Silver Threepences - Maundy od Not?

[The Future 11]

Hi everyone

Can anyone explain what the difference is between a Maundy silver threepence and one that was intended for standard circulation?

In particular, I want to purchase a 1927 silver threepence. I don't know how to identify a proof from a Maundy issue or how much they are worth.

Thanks

[Gary D 76]

Hi everyone

Can anyone explain what the difference is between a Maundy silver threepence and one that was intended for standard circulation?

In particular, I want to purchase a 1927 silver threepence. I don't know how to identify a proof from a Maundy issue or how much they are worth.

Thanks

In general Maundy 3d's are proof like so unlike the currency issue the fields are mirrored. 1927 is an easier year to distinguish the Maundy from the currency piece. The Maundy has the 3 with the crown above. The currency for 1927 is only available as a proof issue and is the first of the series to have the oak leaf design. Up to 1927 both the Maundy and currency 3d's shared the same design. From 1927 on the currency had the new oak leaf design which in 1937 was again changed to a sheild design. The maundy coins remained with the 3 with crown above until the present day.

Gary

[Peckris 579]

Hi everyone

Can anyone explain what the difference is between a Maundy silver threepence and one that was intended for standard circulation?

In particular, I want to purchase a 1927 silver threepence. I don't know how to identify a proof from a Maundy issue or how much they are worth.

Thanks

The difficulty comes with early Victorian 3ds, where early strikes of the currency type are virtually indistinguishable from the Maundy. In my opinion, the supposed wide disparity in prices is absolute nonsense (Maundy being much lower) especially when you consider that 1) Maundy are far rarer and 2) the difference between them - finish - is negligible.

[VickySilver 775]

Ah yes, controversy arises again on these boards, even if of a lesser magnitude. I would beg to differ in opinion and am of the opinion that most high grade 3ds from earlier Victorian years are Maundies and that in particular 1839 through 1860 or so are VERY scarce if of currency type. The problem is that not all Maundies are prooflike, and many have been struck with cracked dies & lettering errors, etc. Also the obverses may not "match" the reverses as dies appear to have been utilised in multiple years. Some Maundies were definately struck with satiny surface dies which make them resemble currency strikes; reverse strike details and sharpness have sometimes helped to differentiate between the two. I have disagreed with the attribution of many 3ds that have been encapsulated by TPGs - third party graders - in the USA.

Be highly suspect of Maundies sold as currency in the years 1839 - 1844, 1846-1848, 1851-1853 in particular as they are almost always NOT.

Well, will not exhaust this but welcome any other opinions.

[Red Riley 2]

Ah yes, controversy arises again on these boards, even if of a lesser magnitude. I would beg to differ in opinion and am of the opinion that most high grade 3ds from earlier Victorian years are Maundies and that in particular 1839 through 1860 or so are VERY scarce if of currency type. The problem is that not all Maundies are prooflike, and many have been struck with cracked dies & lettering errors, etc. Also the obverses may not "match" the reverses as dies appear to have been utilised in multiple years. Some Maundies were definately struck with satiny surface dies which make them resemble currency strikes; reverse strike details and sharpness have sometimes helped to differentiate between the two. I have disagreed with the attribution of many 3ds that have been encapsulated by TPGs - third party graders - in the USA.

Be highly suspect of Maundies sold as currency in the years 1839 - 1844, 1846-1848, 1851-1853 in particular as they are almost always NOT.

Well, will not exhaust this but welcome any other opinions.

Perhaps | am just going to reveal myself as an absolute philistine here, but aren't we heading down the 'how many angels can dance on the head of a pin' road. I just can't get my head around why it matters, especially since the higher quality coin is actually cheaper! If you are intending to put together a maundy set then yes, I can see why you would want the genuine article (although distinguishing maundy from early strike could also cause problems). But the other way round? Sorry, I just don't get it. It also strikes me that to get the most out of their dies and hence save money, the mint may at the end of the day have used the maundy die (I guess there was probably only one in any given year) to produce currency threepences which can only further cloud the issue.

I apologise if I have trodden on anyone's toes. All in the interests of a 'lively debate' you understand...

[VickySilver 775]

Excellent point there. In fact I had left that bit out about use of Maundy dies; not sure but a strong likelihood that dies were used interchangeably to some degree. I think people (including myself) were very intrigued at the low mintage of currency 3ds struck duing these years.

To further support your point: I have seen 1853 Maundy sets (not proofs) go for 600-800 pounds over the last 1-2 years.

Still certainly not ridiculous when compared to the "slender 3" madness on the bunhead pennies I would say, not that it excuses the 3d "controversy".

[declanwmagee 122]

I just can't get my head around why it matters, especially since the higher quality coin is actually cheaper!

Yes, as a date run collector it wouldn't matter to me, especially as I couldn't tell. I wouldn't want a 1927 silver 3d in my date run though, so as long as some were issued for currency, Maundy would count.

[Gary D 76]

I just can't get my head around why it matters, especially since the higher quality coin is actually cheaper!

Yes, as a date run collector it wouldn't matter to me, especially as I couldn't tell. I wouldn't want a 1927 silver 3d in my date run though, so as long as some were issued for currency, Maundy would count.

The problem with 1927, well not really a problem, the maundy and currency split and became a different design. The problem with 1927 is that the currency was only issued in the proof set so go for £80-100.

Gary

[Red Riley 2]

I just can't get my head around why it matters, especially since the higher quality coin is actually cheaper!

Yes, as a date run collector it wouldn't matter to me, especially as I couldn't tell. I wouldn't want a 1927 silver 3d in my date run though, so as long as some were issued for currency, Maundy would count.

The problem with 1927, well not really a problem, the maundy and currency split and became a different design. The problem with 1927 is that the currency was only issued in the proof set so go for £80-100.

Gary

1927 is obviously an exception as there were two different types of proof, neither of which were issued for circulation. Date run collectors will obviously have to make up their own mind on this one.

[The Future 11]

Thanks everyone.

I’m a date run collector. I’ve set up plastic wallet albums with a slot for all the dates for every main issue milled coin. At the moment there are a lot of gaps! It will be a lifetime ambition to complete it but I’m not too bothered about the grade as long as I have a decent one of each type.

When setting up the album I decided against setting up gaps for the rare proofs such as gothic crowns, gold coins or Maundy coins because I do not expect to win the lottery.

I wasn’t sure whether to set up a space for the 1927 three pence but I have now. That space screams at me every time I open the album. I wanted to make sure that I got the correct one if/when I do buy. So it looks like I need to spend £100 on “a small piece of metal†as my wife would put it.

Am I right in saying all George III and IV threepences are Maundy?

[Red Riley 2]

Am I right in saying all George III and IV threepences are Maundy?

In that one sentence you have opened up a can of worms. Let's look at George IV first because it's simple, yes they are all what we would understand as maundy i.e. they were not intended for circulation. George III is much more complicated as those from 1762 and for several years afterwards were effectively circulating coins (as were the 1d, 2d and 4d). At some point the system changed and their main function became a ceremonial one, but I have seen various suggestions of when this might have been, some people suggesting that even the 1800 dated coins (which were used for the ceremony right up to 1816) were somehow issued into circulation. The whole thing is complicated by the fact that the deserving poor who received what amounted to the princely sum of 10d, promptly went out and spent it, so from that point of view all maundy coins, probably into the mid-Victorian period, circulated. Once again, who knows where you draw the line.

And one more complication. Until 1908 it was possible for anyone to go into a bank and effectively ask for and receive maundy money. Although we generally accept that there were roughly 9000 sets produced every year from 1893 to 1908, the numbers of their individual constituents varied, so the mintage figures that we see are in fact either the 1d, 2d, 3d or 4d whichever had the lowest mintage. From 1909 the system changed and only the poor beneficiaries and various dignitaries (I still can't get my head round why there were as many as 1,000 of these) received the maundy sets and at this period, by and large kept them as sets.

I'm sorry to complicate your life, but who ever said numismatics was simple!

[Guest Maundy 3d question]

I have a 1911, 1913 and 1918 3d are they Mandy? They have the number 3 with a crown above it

[craigy 362]

there's a book called linen towels and silver pennies, goes into some depth on telling them apart 

[Guest guest]

Maundy rarely gets into circulation, so it is quite easy to tell them apart from circulation issues. Maundy issues (post 1817) have polished fields whereas currency ones are unlikely to be struck from polished dies. There are very few proof Maundy sets known outside the boxed RM sets

[VickySilver 775]

Goodness! Please see my post from May of SEVEN years ago. And also, perhaps register a request that unfounded generalities contemplated before promulgated.

Many Maundies were in fact spent in circulation.

Prooflike specimens are, if well (or better) struck are indeed likely Maundies. The problem arises with satin type strikes & in fact, there were many Maundies struck with such surfaces & many with poorly struck obverses to boot. Anyway, this has been discussed as a look through old posts will reveal...