Undated (ca. 1777) Voltaire Medal. Musante GW-1, Baker-78B, Betts-544. Copper. MS-63 BN (PCGS).40.2 mm. 419.8 grains. Rich chocolate brown surfaces are glossy and almost completely uniform in tone throughout save for subtle accents of blue and gold iridescence on the portrait and a small ring of debris adhering at the jawline. Beautifully struck on a fairly heavy flan with excellent expression of the details on both sides, including the intricate reverse lettering that is often somewhat obscured by striking problems on this issue. Here, they are even and nicely defined. Similarly the details of the central reverse are completely struck up with only the usual light central spalling noted in the drapery of the flag. The rims are thick and fairly even with only minimal irregularity.<p>It is clear that the Voltaire medal was one of at least four different issues produced in the same shop, all of which were struck from skillfully cut, but unsigned dies. The other three known issues are a David Hume medal (Eimer-768), one celebrating the Chevalier dEon (Eimer-770), and the Franklin of Philadelphia medal (Betts-547). The Voltaire shares several characteristics with these medals, not the least of which are several identical letter punches. In the case of the David Hume medal, even the portrait is very similar to that seen on the Voltaire-a detail on this medal that has long perplexed collectors as it is clearly not a portrait of Washington. Other shared characteristics include evidence of poor striking machinery that produced uneven rims and double strikes often seen on these medals. For some reason, only the Voltaire medal seems to have met with commercial success, as the other three issues are very rare, the Hume and dEon, extremely so. Interestingly, it is the one issue of this foursome that we know Benjamin Franklin was personally aware of due to his gifting of the example in the previous lot. These are all clearly by a talented as yet unidentified engraver which begs the question, why are they unsigned? The sensible conclusion is that it is likely a purposeful omission to protect the identity of a medalist creating portraits that might not have been terribly popular in the era of Revolution, perhaps in Great Britain.From the John M. Pack Collection. Earlier from our (Stacks) sale of the Patriot Collection, September 2010, lot 5387.
