MULE coins of India - A collection of extremely rare and visually striking mules

[PeaceBD]

Hi Bhushan,

Thanks for the comments and for sharing your beautiful collection from time to time.  I also like the way you photograph and present your coin.  What set up do you currently have? do you use a macro lens?

Gollada

Thanks. I use a Nikon D90 with a Sigma 180mm/f3.5 macro lens for the pictures.

[gollada]

Bhushan,

You have got me thinking about a tele macro lens. It's been on my mind for a long while.  But after seeing your pictures I won't stay away from it for long. 

Gollad

[PeaceBD]

Bhushan,

You have got me thinking about a tele macro lens. It's been on my mind for a long while.  But after seeing your pictures I won't be stay away from it for long. 

Gollad

If you want to photograph your coins and document your collection, I think a decent macro lens is a good investment . Make sure it is a true macro lens with 1:1 magnification if you plan to photograph small coins like the fanams.

[gollada]

Bhushan,

Couple of years  back, I went around looking for Vivitar/ Kiron / Lester A. Dine 105mm f2.8 Macro.  But they are difficult to find.  I will have to start my hunt all over again. 

Gollada

[repindia]

Both are nice coins. I know the first one is not fake since I used to own it once.  I might have the weight someplace and will have to dig it in my records.

I think these were made deliberately by the mint officials-- not to create any intentional errors but to highlight their capabilities. These were not a result of a mistake in mounting of dies. I can say for sure since I have one 1804 2 pice both sides obverse which is a proof (and the only known -- atleast to me!) and they can't make a mistake with the proofs.

I was the underbidder on the second coin and this is the second time I have been the underbidder on this particular one. Let me know if you ever wish to part with it.

It feels bad to be the underbidder on a nice coin once, but the second time is worst. To soften the blow, I got two coins on which I was the underbidder just a couple of years back.  I had given up hope and got them most unexpectedly.

[gollada]

Hi Repindia,

Thanks.  The second coin is also not a fake since you bid for it twice .

I was the underbidder on the 1804 mule twice, but I managed to get it the third time.  I am glad I was the underbidder on the 1840 coin and not the 1830, because I have only seen it twice.

There may be proofs out there, but the 1804 mules I have come across (around 10) were all non-proof strikes.  Since, there are so many of these that are circulation grade, I think these are genuine errors and not experimental strikes. 

The best grade, I ever saw was a MS-63.  You are lucky to have it in Proof.  Let me know if you ever decide to part with it, and I will let you know if I ever get close to selling my 1830 mule.   Please post photos of your 1804 mule when you can.

Thanks,
Gollada

[Figleaf]

I don't think anyone called them fakes. Repindia's reasoning is watertight. It also fits with what I know. The mint was quite commercial and prone to make what customers wanted*, as long as customers would pay. We know those customers were British. We know London coin dealers encouraged them and British collectors were quite interested in struck Indian coins. Repindia's comment increases the historical interest of these coins for me.

Peter

* I recently came across a case where the mint refused an order, though. The customer wanted lightweight imitations of a trade token and the mint thought that would be indecent.

[gollada]

Peter,

If you noticed, I had a smiley next to my comments.

Regarding you other comments please be a bit more specific.  I am not sure what you mean or which of the two coins are you referring to when you say, "Repindia's reasoning is watertight". 
Also what are we trying to imply or suggest when we say "The mint was quite commercial and prone to make what customers wanted".  Which of the two coins are you referring to? and what makes you believe it was made-to-order when none of the experts ever felt or said that?

We all know there are too many made-to-order coins and they are called restrikes.  I am, therefore, not a big fan of restrikes or restrike mules. As for these coins, I have never heard any one call them a restrike, there are no records that support this theory.

Thanks,

Gollada

[Figleaf]

I think these were made deliberately by the mint officials-- not to create any intentional errors but to highlight their capabilities. These were not a result of a mistake in mounting of dies. I can say for sure since I have one 1804 2 pice both sides obverse which is a proof (and the only known -- at least to me!) and they can't make a mistake with the proofs.

Imagine a proof press. It is much smaller and much, much slower than a normal press. Contrary to a normal press, there is someone in attendance all the time. When the flans arrive, they are checked. The coins are struck one by one and checked immediately by the operator. With a magnifying glass. They are passed on to another person who applies packaging and also checks them with a magnifier. Now try to imagine how an amazingly obvious error could slip through this process unnoticed. Can't happen. That's the long version of what repindia wrote and I agreed with.

I am not suggesting anything but stating facts that support's repindia's words above. And I gave reasons why I believe he is right.

You are mistaken on what constitutes a restrike. A restrike is a strike at a later date, made with original dies, often, but not necessarily in questionable circumstances. I think your coins were made with original dies, but not at a later date. I think repindia is quite right that they are not errors, but made on purpose, because that would fit the general behaviour of the mint: "quite commercial and prone to make what customers wanted" and because his reasoning on the proof coins is watertight, as explained above. One example. The gilt proofs that are known for several types of EIC coins (sorry, can't be more specific, am travelling now) were made in Britain at the request and on the account of the customers of London coin dealers and the dealers themselves, not for circulation in India.

I am emphatically not judging what you or anyone else collects. Please have fun your own way.

Peter

[gollada]

Hi Peter,

I am not sure, why we are discussing proof presses.  Sorry to ask, but have you ever seen a proof 1804 mule because I haven't seen one and it is definetly not listed.  On the contrary, I can provide links of upto 10 examples (1840 mule) where the grades are extremely fine or roundabouts.  If we can't prove that proof 1804 mules exist, then how can we call the theory/assumption based on it to be watertight.

If we are just driven by gut feeling, then it is not fair to anyone.  We will end up doing a disservice to our readers and end up misleading them.  We will need to be more pragmatic in our analysis or else we will stand to loose our credibility.  We need to wary of our claims and tread carefully, because we are now beginnig to venture into the realms of conspiracy theories.

I am not against anyones theory, but please back up your claims.  If you own or have seen a genuine proof (note:here are a few MS grades) 1804 mules, please post pictures.  Then we can all touch base with the real gurus like Dr Paul Stevens and have the record set right.

I posted the coins, not because I needed a certificate of approval.  I wanted people to learn more about the coins from the early 1800.  People seem to know all about the Victoria mules with different number of berries, but nothing about very obvious errors like the 1804 mule. 

As for the Restrikes, quite a few British India Restrikes were struck at later dates on client orders. These are not business as usual coins and I won't hesitate from calling them made-to-order coins.  The only common thing between an Original and a Restrike is the original rusted dies. The Restrike could even have been struck at a different Mint or by a different minting press using a more modern technology.  Plus Restrikes are not part of the original mintage, timeperiod and history.  Therefore, Restrikes, to me are more like souviniers.

Say a collector toils hard and waits for years before getting the 1904 Pattern Anna (Pr1051) and then the mint goes ahead and restrikes 50 more pieces.  Won't he feel cheated?  Restrikes was an easy way for rich and busy men to grab a piece of history .

Thanks,

Gollada

[PeaceBD]

I remember reading somewhere (I think it was one of the older auction catalogs) that the 1804 2 pice mule were made purposely and were not true errors. These were like Peter said made to showcase the Soho Mint's ability. Mr. Bolton was a very good salesman and a marketer of his products.  The gilt proofs along with the silver off metal strikes as well as experiments like these on presidency coins minted at the Soho mint were actually used for marketing his mints abilities to his clients.
The currency quarter anna mule could have also been an experiment to check the die, pressure, planchet etc. We will not know this until a documented evidence is found in the archives explaining why it was done.
Now we know that these coins are relatively hard to find. No one actually knows how many are out there. The 1804 2 pice mule I have seen about 10 different specimens in the last few years. The 1833 Quarter Anna mules are slightly harder to find than the previous one IMO. Now considering this we can assume that if these coins were a genuine mistake on the part of the mint there would have been atleast a few hundred if not thousand specimens know based on the speed of the press. Bolton's steam press was capable of minting between 70-80 coins per minute.  Similarly I am sure Bombay mint was even in a better shape and capable of producing the currency coinage at a much faster rate. So I believe if these were genuine errors on the part of the mint there would have been a whole lot of these known.   
I am hoping Dr. Paul Stevens upcoming book on Bombay Presidency coins will shed more light on these issues

[gollada]

Bhusan,

I am not sure if it is prudent on our part to accept an auctioner's claim specially without knowing who it is.  They might just be putting a spin to sell the coin.  None of the numismatic books record these coins as pruposely made for exhibition.  Also, why would they make so many of these on purpose and that too as non-proof strikes?

I agree with your second argument.  As a genuine error, quite a few of the 1804 mules may have originally been struck.  But we don't know how many of those made it past the stringent quality checks at the mint.  Secondly, since these are old coins we don't know how many of the ones that made out survived.  The 1804 mules have sprung up from time to time, but quite a few of them are the same coins doing the rounds.   Having said that, the 1804 mules are definetly not as rare as the 1830 mule.

As for the 1830 mule, I agree it may be an expreimental/pattern/trial coin.  It looks more like native engraved. 

Since the 1830 mule is from the Davd Fore collection, I am hoping Dr. Steven's knows about it.  He has used photos of some of the coins from David Fore's collections in his article/book.    I have been wanting to write to Dr Stevens to seek his opinion.   If anyone in the forum know how he may be contacted, then please let me know.

Thanks,
Gollada

[repindia]

I think Gollada thinks I am fibbing about having the 1804 mule proof so attaching the NGC census report. I am sorry do not have the picture of it. It is in my vault and might have a bad picture someplace.

[repindia]

The catalog Bhushan was referring to was written by Randy Weir who sourced most of the coins for the Fore collection and was a Baldwin's catalog. I might have it too someplace and would need to search for it.

These gentlemen think that the 1832 and 1833 mules were mistakes in die pairing and hence were genuine mistakes. I have seen many more 1833 mules than 1804 or 1832 but never seen these two in proof condition.

There are many other mules-- Madras and Ceylon, Madras and Sierra Leone which were made for fun on demand. You can search for these on the internet-- most were paired with the 1/48 Rupee coin of Madras. Proof exists for these and there are many circulated pieces of these too. These mules were never ever made for circulation and no mistakes made there. The circulated pieces can be attributed to these being kept as pocket pieces.

You can see tons of the Bombay 1791 and 1794 pieces which are impaired proofs and looks like put in circulation-- but just mishandled. I have never seen a ton of the 1804 both side obverse pieces and maybe 15-20 in the last 15 years! I never saw so many pieces till the last couple of years, but remember a lot of them came out of the woodwork over these years. In my short serious collecting of 15 years had never seen so many pieces come to the market so often.

Disclaimer-- I talk based on experience and what I see in the market and not going by any research. That is left to the real scholars.

[gollada]

Hi RepIndia,

Thanks for the NGC census report.

Now that there is a proof 1804 mule, I am more confused than before.  We have at least 1 proof and many non-proof strikes.  Either this is a proof trial or it is a genuine error. And based on the evidence, we can not conclusively say which bucket it belongs to.

If these are patterns, I have never seen so many low grade patterns before.  The only way I can explain the low grades is, since, these could be used as trick coins, a lot of these may have ended being carried in pockets. And to make matters worse, the same obverse was also used on Sumatra 4 kepings.

HERE IS AN OBSERVATION I WOULD LIKE TO SHARE:
While, I was still hunting for this coin, I compared pictures of the mules that sold in the last 5-10 years and noticed a common feature.  This was my way of making sure, I wasn't buying a fake/counterfeit. If you take a look at these mules, you will notice a thin VERTICAL STRIP (gap due to the missing print.  See picture below for details) running through the middle of the 'D' in INDIA and 'O' in COMPANY. This gap could be a result of die wear or dammage.  All non-proof mules (including the MS63 specimen) have this feature.  Thus, indicating that they were all struck with the same die.  However, none of the Regular Proof (non-error coins) or gilted 1804 2 pices and Sumatra 4 kepings carry this feature. Their 'D's and 'O's are completely struck.

If your Proof Mule does not have this feature then it is quite possible that we are looking at two separate categories of coins:
1.  Pattern Trial struck in Proof
2.  Mule error from the circulation lot.

The Baldwin Catalogue that was put together by Dr Paul Stevens and Randy Weir does not mention a proof strike (see inserted picture below).

As I said earlier, discussions enrich us.  I am glad we are debating this fervently. 

Please keep your thoughts coming.

Thanks,
Gollada