Maundy v Currency

[DaveG38]

I've just bought a small job lot of threepences from DNW. One of the coins, the 1906 is identified as Maundy, whilst all the rest are currency. I've been staring at the 1906 and comparing it with the dates on either side and I'm blowed if I can see the differences. So, can anyone help by explaining what I'm looking for?

Thanks in advance.

Dave G

[argentumandcoins]

The only tell is the surfaces Dave. Maundy coins are usually prooflike in appearance, although to be fair the early currency strikes can be as well.

[VickySilver]

Yikes, I've been over this before. The main difference is in the sharpness of the devices and edges, the "finish" or surface of the coin, especially of Eddie 7 issues can either be satin like or prooflike as both are known. There are occasional lapses in quality of Maundy that will make it impossible to tell, and obviously if they are circulated it may also be impossible.

On Eddie, even in the smaller modulus of the 3d, there are differences for example in the sharpness and edge of the mustache and the hair detail above and forward to the ear as well as his hair detail in general...

1906 in currency if well preserved is actually one of the scarcer Eddie dates and I mean GEF/UNC.

[DaveG38]

Yikes, I've been over this before. The main difference is in the sharpness of the devices and edges, the "finish" or surface of the coin, especially of Eddie 7 issues can either be satin like or prooflike as both are known. There are occasional lapses in quality of Maundy that will make it impossible to tell, and obviously if they are circulated it may also be impossible.

On Eddie, even in the smaller modulus of the 3d, there are differences for example in the sharpness and edge of the mustache and the hair detail above and forward to the ear as well as his hair detail in general...

1906 in currency if well preserved is actually one of the scarcer Eddie dates and I mean GEF/UNC.

The piece I have is AUNC, certainly has very reflective fields and I have to admit the hair and moustache both look very sharp, so it may well be a Maundy piece.

[VickySilver]

Likely.Pictures?

[DaveG38]

Here's a pic of the 3d. Fields are very reflective, although this doesn't show in the pic.

[VickySilver]

Yes, that appears to be Maundy. Please see the definition and depth of strike on the leaves on reverse. Also the hair detail. Always hate to venture opinion on pictures, but again as best as I can tell this is a Maundy of the PL type.

[DaveG38]

Yes, that appears to be Maundy. Please see the definition and depth of strike on the leaves on reverse. Also the hair detail. Always hate to venture opinion on pictures, but again as best as I can tell this is a Maundy of the PL type.

Thanks for this assessment. Leaves me with a problem. Do I keep It even though I don't collect Maundy or do I sell it. If I sell would I be best off trying to put a set together or do Maundy sell best separately? Choices, choices.

[Paulus]

I have 4 Edward VII Maundy sets, having started out not intending to collect them! I believe they sell best in a (preferably matching - toning and grade wise) set rather than as oddments, and better still in a vg or better condition original box.

Still leaves it difficult to identify that GEF or better circulation 3d as such!

Budget permitting I would hang on to it until you think you have a very high grade currency piece, so that you can satisfy yourself by comparing the 2 side-by-side, 'in hand'. The worst thing (for me) would be to still be unsure.

Edited September 20, 2015 by Paulus

[Gary1000]

The 1906 year is easy to tell as the maundy has a different bust to the common of the two currency 3d. The maundy 3d has a wider gap between the I of IMP to the : The scarcer 3d uses the maundy bust so you are then back to comparing strike.

[VickySilver]

Go Gary - I confess to leaving the "hypervarietals" alone, so can't comment. I always thought the "large and small ball on 3" types of 1904 would be about as far as I would go. Guess I'll get off my arse and see which I have!