George V 1911 3d Currency or Maundy?

[Coinery]

Never having moved beyond KEVII until quite recently, I was wondering what your thoughts were on this one? The toning makes me think maundy, but can't decide whether the fields are from the duller currency?

Would appreciate your grading thoughts on this tricky little coin. It's looking aUNC to me, what do you think?

[Nick]

Never having moved beyond KEVII until quite recently, I was wondering what your thoughts were on this one? The toning makes me think maundy, but can't decide whether the fields are from the duller currency?

Would appreciate your grading thoughts on this tricky little coin. It's looking aUNC to me, what do you think?

Looks like a currency 3d to me, although it's difficult to tell from the picture. How reflective are the fields? Toning is usually the best indicator, the maundy versions tend to tone to a blue/purple tint.

I would say the grade of your's is aUNC (the central jewel on the crown and the outline of the 3 look a little flattened), but I'd be very happy if mine were that good.

Edited January 11, 2013 by Nick

[Peter]

Cracking coin

[HistoricCoinage]

Cracking photography!

[Peckris]

Never having moved beyond KEVII until quite recently, I was wondering what your thoughts were on this one? The toning makes me think maundy, but can't decide whether the fields are from the duller currency?

Would appreciate your grading thoughts on this tricky little coin. It's looking aUNC to me, what do you think?

I wouldn't quarrel with your grade, and I think there is a wealth of detail considering it's such a tiny little coin. (So it could be Maundy, after all, though it doesn't look so from your photos).

[argentumandcoins]

Currency Stuart. The maundy Threepences are all "prooflike" and that is the easiest way to tell currency from maundy (particularly for the rare Viccy YH 3d's). I have a proof on the site if you want something to compare it to.

[Coinery]

Thanks Nick, yes, on reflection, this coin is definitely toning like a typical currency coin, there are certainly no blues in there!

Cheers, Peck, Peter & Clive!

And, of course, "proof!" God knows where my logical brain is at the moment? The rims! They'd give it away for currency every time! Thanks, John!

Edited January 11, 2013 by Coinery

[scott]

it is currency, the spreading effect is caused by a heavily used dye so can only be currency especially as the first 1 in 11 looks recut

[VickySilver]

Uhhhh, well all Maundies are NOT proof like - that is a commonly held misconception and is NOT true. This has been pointed out numerous times in both the Victoria series and also KE7 where the other denominations appear with satin-like strikes. PL specimens are usually Maundy but the converse about "satin" can not be stated. Usually it comes down to a matter of strike detail of devices, reeding, rim dentition.

That having been said I will definately concur that this is a currency struck from dies that have some mileage, at least with respect to the obverse. aUnc is OK grade....

[Coinery]

Thanks VS, plus another excellent point about the imperfect 1, Scott!

As I said, lord knows where my logical brain was for this one, there were so many clear and basic pointers! My eyes and mind are not quite tuned into this 'modern' stuff, give me six months to season myself on this one!

Glad I asked the question, though, loads of superb learnings at Pre-Decimal High!

[argentumandcoins]

Uhhhh, well all Maundies are NOT proof like - that is a commonly held misconception and is NOT true. This has been pointed out numerous times in both the Victoria series and also KE7 where the other denominations appear with satin-like strikes. PL specimens are usually Maundy but the converse about "satin" can not be stated. Usually it comes down to a matter of strike detail of devices, reeding, rim dentition.

That having been said I will definately concur that this is a currency struck from dies that have some mileage, at least with respect to the obverse. aUnc is OK grade....

Uhhhhh, and all the pointers you indicate give the coins a prooflike appearance, sharp rims, high definition strike etc. Your "satin" coins are virtually impossible to distinguish and come down to a matter of opinion, which to be brutal, quite often rests with the value in most peoples eyes.

[Gary D]

Uhhhh, well all Maundies are NOT proof like - that is a commonly held misconception and is NOT true. This has been pointed out numerous times in both the Victoria series and also KE7 where the other denominations appear with satin-like strikes. PL specimens are usually Maundy but the converse about "satin" can not be stated. Usually it comes down to a matter of strike detail of devices, reeding, rim dentition.

That having been said I will definately concur that this is a currency struck from dies that have some mileage, at least with respect to the obverse. aUnc is OK grade....

Uhhhhh, and all the pointers you indicate give the coins a prooflike appearance, sharp rims, high definition strike etc. Your "satin" coins are virtually impossible to distinguish and come down to a matter of opinion, which to be brutal, quite often rests with the value in most peoples eyes.

Just a point of interest, that's if anyone is interested The 1911 maundy 3d uses Obv2 I of BRITT to bead, whereas the proof 3d is Obv1 I to gap. But the maundy set I have from the proof set has the proof 3d not the maundy 3d. So I guess as there is only one 3d in the proof set you get the proof 3d.

[Coinery]

Uhhhh, well all Maundies are NOT proof like - that is a commonly held misconception and is NOT true. This has been pointed out numerous times in both the Victoria series and also KE7 where the other denominations appear with satin-like strikes. PL specimens are usually Maundy but the converse about "satin" can not be stated. Usually it comes down to a matter of strike detail of devices, reeding, rim dentition.

That having been said I will definately concur that this is a currency struck from dies that have some mileage, at least with respect to the obverse. aUnc is OK grade....

Uhhhhh, and all the pointers you indicate give the coins a prooflike appearance, sharp rims, high definition strike etc. Your "satin" coins are virtually impossible to distinguish and come down to a matter of opinion, which to be brutal, quite often rests with the value in most peoples eyes.

Just a point of interest, that's if anyone is interested The 1911 maundy 3d uses Obv2 I of BRITT to bead, whereas the proof 3d is Obv1 I to gap. But the maundy set I have from the proof set has the proof 3d not the maundy 3d. So I guess as there is only one 3d in the proof set you get the proof 3d.

I love this forum!

[Peter]

Mr Seaman coins

[VickySilver]

In point of fact the satin coins have that very appearance - as opposed to proof like with mirroring in the fields. They are clearly distinguished and have been commented on before. A wonderful illustration of this is the 1904 date where they both show up with seemingly near equal frequency. The better strikes (as opposed to currency) are seen on both.

As was alluded to, the giveaway is when mates from the same set are examined (1,2,4d). Many of the satin finish specimens have been separated and sold deceptively as currency - in the Vicky series that would be such dates as 1847, 1848, 1852, 1853, etc. Caveat emptor!

This having been said, there are some borderline pieces that are hard to tell when isolated from the rest of a particular set - they have overdates, somewhat poor strikes (esp. the obverse in the Vickies), and dies that have been taxed with overuse.

I could go on, but will elaborate. To repeat be careful in your perusals...

[Peckris]

As was alluded to, the giveaway is when mates from the same set are examined (1,2,4d). Many of the satin finish specimens have been separated and sold deceptively as currency - in the Vicky series that would be such dates as 1847, 1848, 1852, 1853, etc. Caveat emptor!

.....

I could go on, but will elaborate. To repeat be careful in your perusals...

I've said it before, but it bears repeating : Maundy mintages are so low that I cannot understand the massive discrepancy between Maundy 3d values, and the equivalent currency 3d (in certain years, e.g. the 1840s 1850s)

[Coinery]

This having been said, there are some borderline pieces that are hard to tell when isolated from the rest of a particular set - they have overdates, somewhat poor strikes (esp. the obverse in the Vickies), and dies that have been taxed with overuse.

I could go on, but will elaborate. To repeat be careful in your perusals...

Are you talking about maundy here, or are you just talking satin/currency differentials?

[Coinery]

Mr Seaman coins

No, neil6mil for £6 delivered!

[VickySilver]

Well, to start Peck - currency specimens for those years (possibly excepting the 1853) are excessively rare to nonexistent. I do wonder that a Maundy 1847 3d would not have pressure on the price by virtue of there essentially being no other choices for a collector.

Coinery - sorry I seem to not be communicating very well. The issues are that there are in fact two basic formats for the Maundy 3d's: proof like and satin. The proof like is referring to the semi-mirror surfaces of the fields primarily, though also of the devices. Satin is the other type with a semi-matte like appearance seen best in the fields.

Not to confuse the point, but there are "transitional" pieces which I define as not clearly being either type and somewhat in-between. What confuses some is that in either format the details such as lettering, devices, dentillation, milling and edges are generally sharper on both than the currency.

Currency bits are generally not as well struck and there is "mushiness" to these details, together with the fact that the dies to strike such were used for longer periods of time. Obviously an early struck specimen may occasionally possess some of the characteristics of the satin pieces. The fields such as the OP coin show much die wear and comparatively a bit of sloppiness.

A problem with Vicky Maundies is that the obverse dies appear to have been carried over from year to year so that devices to begin to get sloppy and things such as hair detail on Vick tend to get mushy.

Many of the TPGs do not seem to have learned this point so that other rare currency dates such as 1846 will be slabbed as currency. Also, do look at those through 1853 or so as there are many errors on Maundies with overpunched lettering, etc. More to come if you' d like....

[Coinery]

Well, to start Peck - currency specimens for those years (possibly excepting the 1853) are excessively rare to nonexistent. I do wonder that a Maundy 1847 3d would not have pressure on the price by virtue of there essentially being no other choices for a collector.

Coinery - sorry I seem to not be communicating very well. The issues are that there are in fact two basic formats for the Maundy 3d's: proof like and satin. The proof like is referring to the semi-mirror surfaces of the fields primarily, though also of the devices. Satin is the other type with a semi-matte like appearance seen best in the fields.

Not to confuse the point, but there are "transitional" pieces which I define as not clearly being either type and somewhat in-between. What confuses some is that in either format the details such as lettering, devices, dentillation, milling and edges are generally sharper on both than the currency.

Currency bits are generally not as well struck and there is "mushiness" to these details, together with the fact that the dies to strike such were used for longer periods of time. Obviously an early struck specimen may occasionally possess some of the characteristics of the satin pieces. The fields such as the OP coin show much die wear and comparatively a bit of sloppiness.

A problem with Vicky Maundies is that the obverse dies appear to have been carried over from year to year so that devices to begin to get sloppy and things such as hair detail on Vick tend to get mushy.

Many of the TPGs do not seem to have learned this point so that other rare currency dates such as 1846 will be slabbed as currency. Also, do look at those through 1853 or so as there are many errors on Maundies with overpunched lettering, etc. More to come if you' d like....

Many thanks VS, though that really comes as quite a surprise to hear of reworked dies in the maundy coinage! Slowly, slowly, shall I go into this 'modern' milled! Slowly, slowly, indeed!

[Nick]

Mr Seaman coins

No, neil6mil for £6 delivered!

Absolute bargain! Nice one. Don't know how I didn't spot that one - I usually look out for 1911 threepences.

Edited January 12, 2013 by Nick

[Gary D]

Well, to start Peck - currency specimens for those years (possibly excepting the 1853) are excessively rare to nonexistent. I do wonder that a Maundy 1847 3d would not have pressure on the price by virtue of there essentially being no other choices for a collector.

Coinery - sorry I seem to not be communicating very well. The issues are that there are in fact two basic formats for the Maundy 3d's: proof like and satin. The proof like is referring to the semi-mirror surfaces of the fields primarily, though also of the devices. Satin is the other type with a semi-matte like appearance seen best in the fields.

Not to confuse the point, but there are "transitional" pieces which I define as not clearly being either type and somewhat in-between. What confuses some is that in either format the details such as lettering, devices, dentillation, milling and edges are generally sharper on both than the currency.

Currency bits are generally not as well struck and there is "mushiness" to these details, together with the fact that the dies to strike such were used for longer periods of time. Obviously an early struck specimen may occasionally possess some of the characteristics of the satin pieces. The fields such as the OP coin show much die wear and comparatively a bit of sloppiness.

A problem with Vicky Maundies is that the obverse dies appear to have been carried over from year to year so that devices to begin to get sloppy and things such as hair detail on Vick tend to get mushy.

Many of the TPGs do not seem to have learned this point so that other rare currency dates such as 1846 will be slabbed as currency. Also, do look at those through 1853 or so as there are many errors on Maundies with overpunched lettering, etc. More to come if you' d like....

Something that occurred to me about these so called satin pieces. Due to the very low mintage of Maundy pieces would not the dies be carried over to the currency pieces as I believe sometimes happens to other denominations once the proof run is finished. This would result in a coin with all of the attributes of a proof coin but without the specially prepared flans. Hence the satin finish.

[Coinery]

Mr Seaman coins

No, neil6mil for £6 delivered!

Absolute bargain! Nice one. Don't know how I didn't spot that one - I usually look out for 1911 threepences.

Thanks, Nick, I'm glad you were sleeping!

[VickySilver]

The satin types seem to be not so much from worn dies but rather many quite fresh without die degradation.

With that having been said, I don't think there are any rules with regards to what the RM may have

done with dies and also that either satin or PL dies may have carried over into currency usage.

There are some other odd bits like evenness of striking which may have been governed by such

factors as greater care with die alignment, etc. Other evidence like all the overpunched letters seem

to support that great care was not always taken at all stages.

I think

experts such as those at Baldwin would likely concur as I have had conversation about exactly this

point.

[Mr T]

The 1911 maundy 3d uses Obv2 I of BRITT to bead, whereas the proof 3d is Obv1 I to gap.

What obverse do the the circulation coins have?