Victorian Silver 3d

[bob.phillips]

Just decided to boost my collection of Victorian Silver 3d and my simple question is :- How to tell a normally circulated silver 3d from a silver 3d from a Maundy set. Is there a way of confirming a coin is either one or the other? I understand that Maundy 3d's were originally 'prooflike', but once in circulation then this will presumably be less noticeable.

Thanks for any help,

Bob P

[Rob]

No way of telling once it has done the rounds for a bit unless it retains its original brilliance. If part of a set you can see if a currency piece has been added to rebuild the set by comparing the surfaces, but as a stand alone item you are on a hiding to nothing.

Maundy threepences are the most likely item to be missing from a set due to the denomination also being a currency issue.

Edited November 25, 2014 by Rob

[bob.phillips]

Hi Rob,

Thanks for the info. I thought that might be the case. So I'll just add to my collection and ignore the problem.

Thanks again,

Bob P

[Nick]

The Maundy threepences are much more likely to tone colourfully than the currency threepences, but whether the toning would persist after having circulated for a while I don't know. I've always found it surprising that the Mint didn't use different dies for currency vs Maundy, but mostly it seems that they didn't.

[Rob]

The Maundy threepences are much more likely to tone colourfully than the currency threepences, but whether the toning would persist after having circulated for a while I don't know. I've always found it surprising that the Mint didn't use different dies for currency vs Maundy, but mostly it seems that they didn't.

Surely they tone nicely because they normally sit in a felt lined box for years. That's mutually exclusive to circulating.

[Nick]

The Maundy threepences are much more likely to tone colourfully than the currency threepences, but whether the toning would persist after having circulated for a while I don't know. I've always found it surprising that the Mint didn't use different dies for currency vs Maundy, but mostly it seems that they didn't.

Surely they tone nicely because they normally sit in a felt lined box for years. That's mutually exclusive to circulating.

Indeed, but there is no way to know how long the Maundy coins were stored before they were put into circulation.

[copper123]

Indeed it is quite obvious that some maundy sets are split up (1849 etc) and the very valuable silver 3d is sold off for treble what the maundy set was bought for

[VickySilver]

Yes, all true. This is my area - I must say that most "currency" pieces of the rare dates are refugees from Maundy sets ( ie 1841, 1847, 1848, 1852, 1853, etc.). Maundy coins DO NOT NECESSARILY have prooflike surfaces as has been PROVEN. Some are so-called "satin surfaces". The biggest giveaway, to me at least, is the quality of strike and details of denticles, etc.

Incidentally, I have seen some significant lettering errors in Maundies of the 1848-1853 period, so have a look!

[Nick]

Maundy coins DO NOT NECESSARILY have prooflike surfaces as has been PROVEN. Some are so-called "satin surfaces".

Proven? Do you have any examples of this? It would be interesting to see the proof as this is a commonly asked question, but is seldom answered satisfactorily.

[Peckris]

Yes, all true. This is my area - I must say that most "currency" pieces of the rare dates are refugees from Maundy sets ( ie 1841, 1847, 1848, 1852, 1853, etc.). Maundy coins DO NOT NECESSARILY have prooflike surfaces as has been PROVEN. Some are so-called "satin surfaces". The biggest giveaway, to me at least, is the quality of strike and details of denticles, etc.

Incidentally, I have seen some significant lettering errors in Maundies of the 1848-1853 period, so have a look!

However, Maundy coins are - by nature of the extremely limited mintage - rare, so I've never understood the discrepancy in values.

[Peter]

Many never make it out of there plush boxes whereas 3ds circulated heavily.

My collection is nice back to 1900 then it became quite difficult getting Vickies in good condition.

[VickySilver]

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.

[VickySilver]

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

[Coinery]

Interesting point, VS, but how do we then decipher strong 'early' strikes from Maundy? It seems to me, in that case, that the only identifiers to determine type here are 'indistinguishable' qualities, based on that of a typical 'maundy' coin, and whether the owner is happy to call it such and fit it into his/her maundy collection?

[VickySilver]

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...

[Coinery]

I guess the legend errors, etc. could be good pointers, but do we know whether the maundy dies continued into currency use? I'm guessing they did? And if they did, just for debating's sake, what might separate the last maundy coin from the first currency, other than strike pressures?

I know it's a grrrr issue, but one that will repeatedly catch out all but the most dedicated collectors of these coins!

[Peckris]

I guess the legend errors, etc. could be good pointers, but do we know whether the maundy dies continued into currency use? I'm guessing they did? And if they did, just for debating's sake, what might separate the last maundy coin from the first currency, other than strike pressures?

I know it's a grrrr issue, but one that will repeatedly catch out all but the most dedicated collectors of these coins!

I STILL don't see the point of discriminating non-Maundy 3d's from Maundy 3d's. For the dates in question, they are both going to be very rare so where's the issue? Obviously, the same thing doesn't apply to the other Maundy denominations as they simply aren't as popular and everyone knows they're Maundy anyway.

[VickySilver]

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.