Here We Go Again! Victorian 3d Maundy vs. Currency

[VickySilver 775]

OK, I have had a look at two coins on the 'net that have really irritated me [again].

The first is on the Heritage site in a preview of their Jan. 2016 NYINC Sale, wherein an 1845 3d is slabbed at MS68 by TPG. This is NOT currency, failing the standard of currency (something of a contradiction in that the currency pieces are generally not as well prepared). This will undoubtedly fetch an outrageous sum based on bidding for what it is represented as.

The other is on London Coin's site on the fixed price list for 3ds - an 1848 MAUNDY!!! (but foisted as currency) @ 1500 quid!

I have written on this before, or at least tried, but the relevant bits are:

Maundy may be struck to satin or prooflike standard with the latter more common. The quality of strike usually better and this is better defined by stating that the device impression better, being Vick on the obverse and the central "3"; the denticles are also in general more regular and clearly impressed on the flan. Please note that even on Maundy, the center portion of Vick may be a bit weakly struck, and there may even be lettering errors on the legends - I have noticed this on 1848-51 issues in particular

Toning may have a tendency to be more "wild" on the Maundy bits as well.

I could go on and on, but the general idea with early Vick 3ds (1840-1870) is that a coin should be considered Maundy until demonstrated to be currency. Sorry if this concept is a bit of carryover from a science background, and I hope has been of some use.

Edited October 13, 2015 by VickySilver