A little over three years ago I wrote about the set of red sulfur coin impressions that I had acquired and what I had discovered. (Click here to go to ORIGINAL POST.) The evidence indicated that they were by Tassie (James and/or William), but more needed to be done to find additional proof and to track down other companion impressions or sets. This is an account of my “journey” and of what I have discovered.
The research followed two paths, one numismatic and one Tassie-centric. The numismatic approach led me to an interesting website entitled coinbooks.org . The site has a weekly online journal “E-Sylum”, mostly about numismatic books and related topics. A sample issue can be accessed at this site.
The E-Sylum editor is a fellow named Wayne Homren (photo at left). 
I contacted Wayne and explained my search for the Tassie coin impressions. Wayne posted my request which resulted in several responses. They can be accessed at (do a Cntrl F seach for Tassie to find the article):
The most pertinent comment was from Derek Kerins of NSI, Dublin, Ireland, in the Esylum issue accessed at the link immediately above. Derek had acquired a similar group of coin impressions (see nearby photo); he didn’t have a provenance other than that they came from an auction in Scotland. There was no indication who produced the set. It was the first set that I had found, confirming that other groupings existed, although I never doubted it.
I was no closer to “proof” that the coin impressions were by Tassie, but I met some nice people who had similar interests, so well worth the effort.
Another numismatic pursuit involved contacting the Hunterian Museum in Glasgow in hopes of confirming that the impressions were, in fact, from coins in the collection of Dr. Hunter. I contacted Jesper Ericsson, Curator of Numismatics, at the Museum, who was very helpful and interested. Our communications culminated in a 2023 visit and a viewing of most of the coins included in the impressions of the MyI Collection. There was no doubt that these were the original coins from which the castings were taken. Click here to view each of the MyI collection Tassie Coin Impressions matched to the original coins.
Still no irrefutable “proof” that these are by Tassie.
During the same trip, I visited the National Portrait Gallery of Scotland in Edinburgh. As mentioned in the original post, the large Tassie gem impression collection is in storage at the National Portrait Gallery, not readily accessible to the public. However, the world’s largest collection of the Tassie white paste miniature portraits is on display in the library. Liz Louis, curator-portraiture, has a great video presentation about the miniature portrait collection.
Liz, whom I had been in contact with, was very kind and helpful describing the Galleries collection to me. We examined one of the Tassie cabinets, a part of the collection (See nearby photo). These impressions were representative of a small portion of the set ultimately numbering more than 15,000 that James Tassie sent to Catherine the Great in the 1780’s. The presentation includes colored paste intaglio reproductions in the right side of the drawers and white “enamel” cameo impressions of each intaglio in the left. Numbering matched the Raspe Tassie 1791 Catalogue – beautiful!. The Catalogue is available online at the Internet Archive website. A visit well worth the effort, but nothing further about the coin impressions.
(I now understand that, currently, efforts are being made to give the public more access to the Portrait Gallery Tassie collection. I continue to have confidence that coin impressions are included in the group.}
Another possibility was the collection of gem castings in the Beazley Archives at the Classical Art Research Centre (CARC) of Oxford University, in Oxford, England. This collection is acclaimed as one of the finest in the world and most certainly would contain some items by the Tassies. An inventory of the collection was found as an appendix to the doctoral thesis of K. Scott Marchand available at the University of St. Andrews Research Repository . This inventory is based on the official Archive inventory. There are several references to coins and to “Tassie” in the inventory. Regretably, I wasn’t able to visit the CARC during the 2023 trip. But “glyptomaniacs” never give up, do we?
A trip in autumn of this year (2025) was more successful. I had been in contact with Peter Stewart, Director of the CARC and Professor of Ancient Art at the University of Oxford, who was extremely helpful in finding the pertinent sets of impressions and facilitating a visit to study the items. There were two “book” volumes, #015 and #016, and a box consisting of four stacking trays, #999-92, all containing sets of the plaster coin impressions similar to the MyI set. The “book” volumes were a part of group of 16, with very similar bindings and very likely all produced by the same maker.
The problem was that the set of “book” volumes had been identified as being produced by Cades, another impression maker from the Tassie era. This identification was apparently based on the style being similar to Cades’ other works and the belief that Tassie never produced sets in plaster, which discounted the possibility that the set was by him. My best explanation (rationalization?) of why coin impressions by Tassie (my belief) were in a set by Cades was that they were copies of the original Tassie impressions; weak, but logical, if one believed firmly that the originals were by Tassie. Rather than “proof”, more questions and doubts were raised. At the time it didn’t occur to me that the entire set of volumes could be by William Tassie.
Then serendipity happened. While viewing the “book” volumes, I inspected the volume marked “1” in white ink on the spine (it was also marked “3” in the original gold leaf) to see if there was perhaps a label or other identifying document – no luck. What I did find was that the volume contained impressions of “devices”, intaglio seals with popular adages, often with related images. I have a small group of these, so my interest was piqued and I took a photo of part of the volume as a reminder to do some further research.
In the inventory of the collection of gem impressions in the Beazley Archives the description of the set of volumes reads, “001 to 016: SERIES of 16 large volumes: 3 of medals, 13 of gems (not complete series), Tassie’ for Captn. Page, MS note in volume I These 13 volumes are the relics of at least 2, perhaps more, now incomplete series.” This is an indication that Tassie had something to do with this set (what is “Tassie for Captn.”?).
Back home, perusing the photos, I noticed that the devices (which were a specialty of William Tassie) had numbers inscribed on the sides. Could they be Tassie’s? The 1830 catalogue by William Tassie, available online, was a good place to start. While some descriptions matched, no numbers did. Then I turned to the Tassie’s 1816 Catalogue that I was lucky enough win at an auction, available online – SUCCESS!! Each of the impressions in the picture matched a description in the catalogue and the catalogue numbers matched the discernable numbers on the impressions.
This was most probably a “book” volume by William Tassie, produced between 1816 and 1830. Further study of the other devices included in the volume could possibly refine the production dates even more. William Tassie’s 1816 catalogue included 421 listings. In 1820 he published another catalogue in two parts, the first part being the original 421 items and the second adding another 580 items (this according to John Gray in his 1894 publication, “James and William Tassie….“) If some of the devices have numbers higher than 421, the volume was probably produced post-1820. To date a copy of the 1820 catalogue hasn’t been found (by me).
N.B. There can be no doubt that William Tassie produced gem impressions (and probably device and coin impressions) made from plaster:
- From the advertisement in Part 2 of the 1820 Catalogue of William Tassie — “From any of these (gem impressions), Paste Blocks, calculated to be used as Seals without being mounted, Pastes for mounting, and Impressions, either in Enamel, Plaster, or Sulphur, may be had at a moderate charge.”
- From the title page of the 1830 Catalogue of William Tassie, “…fac-similes, Impressions in Plaster, &c, may be obtained from the finest specimens of Ancient and Modern Art, taken from the most celebrated Cabinets in Europe.”
At any rate, it seems probable that these volumes which include both impressions of devices, for which William Tassie was well known, and impressions of coins in the Hunterian collection, which were described in such detail in the Letters of William Tassie, are all by William Tassie. (Click on pictures for posts about Keats’ and Shelly’s affection for “Tassies”.) Additional identification of other impressions in the volumes as being by William Tassie will, hopefully, add additional credence to the belief. I sense the need for another trip.
It’s interesting to note that no mention of coin impressions is made in the 1816 Catalogue advertisement, but in the new 2nd part of the 1820 Catalogue it is stated, “MR. TASSIE has also an extensive and interesting Collection, from the finest Greek and Roman Coins.” and from the Title page of the 1830 Catalogue, “Also Casts from some of the most interesting and beautiful of the Greek and Roman Coins, equally important to the Historian, Antiquary, and Artist.”
There is one additional finding that indicates that the impressions in the “book” volumes, those in the four stacked trays, and the red sulfur impressions in the MyI collection were all produced by the same maker – a comparison of one of the impressions that is in all three groupings.
The specific coin impression is of An Ancient Greek tetradrachm from Acragas (Agritentum), Sicily, dating to c. 470-420 B.C., a coin featuring an eagle standing left with wings closed on the obverse and a crab on the reverse. It appears in set #015 (“book” volume), the nested set #999-92, and as one of the red sulfurs (heavily damaged) in the MyI collection. The red sulfur impression has already been matched to the original silver coin in the Hunter collection.
Identical imperfections on the coin and casting marks indicate that all three have been cast from the same master mold and that that mold was cast from the Hunterian coin. The only question is why the imperfection at the rim of the obverse to the left of the top of the “A” at the breast of the eagle does not show in any of the castings- was it ”corrected” in the original impression casting?. Even with that question, I firmly believe there is enough evidence provided by the other markings to confirm the positive comparison of all three.
If the above rationale proves to be valid, it will attest to the following:
- The coin impressions are by James Tassie and/or William Tassie
- At least one of the Tassies produced sets of impressions in plaster
- The Beazley Archive set of “book” volumes #’s 001-016 are by Wm. Tassie
- The Beazley Archive sets numbered 999-92 are by Wm. Tassie.
Additional study of other impressions in the referenced sets in the Beazley Archives could (should) lead to further confirmation that they are, in fact, by William Tassie. A small finding in such a large collection, but not necessarily insignificant.
Also discovered online have been a couple of references to Tassie coin impressions being in the collection of the National Portrait Gallery of Scotland.
One was found on page 9 of Gray’s, “James and William Tassie, a Biographical and Critical Sketch…” 1894 where he is discussing the materials from which Tassie made his moulds, “…all the moulds I have examined-those of gems and coins in the collection of the Board of Manufactures, Edinburgh, and….”
The other was an article found in the 2 Apr 1861 issue of the London Daily News (shown at right).
The search goes on. The pursuit of additional information about these coin impressions by the Tassies, a minor part of their entire body of work, continues to be of great interest to me and perhaps to some numismatists and glyptologists. Currently, the Tassie collection at the National Portrait Gallery of Scotland seems to hold the most promise to provide additional proof that the coin impressions are by the Tassies.
