the extent of w o r k i n g w a s more limited than
with
the
normal
coin.
Perhaps
this could
have
been
because
an
appropriated-sized cast flan w a s used for the small production rather
t h a n b l a n k s cut from w r o u g h t sheet, where the g r a i n size w o u l d a l r e a d y
be smaller.
I think,
therefore,
that we h a v e a medal w h i c h , if originally of a cast
blank
form,
h a s not been left in that state,
but h a s been
subsequently
struck.
The final proof might be to repeat the exercise with a medal w h i c h
we know is of cast form.
ADDENDUM
T h e confusion to w h i c h footnotes 20 a n d 21 refer c a n be clarified.
Carlyle,
copied b y H e n f r e y , b a d l y misrepresents a CJ e n t r y , w h i c h may or may not
relate to D u n b a r .
The actual entry is from CJ, v i i , a n d is for the much
later date of 17 Dec. 1651.
It reads
' O r d e r e d that it be referred to the
Council of State, to take into Consideration the P a i n s of * * * * * , in m a k i n g
the Statue of the G e n e r a l ; a n d to give him such Gratuity as they shall think
fit; A n d to take order for the p a y m e n t thereof, a c c o r d i n g l y ' .
P L A T E VI
/
J
t / «
'
—
~
.H-^tie
J & M — f a
It- A & - & 4 - 9 - &
*> c
o/>
{4dr8-*—to
r/frcn+iS- - f4~
-Tyo
J^-tftf-
^
/
-
rf—-
a
/
o
^ < 5
,
f;
a
u
Of
''
i
'f^vfsv^.
j. ^
^
w
A
> / » y v ^ c1 •* / ,
A
0 <
Ij- vy^
c^f.
- • -ft » -
& to
i?
w
A X , /
vp*;^ ff'tc&e
• rr . • , — »
J
4-Am
»-«j - - -
t/i-s-l
& (JJ&r3
A / , ,
-l-e yJ Ae
1
^
>j.
fcjitnj'Yp^H—
otri
- -vr-rnr^/ rrr »•
/
/ o
«kt/ -w-o J- /e
C
' 1
if( HJ
U
j» i
Oliver Cromwell's Letter (Reduced!
LESSEN : T H E C R O M W E L L D l ' N B A R MEDALS
Plate I
•
y
PLATE VII
M1
1 Naval Reward - Silver
2 Gold
3 Gold
(electrotype)
4 Silver
Naval & Original Small Medals (2x)
LESSEN : THE CROMWELL DUNBAR MEDALS : Plate 2
PLATE VIII
5 Copper
6 'Silverish' Composition
Original Small Medals (2x)
7 Copper - Early
8 Silver - Late
Restrike Uniface Small Medals (2x)
PLATE I
PLATE
17 Silver - Early
18 Lead - Early
19 Silver - Late
Restrike Large Medals (From Genuine Dies) (1.5x)
PLATE
I
23 White Metal - Last Strike (Wyon)
Restrike Large Medals (From Genuine Dies) (1.5x)
PLATE
a.
Base
(1x)
b.
Side
(1x)
24 False Large Dies
II
PLATE
III
False Large Medals (From False Dies) - Gold
PLATE
31
30
(1x)
(1.5x)
False Large Medals (From False Dies) - Silver
10a Silver Original
30a Silver - False
19a Silver Restrike
Large Medal Details
Possible Later Dunbar/Lord Protector Trial Working Model (?) - Silver (1,5x)
I
PLATE
V
34 Silver
33 " S t u a r t " - Silver
Miscellaneous Copies (1 x)
36 Vertue
'Hitherto Hath The Lord Helped V s " (1x)
42 Vertue
40 Evelyn (1 of 2)
41 Evelyn (2 of 2)
Early Illustrations (1x)

the cromwell dunbar medals by simon

Transcription

Similar documents

Autumn Statement 2014

FREE Shanghai Mint notes anniversary of refugees with medals

Backwoods Information.pages

ĐỀ 2 I. LISTENING: (2.0 points) Listen and fill in the gaps

February 2015 - New Homes for Old Medals

MISSION VIEJO NADADORES WIN TEAM CHAMPIONSHIP

[RIO]PESSOAL.C.CRUZ.NOTAS Pág 1309 - 1

January 2014 - Chapter 585

Robert Been - Chiricahua Gallery

Wins 10 of SL`s 23 swimming medals