Considering this was inevitable, I would be surprised if any mint that uses HM effigies, doesn't have a Charles III portrait prepared and signed off for production already.
In the past two decades (if not longer) Charles has had appointments to have his official portrait updated.
Now, it's September… I suppose with modern technologies it's plenty of time to produce the new dies.
I wondered for some time whether Canadian coins would be updated with a fifth portrait, but that is now settled. The question is whether they'll use some coat of arms instead of the King's portrait. I understand there is no obligation for Canada to have the monarch's portrait on the coins, but I think Parliament submits its decision to the Mint.
Coins struck for the rest of the year would still have the queens portrait but most likely we would see Charles on stamps and banknotes before coins because in the U.K. in recent years there hasn’t been enough demand for new coins same with New Zealand so I could take 2-3 years before coinage with his portrait goes into general circulation (depending on demand or countries abandoning putting a monarch on their coins).
Since here death I predict all the mints that produce all of the BUNC junk coins sold at a massive markup will go into overdrive to produce coins dedicated to her lifetime because in recent days a lot of non coin collectors have started buying the last coins with her portrait on them because the 2022 annual set is selling at a astonishing £200 or even more and I thought the £55 price tag was a little steep, plus don’t get me started on the proof sets.
Hi to whoever is reading this. Did you know that TYPEWRITER (on a QWERTY keyboard) is the longest word you can type using only the letters on one row of the keyboard.
The Royal Australian Mint has already issued some 2023 Coins with the Queens 6th Portrait. The Year of the Rabbit Chinese Lunar Year 50 cent and $1 coins are available to buy now from the RAM. They are being snapped up quickly.
I suspect that they have already minted/produced the 2023 Proof and BU Sets and they will be announced as available in early to mid November as per their usual practice. These will also have the Queens 6th portrait on them. Too late to change them now. I expect a rush on them too.
On the 1st of January the RAM has an event where they issue the MYO (Mint Your Own) $1 themed coin at the Gallery Press at the Mint in Canberra. They have a different theme each year. This year it was Australian Dinosaurs on the reverse. I have no idea what next years theme will be as they keep it a closely guarded secret until the 1st of January. However I bet they will have King Charles portrait on the obverse, so I suspect these will be the first Australian Coins with Him on them.
It is most likely that all new Australian 2023 circulating coins will have King Charles III portrait on them. They don't usually get issued until around July of the year they are minted for so look forward to that.
So far this year they have not issued standard 5 cent, 10 cent or $1 coins dated 2022. They might have minted them and are holding them back? We have had 20 cent, 50 cent and $2 2022 dated coins issued into circulation.
Cheers Mike
Master Referee - See my profile for what I collect.
As for the 2023 coins in Canada, it's the Government of Canada that will decide of the new design. Unfortunately, the media are probably not going to report on the relevant legislation.
The first image is from the RCM's FAQ page. The second from the RCM Act (also available online).
The Government may decide to go with the Coat of Arms as some other Commonwealth nations have done (such as Barbados 1966-2021). Whether one is for or against the Monarchy, this would make the coinage quite boring. There is a lot more history in seeing the changing features of the monarch/head of state over the decades. I'm sure, too, that the royalists here would be boiling with rage if Charles wasn't selected for the new obverse.
Now, we always had Latin legends on the obverse. Elizabeth is a Hebrew name, but Charles, while a Germanic name, has a Latin form: Carolus. So, one would expect CAROLUS III D: G: REX (or DEI G: since Carolus is shorter than Elizabeth), but it is acceptable to keep a name untranslated.
According to the 1965 Currency Act, Australian coins must feature a portrait of the current monarch. This is custom in many Commonwealth countries – since 1935, the Queen has appeared on the currency of more than 30 nations.
Well, here is the Australian Currency Act, 1965, and I can't find anything of the sort. It sounds like the process is actually very similar to Canada's.
I just want to remind collectors (& those who may be interested) that it took the Bank of Canada (BoC) 2 years before they put HM QEII's image on their 1954 series. It took England (& Jamaica) 8 years. I doubt it will be that drawn out given today's technology (& King CharlesIII age) but I won't be wagering it will be next year. And what's worse, we, like GB are rushing towards a cashless society.
Cash is not used like it once was. The BoC promised a new vertical $5.00 back in 2020 & we are still waiting. Since the vertical $10 release we have seen 11 prefixes in 5 years. That's not even a trickle. The new polymer last a long time & retail has rushed in self-check outs with 80-90% of them accepting cards only. We are shutting down ATM's at a rapid rate too. Unfortunately, we've fully bought into the BTCA's agenda. The only groups that are happy with this are billionaires such as Bill Gates, VISA, Paypal (who started this lobby group) & the police agencies.
This is much like the UK. According to Merchant Marine's article on Nations Most Reliant on cash, only 1% of Britain's populace rely on cash. So the need to convert our coins & polymer with the King's image is exceptionally low (unless politics dictate otherwise) but I highly doubt there will be any hasty changes.
I've read a couple of posts where someone from the Bank of Canada was interviewed and she said there was no plan to change the portrait on the $20 note for the time being.
Some of the things written in these news posts are a little annoying since the writers/journalists obviously know little about coins and banknotes. So, many say that the Queen is on the back of our coins and that the Mint will have to print a new portrait…
Some are confused by the fact that the Queen's coins will gradually disappear from circulation, but this doesn't mean that it will take some time before a new Charles III effigy is introduced. This will be in 2023 unless we go with some coat of arms. Someone form the Mint said the process could be pretty quick, but the new effigy/design will be decided by the government. I suppose this will be on the agenda when Parliament reconvenes for the fall session later this month.
Some of the things written in these news posts are a little annoying since the writers/journalists obviously know little about coins and banknotes. So, many say that the Queen is on the back of our coins and that the Mint will have to print a new portrait…
Some are confused by the fact that the Queen's coins will gradually disappear from circulation, but this doesn't mean that it will take some time before a new Charles III effigy is introduced.
I’m glad I’m not the only person that finds this a bit annoying. Saw an article the other day from the guardian that basically claimed that banknotes with Elizabeth’s portrait would be taken out of circulation
The Australian Prime Minister Anthony Albanese has confirmed that we will not be having any moves to change Australia into a Republic in his term of Government. Seeing as the current Government was only elected 3 months ago that will be 4 years away at the earliest. Even then it would take a minimum of 2 years to get ready for a referendum.
That is if the Labor Party actually win the next election too. The Liberal/National Coalition Opposition Party are not in favour of a Republic so if they win Government it is off the table. If Labor retain Government it is still not certain that the vote for a Republic would actually win as the Monarchy are quite well liked by Australians.
So it looks like we will be seeing a King Charles III Effigy on Australian Coins for a few years at least. I suspect that next years 2023 Proof and Uncirculated Sets, that are normally issued in November of the preceding year, will have Elizabeth II on them as they will already have been manufactured/minted. But when Circulation coins are released, usually in mid 2023, they will have Charles III on them.
The Proof and BU Sets dated 2023 with QEII on them will go like hot cakes I suspect. Interesting times for coin collectors.
Cheers Mike
Master Referee - See my profile for what I collect.
Some of the things written in these news posts are a little annoying since the writers/journalists obviously know little about coins and banknotes. So, many say that the Queen is on the back of our coins and that the Mint will have to print a new portrait…
Here's a fairly decent article written by CBC's Nick Logan addressing the topic in correct terms I believe.
Some of the things written in these news posts are a little annoying since the writers/journalists obviously know little about coins and banknotes. So, many say that the Queen is on the back of our coins and that the Mint will have to print a new portrait…
Here's a fairly decent article written by CBC's Nick Logan addressing the topic in correct terms I believe.
“Once it's decided to put King Charles on our money, the coins and banknotes adorned with Queen Elizabeth currently in circulation will rise in sentimental value but not so much in value as a collector's item, Woodland said. Those notes and coins will remain in circulation for years to come — and there are plenty of them.”
I guess the author has never heard of Etsy and the “very rare!” coins on it😛
Here's a fairly decent article written by CBC's Nick Logan addressing the topic in correct terms I believe.
Yes, I saw it earlier today and indeed it's better than most. The writer is the only one who seems to have talked to someone (the President) at the Royal Canadian Numismatic Association.
I'm sure the next issue of Canadian Coin News will have something on the transition. No doubt they'll be much better informed than any regular news outlet.
I'm tempted to go to the Toronto Coin Expo Sept. 30th─Oct. 1st. No doubt the transition to a new obverse on our coins will be a major discussion topic.
At 1:41, though, whoever is speaking (Minister of Finances?) says the current effigy of the Queen is on the left and Charles will therefore have his effigy on the right. Unless right and left are different “down under”, it's of course the other way round…
the coins and banknotes adorned with Queen Elizabeth currently in circulation will rise in sentimental value but not so much in value as a collector's item, Woodland said.
I agree wholeheartedly. 10,000,000 (10M) runs of a single prefix are released. This results in several hundred million notes for most signature/prefixes. Since the majority of prefixes are full 10M runs & many dealers have blindly submitted runs of notes (they believe to be high grade) to PMG without care to which prefix, most TPG notes are common too.
There are a few exceptions which happen to be a) signature change-overs & b) short prefixes. Signature change-overs occur when a new Sr Deputy Governor (or governor) are appointed & the change happens either at the beginning, middle or end of a prefix. They are typically expected so collectors can try to capture a few whereas short prefixes are either aborted prefixes or at the end of a run (& often unexpected & scarce). These later short-prefixes are very tough to find in better grades (since they trickled out & nobody expected them).
In fact, the 2012 Frontiers $20 polymer series has one BSW short prefix which had a print run of 240,000 but it is suspected that even less notes were released. It got me back in the hobby & is extremely scarce. I cannot think of a prior series with a comparable scarce prefix (except perhaps some of the Modified 1954 prefixes shared with the Devil's Face prefixes). It took me about 6-7 years & recycling about 100,000 (or more) notes to find one BSW. 17 have been reported on the CPMF's Serial Number Database (when about 2000 on avg are reported for a regular prefix).
I did not know the link between coins and stamps, i.e. that the portrait on the stamps looks the opposite way from that on the coins. This is yet another example of how the lines between different categories of "economic artefacts" is blurry.
Also, I expected an official portrait was already out there for CIIIR, but no: there will be a special seating for the effigy on coins.
In another video linked above, it was said that Australia would wait for the effigy from the Royal Mint. I suppose for the first portrait of the new reign they want to play safe instead of creating their own effigy as with the later portraits of EIIR.
Am I right that only four sovereign nations have had Elizabeth as Queen for the entirety of her reign? That would be the UK (of course!), Australia, Canada, and New Zealand. Well, of all these, only Canada experienced a transition to a new monarch (actually four!) in their current system of currency, i.e. the decimal system.
Serial_Number_8, you probably know whether any of the Rogers / Macklem notes have already been issued, i.e. under EIIR?
- Since the Rogers-Macklem signature combination hasn't yet been reported I don't believe it has been issued for any of the denominations. But I could be wrong. Just because it hasn't been reported doesn't necessarily mean they haven't printed a supply which has been stored for later release (or may have been released). Whether that signature combo exists would require inside knowledge which I don't have.
What we know is that we have seen the first 2 signature combos for the $20 (Macklem-Carney & Wilkins-Poloz) while we've seen 4 signature combos for the $50 & $100 (Wilkins-Macklem & Lane-Macklem for the $50 & Macklem-Poloz & Lane-Macklem for the $100). From this we can infer that there were huge runs of notes printed for the $20 (since it is one of the most popular denominations) & that if we do see a new Rogers-Macklem signature combination, it could likely occur with the $20. It is common for the BoC printers to skip signatures for some denominations. The fact that some FY_ and FZ_ prefixes have had low & partial runs reported suggests a trickle of new notes have been released. I would expect to see a lot more of these newer partially released prefixes (& a lot less of the old prefixes) to appear before we see anything new.
Am I right that only four sovereign nations have had Elizabeth as Queen for the entirety of her reign? That would be the UK (of course!), Australia, Canada, and New Zealand.
According to the BBC, Radio 4, coinage of Charles III will begin to replace those of QE II on a phased basis. Stamps and banknotes will take a bit longer.
Current issue coin, banknotes, postage stamps and passports will remain valid (The question on passports was the most interesting one here, I thought).
I would expect any 2023-dated coinage or later to bear the portrait of the King.
Bank of England banknotes will take longer to appear with a portrait of the new King. They need to be designed for a start. I would expect to see notes appearing with the king’s portrait from other countries’ issuing authorities in advance of those of the Bank of England.
Postage stamps bearing the Queen’s portrait will remain in use longer, for several reasons - one being that King Charles does not want unnecessary wastage of already printed designs - existing stocks will be used up.
Without inside knowledge it's positive evidence (i.e. someone actually reporting the new signatures) that will settle the question.
I just saw on Banknote News that the Lane / Macklem signatures were recently reported for the $5. I had assumed that Lane had signed only fifties and hundreds since the new Deputy Governor took office December 15 last year, i.e. nine months ago.
I suspect it will take some time before any Rogers / Macklem $5 are printed and released… or maybe they'll wait for the new design to be introduced? We may be in for rare signatures and prefixes in the next few months and years.
Hibernia points out:
Postage stamps bearing the Queen’s portrait will remain in use longer, for several reasons - one being that King Charles does not want unnecessary wastage of already printed designs - existing stocks will be used up.
This is certainly a good thing. It used to be that stamps were overprinted with new values and/or designs, but now we just throw away and start over…
At 1:41, though, whoever is speaking (Minister of Finances?) says the current effigy of the Queen is on the left and Charles will therefore have his effigy on the right. Unless right and left are different “down under”, it's of course the other way round…
Here, in Canada, I suppose we have to wait for the Minister of Finance to submit his recommendation to the “Governor General in Council” about the new obverse. (I thought Parliament was involved, but no, it's a government decision.)
And I see just now that Australia now has an Assistant Minister for the Republic. Perhaps Charles won't adorn the obverse of Australian coins very long?
As I mentioned in my post above the Australian Prime Minister has confirmed that nothing will be done about an Australian Republic during the current term of the Government. So 4 years plus time to get a referendum ready, that is if they win the next election. The Liberal/National opposition is against a Republic so would probably not follow through with a referendum if they were returned to Government.
Also a recent survey of Australians recently undertaken had 60% of Australians preferring to keep the Monarchy. The fact the current Government has an Assistant Minister for the Republic is just a sop to the ultra left wing elements of their party and the hard left Greens.
So we might see King Charles III on Aussie coins for longer than you might think. 😃
Yes ─ I assumed that the creation of a new assistant ministry was meaningful, but of course we're talking about politicians…
Here we just had a new coin released yesterday for the 50th of the Canada-USSR Hockey series. So, for the constitutionally-enclined people, this is a coin authorized under E''R but released under C'''R. I present it thus in my checklist:
Unveiled today/yesterday wherever you are in the world. The new coins will be released next week on 3rd October. First time in a long time that 2 monarchs share a year of coins.
This is amazingly fast. I read somewhere that the King still needed to sit for the official new portrait. He apparently refused to do so until his mother had passed.
If he did sit within a week or so after the funeral, acknowledging that modern technologies are at quite another level, still, it is surprisingly fast.
I suppose this will also be the portrait on Australian coins since they are waiting for the Royal Mint to provide them with one.
Looks okay, but I'm a bit disappointed that he went with CHARLES III instead of CAROLVS III. It breaks with the pattern of all the previous Kings using the Latin form of their names (GEORGIVS, EDWARDVS, etc.) on coins.
The first coin with Charles III portrait will be the the £5 coin commemorating the Queens life that will be released in early October and a commemorative 50p in December. Then from the 1st of January all coins will be struck with his majesty’s portrait on them.
So was the 2023 Lunar year £5 coin the last coin released bearing the Queens portrait?
Hi to whoever is reading this. Did you know that TYPEWRITER (on a QWERTY keyboard) is the longest word you can type using only the letters on one row of the keyboard.
Looks okay, but I'm a bit disappointed that he went with CHARLES III instead of CAROLVS III. It breaks with the pattern of all the previous Kings using the Latin form of their names (GEORGIVS, EDWARDVS, etc.) on coins.
I was wondering what they would do about the legend. Personally, while I have taught Latin, I understand that in this modern world, more than ever multicultural, English makes more sense.
Now, D•G = Dei gratia = “by the grace of God”. OK, no problem. But as to what F•D now means, this could be open to interpretation unless they have already provided the full legend. Normally, F•D = fidei defensor = “Defender of the faith”, i.e. the Church of England, but Charles himself said that he wanted to be “Defender of faith” or perhaps “Defender of faiths”. I would have gone with FF•D …
Looks okay, but I'm a bit disappointed that he went with CHARLES III instead of CAROLVS III. It breaks with the pattern of all the previous Kings using the Latin form of their names (GEORGIVS, EDWARDVS, etc.) on coins.
I was wondering what they would do about the legend. Personally, while I have taught Latin, I understand that in this modern world, more than ever multicultural, English makes more sense.
Now, D•G = Dei gratia = “by the grace of God”. OK, no problem. But as to what F•D now means, this could be open to interpretation unless they have already provided the full legend. Normally, F•D = fidei defensor = “Defender of the faith”, i.e. the Church of England, but Charles himself said that he wanted to be “Defender of faith” or perhaps “Defender of faiths”. I would have gone with FF•D …
He has already said it would be singular. Ie defender of the faith. Plus when he was proclaimed it was singular.
In an article last week it said how he wouldn't be stupid enough to publicly air his views now he is the monarch.
He has already said it would be singular. Ie defender of the faith. Plus when he was Proclamationed it was singular.
In an article last week it said how he wouldn't be stupid enough to publicly air his views now he is the monarch.
There would be nothing stupid in expressing a desire to represent all believers inside the United Kingdom. Old institutions survive better when they evolve with the times. But yes, good point: he was proclaimed as “Defender of the faith”.
F•D can mean two things: the traditional meaning is, of course, “Defender of the faith” but it could also mean “Defender of faith” since Latin doesn't have a definite article ("the"). I suppose it takes a long time for institutions to evolve and that the traditional meaning is still intended, i.e. “Defender of the faith”.
F•D can mean two things: the traditional meaning is, of course, “Defender of the faith” but it could also mean “Defender of faith” since Latin doesn't have a definite article ("the"). I suppose it takes a long time for institutions to evolve and that the traditional meaning is still intended, i.e. “Defender of the faith”.
Doesn't the term fidei defensor (within this context) explicitely apply to the Anglican Church?
Defender of the faith was originally bestowed by the pope. Of course, the English kings changed their minds about the pope and catholicism later on but conveniently kept the title ;)
Yes, “Defender of the faith” as Charles' title means Defender of the Anglican Church.
Now, what's funny with Latin is that the phrase can also be taken to mean: “Defender of faith (in general)”.
Likewise, if you say “Rex Britannorum”, it can mean either “a king of the Britons” or “the King of the Britons”.
“Canem viderunt ashlobo userchapque” = “Ashlobo and userchap saw the dog” or “… saw a dog”. Usually, the context is clear, but sometimes one isn't sure if a specific dog is meant.
F•D can mean two things: the traditional meaning is, of course, “Defender of the faith” but it could also mean “Defender of faith” since Latin doesn't have a definite article ("the"). I suppose it takes a long time for institutions to evolve and that the traditional meaning is still intended, i.e. “Defender of the faith”.
Doesn't the term fidei defensor (within this context) explicitely apply to the Anglican Church?
Only the Church of England - but in Scotland, it applies to the Church of Scotland, as Scotland has its own legal system.
Another interesting issue is: regnal numbers. When E''R became Queen in 1952, many in Scotland protested that she should have been E'R of Scotland (Elizabeth I of England, 1558-1603, did not rule over Scotland). There was some disturbance when new mailboxes with the cipher E''R were rolled in…
Of course, Charles is “III” for England and Scotland, so no problem. If the Duke Prince [of course!!] of Wales succeeds his father, as is most likely, he will be William V of England, and Scotland, even though William III of England ruled as William II of Scotland (so William III and Mary II of England were William II and Mary II of Scotland). Yet, if I'm not mistaken, William IV ruled with that number in Scotland as well, even though he was only the third William to rule over Scotland. Whatever maybe the case, because of the “principle of the higher number”, the Duke [whoa! twice! Prince] of Wales will be William V of both England and Scotland (if still in the UK!) ─ and also of the independent “dominions”.
Interestingly, because of the same principle of the higher number, if a James were to succeed as king, he would be not James III, but James VIII of England, Scotland, and the “dominions” since James I and II of England were James VI and VII of Scotland.
Well it’s just a matter of time until the Bunc packs start being delivered to customers. I ordered mine on the evening of the day they went on sale, who else ordered the coins?
Hi to whoever is reading this. Did you know that TYPEWRITER (on a QWERTY keyboard) is the longest word you can type using only the letters on one row of the keyboard.
Looks okay, but I'm a bit disappointed that he went with CHARLES III instead of CAROLVS III. It breaks with the pattern of all the previous Kings using the Latin form of their names (GEORGIVS, EDWARDVS, etc.) on coins.
I agree always loved the latin engine I was hoping Edward the 9th no real reason just like the name and one step closer to a name with 10 monarchs
