What do you think of The Royal Mint’s newly released coinage portrait of King Charles III?
The coin is very bland They should have put the crown on him because he is a king.
I got to see Charles in 1984. I haven’t seen him in person for almost 40 years. The image on the coin looks to capture most of the features of the king as we see on TV and online. The passage of time hasn’t been favorable to the hair on the top of the head for both me and Charles. I know the sculptor needs to show an accurate likeness but flattering to the monarch, too. The image does that. On a side note, I was expecting the King’s name in Latin, “Carolus III D.G. Rex F.D.”
I like the planned design for the obverse of the Royal Mint’s coins depicting King Charles III, especially the use of “Charles” rather than the Latin “Carolus” for the monarch’s name. It is a strong, symbolic step toward modernization.
While some old-timers complain about the change, King Charles III approved it and I applaud it. What about the continued use of Latin for the King’s titles? Well, why not both English and Latin in the overall design? We do it on USA coinage with the Latin phrase, “E PLURIBUS UNUM.”
Las Vegas, Nev.
Ho-hum. Another old guy on a coin. Nothing exciting about this. Dull and boring, but perhaps that’s what they were trying to do. If so, it’s a great success.
I like the new portrait of King Charles III. It is consistent with the past portraits of kings and queens. I am going to purchase the new coins ASAP.
Mark T. Beedy
Thief River Falls, Minn.
Boring. Who wants to look at another old, aging fellow with a thick neck. Whatever happened to artistic license? I’m not interested in this coinage. My 2 cents anyway.
I am sure this portrait has been on the drawing board for quite some time. The British have had lots of time to design exactly what they wanted. The design is classic and perfectly crafted in the British tradition.
It is true to form, and I look forward to adding it to my collection.
I definitely would have the font size smaller. Too big of a font clutters the coin. A bigger field would be the result of a smaller font, thus causing the portrait to stand out more as the Queen’s image does on previous rounds. The portrait is a little too plain and boring for a king.
It’s what I would have suspected they do. Rather humdrum.
I think it looks fine but should say “King Charles.”
I love it. For the first time in my life, they have a King. Charles is worthy.
Decent but not terrific. Not very kingly or impressive. I’m not going to be in a hurry to buy coins with him on it.
Las Vegas, Nev.
An honest portrayal in keeping with his grandfather and great-grandfather. But, presumably, done about 10 years ago or at least engraved from a portrait of that age.
Dr. K.A. Rodgers
I absolutely love the new King Charles III portrait. I fully intend to purchase a couple of proofs from the Royal Mint. I see it as a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to add a classic piece of history to my collection.
Trying hard to look like a Roosevelt USA dime!
Not as stylish as I would have expected. I don’t see the representation of Britain. It appears to be just a foreign coin, but not from Britain other than Charles.
Looks horrible Don’t like it at all.
Sherman Oaks, Calif.
The portrait looks great.
It is part of history. I am for it.
You can only do so much with what you have.