1847 Maundy 3d Just Closed on The 'Bay

7Jaguars

Wow!! OK, did anybody here buy the 1847 3d in MS 66 for 526 USD? Big number, what should the full Maundy set of this year or 1848 sell for? Sorry about the non-link. No price slump here..

wybrit

I was an underbidder on it.

WorldTypeSet

Link

Not me. I was going to bid, but missed the end of the auction. I wouldn't have come close to winning.

wybrit

The full maundy set is 325 quid per Spink. The currency 3d is valued at 750 quid in UNC.

I leave it to the reader to draw conclusions, but I'll leave a hint. * KERRACCKKK *

JCMhouston

Is there some diagnostic that would lead one to believe it was a currency strike? I really can't tell anything from the pic.

wybrit

It is sometimes very difficult to tell them apart. Many currency strikes are of high quality.

7Jaguars

Bet you money that was a true Maundy. There are huge arguments about these, almost like NT vs. AT on the lightside board here.

Currency would be without mirror fields, usu. edges not as sharp. Details on Vick's bust usu. less but many Maundy also poorly struck. Some Maundy are also not mirrorlike. Crispness of strike on the reverse is a big one if there are not PL fields (which would make a Maundy as the currency a bit mushy on the rev. strike by comparison).

Get that?

7Jaguars

PS I will try to be at the ANA and as I consider myself something of an expert in this series would be glad to look at any that people have. I have to say that with some of the 1842, 1847, 1848, 1852, 1853 pieces that some are much more "borderline" than others. I have bought some from Spink in their grander days I that retrospecively are likely Maundies or in the uncertainty pile.

I have a theory that occ. some of the Maundy dies also may have been used on currency, but proof is a different matter. Also, Maundies are by no means perfect and there exist many lettering/legend spelling and overstrike errors in the earlier years up through about 1852 or so. Hybridization of dies as I have said would not surprise me.

Overall, if a coin is not DEFINATELY currency, best consider it a Maundy...

wybrit

I am certain that piece was a maundy. Especially since 1847 is such a rare date and was only struck at all for colonial use. No one even knows the mintage.

All of your criteria are useful inputs. That said, there are ambiguities that exist between maundy and currency. If one were to chart the population of currency bits of that era and maundy bits of the same era for crispness, edges, mirrored fields, etc, I suspect the "histrograms" of the two populations would overlap quite a bit.

Overall, if a coin is not DEFINITELY currency, best consider it a Maundy...

Agreed.

MacCrimmon

Dayum, I'm surprised Wybrit can still see one of these 3d. bits. Did you borrow a SEM from work?



Edited to add:

Aw, bloody rot!!! Tell me you didn't bid on that image. My retina just 'went' through the back of my optic nerve.

ajaan

<< <i>Dayum, I'm surprised Wybrit can still see one of these 3d. bits. Did you borrow a SEM from work? >>


that's cruel Mac, true, but cruel.

wybrit

Aw, bloody rot!!! Tell me you didn't bid on that image.

The image is awful, but it doesn't really matter. It's a key date that is rarely offered, even as a maundy. Anyway, my bid was way short of the winning one - I wasn't about to go much higher for a maundy.