VickySilver

This date of threepence is a bit of a rascal, and very hard to run down in the sources such as ESC, Davies, Spink & Krause. There was a DNW lot, supposedly proof and NOT Maundy. DNW Sale specimen was 18 Sept. 2012, Lot 2727 evidently proof, certainly not currency that fits best to Spink cat. 3914C. The lot description states Maundy was only of the first A2 type (same as first currency type). Can anyone verify that all Maundy was of the A2 type? OK, I admit I usually don't like the microvarietals but it is Victorian silver after all! According to DNW the revision for 1866 3d should be: A2 Currency Maundy Unknown in Proof * A4 Currency Proof (unique?) Both A4s are quite rare, if anybody cares but just wondering how it can be said that there are NO Maundies of this type?

BTW, the listed mintage for this last bit is 30k (!), and even with concentrated looking have seen only ONE for sale in 12 years. As stated BoJ does not even know anything about their own issue. So I still do not know whether the whole set was made in 2002. PM me if you should ever see one for sale, PLEASE. I think this begs the question about domestic Proof sets for the UK - how many actually released to public as opposed to how many authorised and yet again how many struck. I have noted that the Central Bank of Barbados states on their site indicate that the actual number they took delivery of is many times 1/10 the amount made, more sometimes and less others.

Uh, I am a STRONG crown collector of 20th C. predecimal and wouldn't touch that Foley above 200 pounds max. The Wyon crowns of 1910 private, but were nicely (IMO) redone in the Patina series at quite a discount and in gold as well (I got one of those for 550 quid for 40+ gms of gold).

Still like that '08 date. OZ, is that a bit of PVC on the obverse. Your specimen is well struck IMO with a bit of bag handling. I think it too may have been a bit cleaned with some retoning. The OP coin is on the lower fringe of EF, not what Glendining would have called it "back in the day" however! Still a nice date.

Nice! Specimen 3 looks to have been through a bit of it. From the pictures the first is convincing as a possible currency and the second looks proof. Very nice & wish the guides could have such pictures. If you EVER get tired of that first bit, I'd be glad to help. LOL!

That Foley pattern result is just fine for the buyer and seller IMO. Find each some more junk to buy and sell. If a Royal Mint product, I would have been in the fight - this piece was meaningless and certainly no better than a Hearn pattern crown. The execution of the reverse absolutely awful so no points for artistic merit. At least the Patina pieces were (some of them anyway) more pleasant products...

Looks a bit like the obverse from the Indian Rupees as well.... IMO quite unpleasant...

That. No wizard meeting put those prices together, mere humans....

I have an 1936 that looks a bit similar to your earlier 1921 coin that evidently had some cancellation stamp to it. Is that a hint of copper at 8 o'clock on the obverse rim of the 1967? I don't think it would be the end of the world to judiciously lightly scratch the edge of either or both to test for underlying metal (usu parallel to the edge of the coin, NOT crosswise to the edge). Based on the photos, IMO the first may be a counterfeit & the second may be real. The first in worn condition much more problematic for at least some of the reasons already stated above. For argument sake, assuming GENUINE which is a reach, the values of the second would be less than 50 quid IMO for the second and a bit less for the first.

Please at least weigh the coins. Occasionally even the copper alloy can oxidize to rather different appearance. I have quite a few of the off metal penny strikes and 1967 is a relatively common date for them. The 1921 not so much. Where are you located? You can PM me pictures if you like.

Well, you have a point there - we actually want the more INFERIOR coin! But IMO not a lot different than proof versus currency of other coins and same date. The true currency bits for the 1840-48 are much scarcer in my experience.

As far as valuations, IMO, they don't do a lot of research and unless it is a more renowned rarity (and even on occasion with those), the values are changed seemingly at whim. I note with careful comparison that they are influenced, as would even be natural to some extent, by other sources - even Krause. Still IMO they are also of value and I tend to get one about every other year...

Hmmm, definately has a Pobjoy Mint look about it and IMO I prefer the Churchill depicted on the infamous 1965 crown!

Wow, how the mighty have fallen. Their SNC was absolutely stellar in the 1990s through early 2000's. I have so many coins from then that have not showed up since, at least as far as quality and rarity. They are essentially IMO just an also-ran in this day.

OK, there is no absolute rule but generally speaking (and it takes the eye of hopefully an expert) one can tell. The non-Maundy dies are IMO not usually produced with quite as great a care and the strike not usually as good - check, for example the denticles and their strike & regularity as well as Vick's hair detail, etc. It obviously is very hard to prove the case of an isolated 3d all by itself but my suggestion is calling the piece of Maundy and then seeing if possible to "prove" the currency case. I have at least a little experience in this and would be glad to provide opinion of pictures realising that "coin in hand " is the best way to go. I think Steve is a very good choice if you have the chance to venture to faire London towne... To elaborate and bore: early strikes I have seen to be demonstrating better detail but still a bit of sloppiness as per above. Interestingly, as a sidepoint Maundies of the period up to the early '50s can be found with many legend errors in lettering & overstrikes with no doubt at least a few not being recorded...

Add: this holds true for some of the Ed 7 issues as well...

Yes, the proof is when the finish of the other set mates (1d, 2d, and 4d) are examined the satin surfaces are demonstrated. It really is the quality of the strike and not the surface when it comes to Maundy in my experience. I am quite sure if you were to ask Steve Hill at Baldiwn as one example that he would agree. In fact I have long ago had this conversation with him; and colin Cooke himself for that matter.

I second that. The coin itself does however look to be a scrapper even if the reverse not shown..

Ugly bit at that as well. Congratulations, of sorts, but get over it. I know I sometimes will have two of something and then agonise over which to hold and which to sell & sometimes think I may have made the wrong decision. But trying to hoard them all a bit nuts. There is a guy over in the states who has tried to hoard all (maybe 11) sacagawea/US 25c piece mules at 45 k USD per!

IMO the 47/6 (sometimes 47/8 which appears different to me) is the choice overdate in better states of preservation. I think there is one on the PCGS foreign population report that looks UNDERGRADED if photos can be judged. The rest not so exciting. I had one overdate that I thought initially was not the more valuable non-overdate (1845/53) and would have been happy with that.

I have only the blurry image on the Spink site of this coin. Does not look like the matte that came in the set of '53 or the '51 matte penny for that matter. Better picture would be nice.

OK, cooking for son at the moment, but I believe there have been pictures posted on either this forum or the PCGS. Obviously it is not just the sheen appearance but the quality of the strike that will count. Also there is the "ON" (Oscar Neiman - sp?) variant with his initials below the bust on rev. I agree about the posting of pictures - a bit tedious but that would certainly help. If of aid you may PM me as well.

Oh, have a go. I had just started a half sov collection some years ago when a pattern 1839 in silver showed up & got it for not a lot - nary a specimen has shown in the years since and beautiful to boot (OK, as you might guess I also like Victorian silver! LOL). I have noticed that on occasion, demand is not always as high as you might expect and the price not as dear as one might predict. If you lose out, well, it is a bronze bit anyway. Right?

Yikes, great post. That is a very deceiving bit of photography. Out of my price range is the 1851 proof florin for sale in the upcoming Heritage NYINC sale - one picture shows some very distracting hits/marks/etc. on the obverse. The other (in slab) is the same coin but different appearance like this OP coin. Sorry not able to linkify.

Absolutely!