The Queen's portraits designations...

How should we address the reality that not all portraits of the Queen are 1st, 2nd, 3rd etc? I have seen colonial listings that designate the portait as 1st, but it is not the Gillick portrait. How do we designate portraits that only a single or a couple of nations use?

Wouldn't a better way be to designate the portrait by the engraver? The Gillick portrait, or Maklouf portrait, or Machin portrait for example?

Hi Oklahoman
I think there are two designated portrait s Issued for same year. One for home use {UK} and one for colonial use. All portraits have to be sign off by Queen I think. Mark would know. There is a lot of history witch goes with this. I know I learned a few years ago of the tradition of changing the portrait facing right or left . With every change of king or queen. Queen Elizabeth II faces right, before her King George VI faces left. And changes every change of king or Queen

Yes. I love the traditions of the monarch facing different directions. But I have issue with the fact that using the designation of 1st, 2nd, 3rd, and so on is seemingly incorrect and ignores the reality that the Machin portrait may not be the 2nd, or that several Maklouf portraits have been in use. Or that Canada, Man, New Zealand have portraits that are unique to those countries. I just think it would be less clunky to name the portraits by designer, or country if we dont know the designer, than the number designation which is wrong or inconsistently applied. Mayhaps it is no biggy...

I fully agree with Oklahoman, his demand really makes sense

Ole

Thanks for your support. I think it allows for members to still use the search feature. Im surprised that there isnt more debate on this.

Any more thought on this?

It's clear that numerating the portraits can't work consistently across all states whose coins show EIIR. Surely the best method is to start with the designer, then add any additional distinguishing features where required. This isn't going to be a complete list, but it would look something like this:

Gillick: https://en.numista.com/catalogue/pieces858.html
Thomas: https://en.numista.com/catalogue/pieces6414.html
Machin: https://en.numista.com/catalogue/pieces665.html
Maklouf - Couped: https://en.numista.com/catalogue/pieces861.html
Maklouf - Uncouped: https://en.numista.com/catalogue/pieces14391.html
Rank-Broadley: https://en.numista.com/catalogue/pieces862.html
Clark - Couped: https://en.numista.com/catalogue/pieces70543.html
Clark - Uncouped: https://en.numista.com/catalogue/pieces111176.html
Pédery-Hunt: https://en.numista.com/catalogue/pieces425.html
Blunt: https://en.numista.com/catalogue/pieces421.html

I know New Zealand used another portrait on some non-circulating coins and I'm sure mints like Pobjoy have come up with their own portraits but this should cover the vast majority.

In the Australian Section we are up to the 6th Portrait and they run and are described as follows ...

Gillick - 1st portrait of Queen Elizabeth II facing right wearing a laurel
Machin - 2nd portrait of Queen Elizabeth II facing right wearing the Girls of Great Britain and Ireland Tiara
Makleouf - 3rd portrait of Queen Elizabeth II facing right wearing the King George IV State Diadem
Rank-Broadley - 4th portrait of Queen Elizabeth II facing right wearing the Girls of Great Britain and Ireland Tiara
Gottwald - 5th portrait of Queen Elizabeth II facing right wearing the Girls of Great Britain & Ireland Tiara.
Clark - 6th portrait of Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II facing right wearing the King George IV State Diadem and the Victorian Coronation Necklace.

In the portraits mentioned in the post above the Vladimir Gottwald's version was missing.
https://en.numista.com/catalogue/pieces12592.html

I have just gone through a massive process of updating every coin in the Australian section with the above descriptions. This was for consistency because there were a lot of rubbish descriptions and missing ones too.

If we do have to make changes I hope the Robot can be of assistance?

Regards Mike

Very Nice coin here with all six portraits on the reverse.... and the JC portrait on the obverse.

https://en.numista.com/catalogue/pieces200566.html

Mike

Mike,
The portrait on the Australian 2000 Royal Visit 50 Cents was a one off design for that coin - & not a very attractive portrait.

The portrait on the Australian coins since 2019 has been used by the Isle of Man as well.

Canada used the first 2 coin portraits of the Queen - Mary Gillick design from 1953 to 1963, then the Arnold Machin design from 1964 to 1989.

Here in New Zealand, we have had the following obverse portraits so far;

Mary Gillick design - 1953 to 1965.

Arnold Machin design - 1967 to 1985.

Raphael Maklouf design - 1986 to 1998.

Ian Rank-Broadley design - since 1999 - even though our coin series was changed in 2006, the same portrait is still used.

Aidan.

Hi Aiden .. Yes I knew of course Gottwald's portrait was only used on the 2000 Royal visit 50cent. I only mentioned it in this thread so that it explains why we call the Jody Clark one the 6th Portrait in Australia. Whereas in the UK they call it the 5th Portrait.

I believe Gottwalds was used on a couple of NCLT Commemorative coins in the early 2000's as well but we don't have those coins on Numista (Will have to find them and put them on)


Then recently it was used on a $1 and 50cent coin in 2019.

https://en.numista.com/catalogue/pieces168314.html
https://en.numista.com/catalogue/pieces168438.html

So NZ is still using the IRB portrait? ... Surely they would be updating it soon you would think?

Regards Mike

We had a similar situation in the UK to the Gottwald issue, when they issued a limited release effigy by James Butler:
5 Pounds - Elizabeth II (Longest Reign; Silver Proof)
Since it only appeared on a couple of coins, it did not warrant receiving a number, which is why the Jody Clark portrait became the 5th and not the 6th.

How many designs are there, in total? I mean, Canada is using a different portrait than any of the above.

Απόσπασμα: "ngdawa"​How many designs are there, in total? I mean, Canada is using a different portrait than any of the above.

​I think that's kind of the point. There are many different portraits, so trying to number them makes little sense once you are looking at more than one country.
(Canada used the Pédery-Hunt portrait and now uses the Blunt portrait.)