Official: Why the British produced such boring designs for the Seychelles
Ice Torch
The reverse designs on the lower denominations were very plain, and
obvious copies, apart from the country name, of the designs on the
Mauritius coins. When you consider the beauty of the Seychelles, and
the wildlife with which it is graced, you wonder why these weren't
considered as material for designs. This is all the more apparent when
you consider the exotic designs that were eventually produced by the
independent Seychelles from 1976 onwards.
I was leafing through the Royal Mint's annual reports for the 1930s
recently, and I discovered the reason. The report in question stated
that some thought was given to producing designs of the local wildlife
and vegetation for the coins of the Seychelles. However, it continued,
those species most associated with the Seychelles had already been
used on other British possessions: a palm tree appeared on the
reverses of some of the British West Africa coins, whilst Percy
Metcalfe had produced a turtle design for the Fiji sixpence.
I have two objections to the reasoning of the Royal Mint on this
matter:
1] With a little imagination, some other species could have been
considered: the modern Seychelles have chosen a crab, a black parrot,
a conch shell and various fish species to adorn their modern coins;
2] Surely it would have been possible to use a turtle or a palm tree
but give it a very different artistic and stylistic treatment on the
coin? Nowadays several different circulation coins depict zebras and
rhinos for instance. Admittedly, it has reached a point where I have
wondered, on seeing yet another rhino design, why do these countries
not choose some original animal for a change, that has never appeared
on a circulation coin, such as a hyena or a serval?
All in all, I am sure the Royal Mint could have tried harder. They did
only slightly better for Mauritius, who at least got a red deer and an
attractive coat of arms on their coins.
With regard to the selection of designs for the UK decimal coins in
the late 1960s, I read a piece in one of the annual reports that
stated several members of the public had wanted "a series of
creatures, such as appears on the decimal coins of Australia". It went
on to claim that the Australian species depicted were at least native
to that country, whereas the British could claim the red grouse only
as a truly native species, which was not shared with other countries
in Europe. That argument reeks to me of narrow-mindedness, on a par
with the "pure Aryan" theory. Man or beast, we're all migrants in one
way or another. Where did the Anglo-Saxons come from originally? If
the "native" theory was applied, then we would never depict any humans
either on our British coins. Equally, birds are thought to have
evolved from dinosaurs. Did the red grouse's dinosaur ancestors live
in Britain - or Gondwanaland?
Fortunately, our modern mints and policy makers are rather more
enlightened.
Ice Torch.