Author Topic: Cataloguing mules  (Read 4244 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Online Figleaf

  • Administrator
  • Honorary Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 32 174
Cataloguing mules
« on: January 24, 2009, 03:24:32 PM »
Mules don't belong in the SCWC, I believe, but a few have crept in nevertheless.

There are people who collect mint errors, our member belg_jos is an example. They dig out good detail on production methods. This error proves that it is possible to mount dies from different pairs in a coin press. This is sometimes prevented by different fixing details.

Peter
An unidentified coin is a piece of metal. An identified coin is a piece of history.

BC Numismatics

  • Guest
Cataloguing mules
« Reply #1 on: January 24, 2009, 06:31:43 PM »
Peter,
  Mule coins do qualify for listing in Krause,especially if they have been found in circulation,such as the New Zealand undated mule 2c. coin,which has the New Zealand 2c. reverse paired with the obverse of the 1966 Bahamas 5c. coin.This dateless coin was first found in circulation on the day that New Zealand changed over to decimal currency - 10th. of July 1967.

If this 20 Pence mule coin is found in circulation,then it does qualify for listing in Krause.

Aidan.

Online Figleaf

  • Administrator
  • Honorary Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 32 174
Cataloguing mules
« Reply #2 on: January 25, 2009, 12:38:53 AM »
If you will read my previous message again, you will notice the words "I believe". This is my opinion. You don't have to share it and you certainly don't have the right to tell me what to think. Your argument is:

If this 20 Pence mule coin is found in circulation,then it does qualify for listing in Krause.

KM is not a catalogue of circulation coins only. Perhaps a majority of types listed in the 19th and 20th century do not occur in circulation. Therefore your argument is irrelevant.

A mule is simply a wrong pairing of dies, a mint production error. There are many other mint production errors, such as clipped dies, brockage, eccentric holes, missing edge inscriptions, off-centre strikes, and double strikes. None of these are listed in KM, so that there is good reason not to list mules. There is a reason that KM does not list mint errors: they are so numerous that they could easily double the catalogue in size. I think the main reason why some mules occur in KM is that KM copied them from Yeoman.

Do not confuse mint errors with sloppy production methods and corrections, such as overdates, double mintmarks, legend varieties, overstrikes, official counterstamps and re-engraved details. Note that these varieties are not mint errors, but products of approved pairs of dies. KM does not do a good job on some of these (notably 17th century legend varieties) and sometimes just reports "varieties exist", which doesn't do anybody any good while they generally do a good job on counterstamps. I think these do belong in KM. All of which doesn't mean you must or may not collect either category.

Peter
An unidentified coin is a piece of metal. An identified coin is a piece of history.

translateltd

  • Guest
Re: Cataloguing mules
« Reply #3 on: January 25, 2009, 05:33:56 AM »
I would argue that mules should indeed be catalogued (somewhere, at least, so they are documented, whether or not in SCWC), simply because (a) they turn up and people need to know what they are and (b) they are the result of human error rather than the sort of random accident that leads to die cracks and the like.

On a New Zealand forum (nzcca.com/forum) I recently did some "thinking out loud" and came up with the following breakdown of "non-standard" coins.  Examples refer to coins in the NZ series, for obvious reasons:

1. Varieties: changes brought about by the use of different dies or switching of dies in mid-run (e.g. the 1984-85 "recut die" types, 1988 type I and II 50c, 1950 type I and II halfcrown, the "mint set" vs. circulation strike differences that we have often discussed);

2. Errors: the accidental use of an incorrect die (e.g. "strapless" 1956 1d and 3d, 1957 6d; mules, other non-standard variations caused by human error and often involving an entire die run or more);

3. Faults: cuds caused by filled or cracked dies, other die cracks, off-centre strikes, straight "accidents" incurred as part of the process of using proper dies, with no human error involved other than possibly leaving a die in place for too long or not clearing it of excess oil!

The first two can generally be catalogued but the third - and this is only my view - tends to cover such a multitude of possible problems and locations that there can be no end to them, depending how closely you look. I would suggest that only those that are both quite spectacular and happen to turn up with any frequency cross the boundary into becoming cataloguable and are likely to be sought by those who don't have a particular focus on "errors" in general. Examples would be the 1967 No sea 5c, 1965 broken wing 6d, 1942 and 1958 broken back shillings, 1955 2-dot 3d, 1942 1-dot 3d, 1999 wart-nose 5c, 2008 butterfly lips $1.




Online Figleaf

  • Administrator
  • Honorary Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 32 174
Re: Cataloguing mules
« Reply #4 on: January 25, 2009, 12:27:21 PM »
True, a) nothing is ever easy and b) boundaries are seldom sharp. With your way of dividing up things mules come in the middle category. However, I see a difference in character between a mule and e.g. the "strapless" series. The "strapless" dies were approved. It wasn't until the coins were issued that people started to notice that the straps were too finely engraved on the dies and filled up very quickly. Mules were never approved as such. Similar for funny re-engravings: they may have come out funny, but the powers that be didn't realize that until after the coins had been circulated (if at all). A mule is clearly wrong to start with. Funny re-engravings and weak shoulder straps should have passed quality control, mules should have been picked out and destroyed.

That said, I agree that cataloguing would be good. For US coins, this is no problem. I have a book I find yawningly boring on errors on US coins, describing in baroque detail progressions of die cracks. Fine. Evidently, there are people who can be fascinated with progressing die cracks :P. Who am I to tell them not to. In that sense, mules are way more interesting.

Peter
An unidentified coin is a piece of metal. An identified coin is a piece of history.

translateltd

  • Guest
Re: Cataloguing mules
« Reply #5 on: January 25, 2009, 07:57:03 PM »
Slight misunderstanding re the "strapless" coins, I suspect.  NZ's 1953-55 coins had no shoulder strap on the Queen's effigy, and the obverse die was entirely recut in 1956 to include a shoulder strap, among many other minor changes.  In 1956 (and in the case of sixpences, 1957), an old obverse die was accidentally reused, leading to the "strapless" variety. It is most definitely not just a filled die.  One of the clearest diagnostics to determine whether a coin is a proper "strapless" variety or just a worn or adulterated "with strap" coin is to look at the truncation: on the 1953-55 dies, the angle of the truncation is close to 45° and the designer's initials M.G. are clearly visible to the naked eye.  On the 1956-65 dies, the angle of the truncation is much steeper (nearer to 90°, though obviously not a full right angle) and the initials are much more difficult to read.  Positioning of letters in relation to rim beads is also different, though I'd need a reference book to check that particular difference.

That's why I grouped that type where I did - the 1956-57 "strapless" coins are essentially "mules" in the same way as the newly described 2008 20p is: a mismatched die was used as a result of human error, and presumably at least one full die run was produced in each case before the "wrong" obverse die was removed and replaced.



Online Figleaf

  • Administrator
  • Honorary Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 32 174
Re: Cataloguing mules
« Reply #6 on: January 25, 2009, 10:58:38 PM »
OK, I thought you were referring to UK coins.

Peter
An unidentified coin is a piece of metal. An identified coin is a piece of history.

Offline tonyclayton

  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 479
    • Coins of the UK
Re: Cataloguing mules
« Reply #7 on: January 28, 2009, 04:32:04 PM »
Besides the 'dateless' 20p there are two other recent mules issued by the Royal Mint, which are not likely to be found in circulation.

The first is the 2p of 1983 which has the obsolete NEW PENCE on the reverse, instead of TWO PENCE which had been introduced in the previous year.

The other is the gold two pounds of 1994, which was meant to be in the same design as the Bank of England commemorative nickel-brass two pounds of that year, with TWO POUNDS under the Queen's head.  However, some were issued with the double sovereign obverse in error; this does not say TWO POUNDS on the obverse.

Offline gerard974

  • Meritorious Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 873
Re: Cataloguing mules
« Reply #8 on: July 08, 2016, 09:17:46 AM »
hello
to day i read the old topics and i have see the mule
look these coin from Reunion island

https://www.ngccoin.com/price-guide/world/reunion-franc-km-7-1948-cuid-51571-duid-138584

Best regards  Gerard

Online Figleaf

  • Administrator
  • Honorary Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 32 174
Re: Cataloguing mules
« Reply #9 on: July 08, 2016, 10:46:18 AM »
Good one, Gérard. A perfectly believable mule, except for the rather ridiculous "pricing" in several grades. Glad I decided not to collecting them nearly 50 years ago. :)

Peter
An unidentified coin is a piece of metal. An identified coin is a piece of history.

Offline MORGENSTERNN

  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 332
Re: Cataloguing mules
« Reply #10 on: April 26, 2017, 11:16:58 PM »

look these coin from Reunion island


Did you ever seen the mule of 2 francs 1948 from Réunion ?
One is for sale here : http://www.ebay.fr/itm/Reunion-2-Francs-1948-Aluminum-MULE-PCGS-SP66-only-3-pieces-known-Top-Rare-/272461694887?hash=item3f6ffb87a7:g:F8YAAOSwCM5XPv7l

And shipping is free !
If you pay first 5995 $ for the coin  :P

Offline gerard974

  • Meritorious Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 873
Re: Cataloguing mules
« Reply #11 on: April 27, 2017, 12:51:43 PM »
hello
I do not understand how make they for grader a coin like that, 3 known copies, which they bases have they?
Can you explain to me? ???
best regards  Gerard

Online Figleaf

  • Administrator
  • Honorary Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 32 174
Re: Cataloguing mules
« Reply #12 on: April 27, 2017, 01:09:53 PM »
Extrapolation, otherwise known as hot air. ::)

Peter
An unidentified coin is a piece of metal. An identified coin is a piece of history.