I just won this last week at the DNW auction. It looked to be currency unc. from the auction pictures online but now that I have it in hand I am not so sure it is not a proof despite the damage to rim at 7 O' clock on the obverse, which may or may not be from mint handling or post mint damage. The fields are VERY proofy/prooflike which is NOT apparent in my own pictures. These pictures also do not do justice and appear to show much friction/contacts to the fields, which is not the case. I will try to post more and hopefully better pictures by tomorrow. What do readers think? BTW, in my humble opinion GB 19th Century "proof" or "specimen" designations are what in Biology termed pigeon-holing terms when if fact there was not always scrupulous full attention in all phases to their production. We therefore see coins that are at times very difficult to designate and have seen many exceptions. There are then again IMO specimens that are somewhere in the middle and not clearly proof, specimen, or currency. This is compounded by coins such as the Maundy which can be struck in anything from very basic circulation-appearing strikes through satin through specimen/prooflike through what appear to be full-fledged proofs. Also jumping on the heap are very prooflike circulation strikes that are so well struck with even knife edges and major cameo, and these as early in the Victorian series as 1839. IMO, and supported by no less than the likes of Steve Hill the major TPGs do not always get designations right, so Caveat Emptor.
I was thinking about what you said about Maundy issues. Proof versus prooflike is not something I'm qualified to speculate on, here. I don't see anything here that would make me think that was a proof, but who cares. It's an attractive little coin.
This got me wondering about the only Maundy coin remaining from a set I wish I'd kept. Comparing it to PCGS photos suggests it might show up in their PL rather than PR census while NGC just utilizes proof.
Yes, Maundy are fraught with controversy and unfortunately have adversely affected the collecting of 3d coins in the 1830-1926 era. Buyer beware of getting what ESC used to call something like "for Colonial Use" which includes many of the scarcer dates 1841-1852. The TPGs have generally gotten these wrong - and that is putting it mildly. The 1853 groat is a Very tough coin to get as readers may know. Unfortunately now it leaves only the 1863 florin in currency to get - that is a VERY tough coin in anything resembling decent condition and basically 5 figures in uncirculated. And why I now pursue more affordable collectible coins (for the most part).
I'm not a groat collector so I'm not sure, but it does look very well struck, except for the denticles around the bottom.
Interesting phenom as there were evidently quite few struck for currency, perhaps 11k in number so of necessity not many were struck and therefore the dies likely yielding decent details as they were not worn.
Ah right - in that case maybe not a proof? Again, I haven't looked at many groat proofs but other British proofs seem to be well struck with properly formed denticles. Maybe struck with an ex proof die?
