The Kangaroo Office. Fact Or Fantasy?

The owner of this has been trying to sell it for some time.
Nice piece but oddly no one wants it. $2k would probably secure it.

2019 - both passed in
Personally I like the Kangaroo Office promotional token; but not at $2k.

Yes the patterning is not right.
The O in PORT is also too round.
The Kangaroos lower leg is wrong
The grass is not the same.
The die fault below the H is not present.
The list goes on and we haven't even seen the obverse yet.
But still if one had never seen one of these or had no original to compare it to then it is a nice example.

I would be very happy to have that Dixson Gee in my collection.
The images of a '54 are very different to those of a '53.

What I notice is the die defect below the H that we see on the Smithsonian and the British museum examples is absent on this Murdoch Collection piece. May be it is the poor image quality. You have to ask 'is this a Kangaroo Office piece"?



Australasian Tokens and Coins (Dr A Andrews 1921)
THE KANGAROO OFFICE GOLD AND COPPER ISSUES,
775. Gold. Two ounces. 1853. 35 mm. (W. J. Taylor fecit.)
O.—A broad raised engine-turned rim with PORT PHILLIP above AUSTRALIA below incused on it. Within, a kangaroo to right with date 1853 beneath.
R._A similar raised rim with PURE AUSTRALlAN GOLD above. TWO OUNCES below incused on it. Within, a large figure 2 with TWO OUNCES incused on it. Edge milled.
A similar piece with plain edge was included in the Murdoch sale as unique, but doubts have been expressed regarding its genuineness.
* On PL 59 there are showing impressions taken from the dies in various stages of manufacture. No. 775a, of the obverse, with Nos. 775b and 775c
of the reverse. These are in the Mitchell Library cabinet.
776. Gold. Two ounces. 1854.
This piece, which is said to have been similar on both obverse and reverse to No. 775, except as to date, is listed in the catalogue of the Murdoch Sale.

Seems Murdoch had the whole set and them some.

PATTERNS AND PROOFS. Murdoch Catalogue
606 Gold. Two Ounce Piece, a kangaroo, 1853 below, port phillip Australia incuse upon a broad engine-turned edge ; rev. a large 2 with TWO OUNCES incuse upon it, PURE AUSTRALIAN GOLD TWO OUNCES incuse upon a broad engine-turned edge, edge plain, brilliant and probably unique

607 Another, as the last, but with a grained edge, brilliant and of the highest rarity [PL VI]

608 Another, as the last, but dated 1854, brilliant and unique

Just so people appreciate the situation, even if gold was bought at full price, say71 shillings, then a full set (3 3/4 ounces) costs £13 6/ to make. Just the gold.
The sets were £1, £2, £4 and £8 pieces = £15 per set.
That is still £1 13/ or so profit (minus costs). That is good profit.
The Gold Business failed primarily because nobody wanted expensive medals. Not because the gold price dramatically changed between early 1853 and mid 1854.

Not the most objective terms I have seen.
I sense a touch of numismatic bias..

"It is a nice pattern but it proves nothing your Honour.
We can presume nothing or can we also presume that this is just a consequence of what Taylor was doing. We cannot make decisions based on the desires of vested interests to have these items have had some numismatic meaning in the colony."

If we look at the Macquarie Mint 6 pence we see it has something similar. A nice pattern that has more visual appeal than just straight line symmetry.
What presumptions shall we make about what they are up to?
Pattern coinage for national circulation comes to mind as one possibility.



The real deal..



This is a curious piece because in 1855 there is a mint in Sydney and no chance anything but coinage by Royal Prerogative was going to be in circulation.

Coinworks claim "History has judged British entrepreneur William Taylor a 'big noter'. He aspired to own and operate a private mint in Melbourne and create a new gold coinage for the colonies."

Is Taylor just 'big noting", did he ever claim to aspire to such things when Royal Prerogative stands in his way? People say Taylor wanted this.

"That is hearsay your Honour. Bias hearsay one might suggest as it comes from within the numismatic world and those who gain from the speculated idea are those perpetuating it."

Just ask the good people in Adelaide what was the Queens view of their proposed gold coinage. "One was not amused".

So Taylor is kidding himself if he thinks he can pull off what it is claimed he was seeking to do; he need Royal Approval.
Surely there is something somewhere that shows Taylor is trying to get Royal Prerogative. If there is then it is a sight unseen to date.

Isn't it more realistic to say Taylor knows better. Given his position in the numismatic world of Britain in the mid 1850s surely he knows a mint in Australia is imminent even before the Kangaroo sails. Does he not know what is going on?
Taylor moves in circles with some pretty connected people. He is not just another poor Victorian pleb scrounging a living in London in difficult times.

Taylor looks the right fool if the narrative is even close to correct; hey Guv'nor.

McDonalds doesn't say 'patterns' but they still have a lot of the nonsense narrative.

I would say Rennicks is just parroting the claim of Vaux from 1864. As shown in this thread the "pattern national coinage from a mint" story starts there, in 1864.

Ask Rennicks why are they patterns and it is highly likely you will end up back at Vaux's 1864 introduction. Ask them why are rounds in a coin catalogue and see how that goes.

Rennicks: That is the catalogue whose author of the day (Dion Skinner) verified the authenticity of David Gee's 1909 Florin.
With all due respect Rennicks will believe what you can make them believe.



Is it for humour value that Rennicks lists the alleged patterns under the heading "Bullion Act 1852" when the Bullion Act has nothing to do with the Kangaroo Office?

And make of it what you will but the Rennick 2 ounce example is the London produced 1854 round. A seeming one off round that never saw the Kangaroo Office. A very nice example of "the most noteworthy" relics of Australasian economic history.
That is another bollocks claim by a boys club member from the day, i.e. Dr. W Roth who left Australia in the early 20th century after some very serious allegations.

Also note Rennicks just parrots the 1862 acquisition date found on the British Museum site when Vaux in his 1864 introduction claimed they were acquired in 1863. Rennicks also parrot the pattern coin claim which is also on the Museum website.
Of course Rennicks believe the British Museum and their 1864 "hereafter" Vaux narrative.

"Rennicks says" holds about as much water as "Vaux said".



Prior to 1864 (Vaux) they are not patterns; after Vaux 1864 they are?.
Correct me if that is wrong.

So what were they between 1854 and 1864?
Kangaroo Office weren't calling them patterns (and Rennicks didn't exist).

And that is my point. The modern narrative, the narrative since 1864, is rubbish and I think I have shown that reasonably well. I can see the modern narrative is important to some because in some cases it gives them a highlight story and in other cases it justifies a hideous price for something that really had no significance.

It isn't hard to understand why Vaux said what he said. We have seen Vaux's introduction and how error ridden it is.

I am glad you find great pleasure in having held the Museums piece but in light of what the piece is compared to what it is claimed to be I don't see the piece as a big deal at all. The pieces only have the status and value they have because 'the boys club' elevated them to that height.

You held a rare memento, a medal, a round. Not a coin, not a token. The remnants of a failed venture in Melbourne by some British folk in mid 1850s. That really doesn't have the impressiveness of a colonial period pattern national coinage item produced at a (private) mint in Melbourne.

I do like that I do not have to hand my Gee '54 back to anyone. I like that because, among its many virtues, it reminds me how shifty some numismatist can be.
W S W Vaux, D A Gee, Dr W Roth, the story tellers - take your pick.

Roth: Extract from - An objective look at the Kangaroo Office.

Before collectors get over excited about the bullion rounds the elevating buzz around the water cooler comes from trusted players inside respected numismatic groups and institutions. A good example of creating buzz is by Dr Walter Roth who was a high profile respected collector and 'authority' who in 1895, after a visit to the UK, said that the patterns of the Kangaroo Office were "the most noteworthy" relics of Australasian economic history. One can only conclude he has, in England, seen the pieces and been told the Vaux "hereafter" story which we will come to in a moment. Roth's comment is truly bizarre given the exhibition mementos made absolutely no difference to the economic history of any of the Australasian colonies. Still, such hype creates interest in the numismatic world when someone of Roth's numismatic standing is making such (nonsense) comments.