PING: Billy
Mr. Jaggers
I know that the Maundy 3 pence and the circulation threepence have different
designs starting with Victoria.
I suspect that 1, 2, and 4 pence starting with William IV were made
exclusively as Maundy coins.
But what about silver 1, 2, 3, and 4 pence of George IV and earlier? Are
all of them be considered as either circulation coins or Maundy coins?
James
Tony Clayton
I have dealt with this on my website to a certain extent.
Basically, from the reign of James II up until the Great Recoinage
of the second decade of the 19th Century, the small silver coins
from 1d to 4d were primarily used for the Maundy Ceremony, but were
sometimes also issued for circulation.
After the Great Recoinage in the reign of George III, they were
used almost exclusively for the Royal Maundy, including the 3d,
which was reintroduced for circulation during the reign of Victoria.
I say almost, because it is known that some denominations were used
in certain British colonies.
--
Tony Clayton tony.cla...@pem.cam.ac.uk
Coins of the UK : http://www.coins-of-the-uk.co.uk
Sent using RISCOS on an Acorn Strong Arm RiscPC
... Never put off to tomorrow what you can wiggle out of today.
Mr. Jaggers
> In a recent message "Mr. Jaggers" <lugburzman[at]yahoo[dot]com> wrote:
>
>> I'm trying to make sense of the Maundy series.
>>
>> I know that the Maundy 3 pence and the circulation threepence have
>> different designs starting with Victoria.
>>
>> I suspect that 1, 2, and 4 pence starting with William IV were made
>> exclusively as Maundy coins.
>>
>> But what about silver 1, 2, 3, and 4 pence of George IV and earlier?
>> Are all of them be considered as either circulation coins or Maundy
>> coins?
>>
>> James
>>
>>
>
> I have dealt with this on my website to a certain extent.
>
> Basically, from the reign of James II up until the Great Recoinage
> of the second decade of the 19th Century, the small silver coins
> from 1d to 4d were primarily used for the Maundy Ceremony, but were
> sometimes also issued for circulation.
>
> After the Great Recoinage in the reign of George III, they were
> used almost exclusively for the Royal Maundy, including the 3d,
> which was reintroduced for circulation during the reign of Victoria.
> I say almost, because it is known that some denominations were used
> in certain British colonies.
I know that Americans and Britons are separated by a common language 8>),
but I'm having trouble with the subtle difference between "primarily" and
"almost exclusively." Both allow exceptions of undefined magnitude.
I have always been under the impression that the coins used in the colonies
were the 1 1/2 pence silvers and the various fractions of farthings. There
was a 4d used in one of the colonies, but IIRC it has a design totally
different from the Maundy 4d.
The reason I posed the original question is this: I often see catalog and
dealer listings for pre-1820s Maundy sets as having "uniform dates." This
implies that the coins were issued in a group, for a particular Maundy
ceremony, but it appears to me that such sets are often hand-assembled from
circulation coinage and then advertised somewhat misleadingly.
James
note.boy
"Tony Clayton" <to...@tclayton.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:5a801e3050%to...@tclayton.demon.co.uk...
Coincraft's Catalogue has it that up to 1820 the small silver coins were
made primarily for circulation and from 1822 they were minted mainly for
Maundy sets.
From this it could be construed that there are no actual Maundy Sets prior
to 1822, earlier "sets" are just four silver coins that probably have
nothing to connect them to a Maundy ceremony. Billy
Tony Clayton
Indeed, it is known that at some ceremonies only 1d were used. Furthermore,
in some years old dies were used, particularly for George III pre-1820.
Because of their later use as Maundy coins, the name is applied
to early tiny silver coins that have the crown over numeral style.
--
Tony Clayton tony.cla...@pem.cam.ac.uk
Coins of the UK : http://www.coins-of-the-uk.co.uk
Sent using RISCOS on an Acorn Strong Arm RiscPC
... Never take a beer to a job interview.
Mr. Jaggers
As I mentioned to Tony, I am troubled by the words "primarily" and "mainly,"
words which allow wiggle room. Last evening, before I made the OP, I spent
some time with my Coincraft (yes, believe it or not, some of us Yanks own
them and read them!), comparing it with Spink, as well as with Tony's
website. I guess I'm one of these people who seek regularity and
consistency of definition.
What you say here, though, makes sense as a workable guideline for
collecting these things. Thanks!
James
Mr. Jaggers
The old Craig catalogs seem to corroborate the notion that the one-penny
denomination was the one of choice for Maundy ceremonies, even though those
books only cover the reigns of Geo II through William IV. As you say, the
larger denominations, in their similarity of appearance and fabric, are
classified as Maundy coins, even though they were not. Then later, the use
of the four denominations in ceremony further strengthened the tendency to
lump all of the tiny coins together. Neat. This is part of what makes
numismatics so fascinating.
Thanks for taking the time to stay with this, Tony.
James
oly
> Tony Clayton wrote:
>
> >> "Tony Clayton" <t...@tclayton.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
> >>news:5a801e3050%to...@tclayton.demon.co.uk...
> >>> In a recent message "Mr. Jaggers" <lugburzman[at]yahoo[dot]com>
> >>> wrote:
>
> >>>> I'm trying to make sense of the Maundy series.
>
> >>>> I know that the Maundy 3 pence and the circulation threepence have
> >>>> different
> >>>> designs starting with Victoria.
>
> >>>> I suspect that 1, 2, and 4 pence starting with William IV were made
> >>>> exclusively as Maundy coins.
>
> >>>> But what about silver 1, 2, 3, and 4 pence of George IV and
> >>>> earlier? Are all of them be considered as either circulation
> >>>> coins or Maundy coins?
>
> >>>> James
>
> >>> I have dealt with this on my website to a certain extent.
>
> >>> Basically, from the reign of James II up until the Great Recoinage
> >>> of the second decade of the 19th Century, the small silver coins
> >>> from 1d to 4d were primarily used for the Maundy Ceremony, but were
> >>> sometimes also issued for circulation.
>
> >>> After the Great Recoinage in the reign of George III, they were
> >>> used almost exclusively for the Royal Maundy, including the 3d,
> >>> which was reintroduced for circulation during the reign of Victoria.
> >>> I say almost, because it is known that some denominations were used
> >>> in certain British colonies.
>
> >>> --
> >>> Coins of the UK :http://www.coins-of-the-uk.co.uk
> >>> Sent using RISCOS on an Acorn Strong Arm RiscPC
> >>> ... Never put off to tomorrow what you can wiggle out of today.
>
> >> Coincraft's Catalogue has it that up to 1820 the small silver coins
> >> were made primarily for circulation and from 1822 they were minted
> >> mainly for Maundy sets.
>
> >> From this it could be construed that there are no actual Maundy Sets
> >> prior to 1822, earlier "sets" are just four silver coins that
> >> probably have nothing to connect them to a Maundy ceremony. Billy
>
> > Indeed, it is known that at some ceremonies only 1d were used.
> > Furthermore, in some years old dies were used, particularly for
> > George III pre-1820.
>
> > Because of their later use as Maundy coins, the name is applied
> > to early tiny silver coins that have the crown over numeral style.
>
> The old Craig catalogs seem to corroborate the notion that the one-penny
> denomination was the one of choice for Maundy ceremonies, even though those
> books only cover the reigns of Geo II through William IV. As you say, the
> larger denominations, in their similarity of appearance and fabric, are
> classified as Maundy coins, even though they were not. Then later, the use
> of the four denominations in ceremony further strengthened the tendency to
> lump all of the tiny coins together. Neat. This is part of what makes
> numismatics so fascinating.
>
> Thanks for taking the time to stay with this, Tony.
>
>
> - Show quoted text -
This rambling doesn't add much, but I will chime in:
Please note that even today, mon vieux, each recipient gets an odd
number of coins - so many "sets" of four totaling a sum of 10 pence,
plus odd coins, so that the distribution of silver maundy money
matches the soveriegn's age. It strikes me that all Maundy Sets are
"put together" by the dealers who buy the coins up from the
pensioners. Does the Royal Mint even seal the sets of four together
today??? If so, when did they start doing that??? And, of course,
from the odd extra pence most in years (when the sovereigns age is not
readily divisible by ten) comes the idea of "oddments".
The idea that a Maundy Set before Victoria's Silver Jubilee has been
"put together" doesn't bother me very much, although it's really great
if the coins are well matched in state of condition and toning.
But I have only a 1951 Maundy set and two 1959 Maundy sets, so the
idea of "put together" hardly applies. I have several oddments of
George IV, William IV and Elizabeth II.
oly
Mr. Jaggers
I just LOVE the word "oddments" - it seems so British!
Well, sure, the "sets" are put together after the fact, and always have
been. The difference is probably one of delay. There were few, if any,
dealers in the 18th or early 19th centuries to put sets together. Thus,
"sets" of those dates we have today were put together decades or centuries
after the coins were made. I would guess that more recently the "sets" were
assembled within days or weeks of coin distribution. We could argue over
whether it makes a difference, and why, but let's not.
What ever happened to Fred Rayner of Milwaukee? He used to advertise in
World Coin News and sell all sorts of British coins by mail. All you had to
do was to leave your order with Diane. I was introduced to that word
through those ads.
James
oly
I don't think I knew that gentleman; perhaps I saw his stuff at MECCA.
FWIW,
From the 1880s through about 1905, far more Maundy sets were made than
necessary for the requirements of the ceremony.
Edward VII stopped this practice about 1905-1907, as it lowered the
value of the actual gift coins to the recipients.
Also, the sovereign did not personally participate in the Maundy
ceremony much after 1714 (the year of the death of Queen Anne) until
George V started attending again about 1932-33.
The first public ceremony of Queen Elizabeth II was to distribute the
Royal Maundy in the spring of 1952, her father, George VI, having died
on 6 February of that same year. I have an original press service
photograph from that ceremony somewhere in all this mess.
oly
Mr. Jaggers
Not likely. I believe he ran some kind of floral/nursery business, a
one-man show except for his secretary. His business was mail-order only,
and he didn't have a shop at the greenhouse. His address was on one of
those east-west main drags in the northern part of the city. There's still
a Fred's Garden Center in Milwaukee, run by one John Rayner (his son?).
James
Mr. Jaggers
Another WCN advertiser that I miss is Fredric R. Wachter. His specialty was
German States, and I bought a pile of minors from him through the mail back
when. His logo was two giraffes, named SITIEKIL and TILLET (Tell It and
Like It Is), and, believe me, he did. His commentary in the ads was very
unabashed, and he took no prisoners.
But now I'm getting syrupy and nostalgic, not good. People will begin to
think I'm just an old f
James
'pen ran out of ink at the end of that last line'
oly
>
> - Show quoted text -
I was mildly acquainted with Mr. Wachter; he did not seem to be very
much into the give and take on his coin prices. IF you bought things
from him at his price, he might take you into the bar for some strong
waters, his treat. But he did not like you to counter his marked
prices. When there was a bit of recession in the coin market occured
about 1984, he retired from the field (seemingly in a bit of disgust).
I still have 2 nice coins of Ludwig II of Bavaria (one pre-Empire, one
Imperial Five marks) that I obtained from Mr. Wachter at an early
CICF.
You have hit a buried memory somewhere here. I believe that that that
Raynor's Floral (and Garden Center?) became a very large business with
multiple stores. Some member of that family was on the board of
directors of a Wisconsin S & L that failed in the early 1990s. Later,
certain officers of that former S & L acquired a bank in an adjacent
large state and some member of the Raynor family was an investor
there.
oly
oly
Tony Clayton
> oly wrote:
> > This rambling doesn't add much, but I will chime in:
> >
> > Please note that even today, mon vieux, each recipient gets an odd
> > number of coins - so many "sets" of four totaling a sum of 10 pence,
> > plus odd coins, so that the distribution of silver maundy money
> > matches the soveriegn's age. It strikes me that all Maundy Sets are
> > "put together" by the dealers who buy the coins up from the
> > pensioners.
In Victorian times you could buy a Maundy Set from the mint; these
are probably the only 'sets' in the true sense of the word.
As has been said, others including modern ones, are 'put together'
A recent exception is 2002, when they were made available for
the Golden Jubilee of the Queen's Accession
> > Does the Royal Mint even seal the sets of four together
> > today??? If so, when did they start doing that??? And, of course,
> > from the odd extra pence most in years (when the sovereigns age is not
> > readily divisible by ten) comes the idea of "oddments".
> >
> > The idea that a Maundy Set before Victoria's Silver Jubilee has been
> > "put together" doesn't bother me very much, although it's really great
> > if the coins are well matched in state of condition and toning.
> >
> > But I have only a 1951 Maundy set and two 1959 Maundy sets, so the
> > idea of "put together" hardly applies. I have several oddments of
> > George IV, William IV and Elizabeth II.
>
> I just LOVE the word "oddments" - it seems so British!
>
> Well, sure, the "sets" are put together after the fact, and always have
> been. The difference is probably one of delay. There were few, if any,
> dealers in the 18th or early 19th centuries to put sets together. Thus,
> "sets" of those dates we have today were put together decades or centuries
> after the coins were made. I would guess that more recently the "sets" were
> assembled within days or weeks of coin distribution. We could argue over
> whether it makes a difference, and why, but let's not.
>
> What ever happened to Fred Rayner of Milwaukee? He used to advertise in
> World Coin News and sell all sorts of British coins by mail. All you had to
> do was to leave your order with Diane. I was introduced to that word
> through those ads.
>
> James
>
>
--
Tony Clayton tony.cla...@pem.cam.ac.uk
Coins of the UK : http://www.coins-of-the-uk.co.uk
Sent using RISCOS on an Acorn Strong Arm RiscPC
... It's not in the manual !!!!!
Mr. Jaggers
> In a recent message "Mr. Jaggers" <lugburzman[at]yahoo[dot]com> wrote:
>
>> oly wrote:
>>> This rambling doesn't add much, but I will chime in:
>>>
>>> Please note that even today, mon vieux, each recipient gets an odd
>>> number of coins - so many "sets" of four totaling a sum of 10 pence,
>>> plus odd coins, so that the distribution of silver maundy money
>>> matches the soveriegn's age. It strikes me that all Maundy Sets are
>>> "put together" by the dealers who buy the coins up from the
>>> pensioners.
>
> In Victorian times you could buy a Maundy Set from the mint; these
> are probably the only 'sets' in the true sense of the word.
I seem to remember seeing little faux leather cases for them, done up in
bright colors and stamped in gold with the year and "Maundy Set" on them,
and little depressions in the faux velvet to hold the coins in place. I
assume that is how they were sold.
James
note.boy
If I was a collector of Maundy Sets I would only want coins that had
actually been part of a Maundy ceremony, otherwise what's the point of
collecting them? Billy
oly
> "Tony Clayton" <t...@tclayton.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
> > Coins of the UK :http://www.coins-of-the-uk.co.uk
> > Sent using RISCOS on an Acorn Strong Arm RiscPC
> > ... It's not in the manual !!!!!
>
> If I was a collector of Maundy Sets I would only want coins that had
> actually been part of a Maundy ceremony, otherwise what's the point of
>
> - Show quoted text -
For the most part, odd Maundy coins that may or may not have been in
the actual Maundy ceremony today have a veneer of antiquity, are a
remembrance of times past, and remain highly collectible thus.
If you take Billy's viewpoint to an extreme, a well-worn Bolton
twopence of 1797 is more historical than a gilt proof of the same
issue. The worn coin was a part of the active history of Britain,
while the gilt proof of the same issue was forever locked up in some
hole and corner repository, away from all society and commerce.
Addison or Pope wrote about what a shilling might be able to tell us,
if only it had the power to talk...
oly