Peckris 2

It all depends on what your definition of "is" is... I don't think it's down to dies - it's down to "designs". A die may well have been placed in the press intentionally, but if the design on it was "not originally intended" to be used with the design on its paired die, then the discussion about whether or not it's a mule comes into force.

There's only one way to follow that...

I'd concur with Nick - the reflections suggest full lustre? The slightly flat top lion could be die wear.

"Your perfume's smelling sweeter, since when I saw you down on the dance floor..."

Now we're really getting into murky waters! Weren't some tokens (i.e. what we would call 'trade tokens') actually produced specifically for collectors or as pieces not meant to be used for trade? Those could also be called Fantasy pieces.

Good point ... but didn't Taylor do some pattern restrikes that were mules in the sense that he paired obverse and reverse dies had never before been paired?

Couldn't the differences be merely down to wear in one die not present in the other? I don't personally see any differences that couldn't be explained that way.

I'd like to propose that the term "mule" be divided into two - "accidental mules" and "deliberate mules". The first would be the result of error, the second the result of a changeover where the old dies had to be used up, or unusual circumstances. I'll give a few examples of each, and a few where the intention or otherwise is not known. "Accidental mules" the change from beaded to toothed border in 1860 obverses and reverses - we can deduce these are accidental by their rarity. However, the puzzle is that the error occurred twice, as both extremely rare pairings exist (maybe the dies were inserted in the wrong pairing into two presses at once, and as soon as the error was spotted, both presses were stopped and the dies changed around?) the 1983 2p NEW PENCE - again, we know both from rarity and from the other denominations that this was an error the 2008 undated 20p - although not especially rare, we can certainly conclude that any undated modern coins are the result of error. "Deliberate mules" 1913 pennies: although there was a change to both obverse and reverse halfway through the run, it was probably decided that any old dies should be used up because of the expense of not using them. The fact that both combinations of mule exist tends to confirm this, and it would have been entirely a matter of chance which pairing was used before the old dies were used up; though not rare, both "mules" are very much scarcer than 1+A and 2+B 1953 farthings : probably the same as for 1913 pennies, as both types of mule exist, and much scarcer than 1+A and 2+B 1926ME pennies: see above for argument as to why this could be considered a mule (unusual circumstances) Unknowns : the 1862 Obverse 2 penny (error? using up an old die?) 1915 farthings with early obverse (ditto?) - the change was halfway through 1914, so one would think all old obverse dies had been used up (apparently not); plus, the 1915 variety is rare the "1968" (1967) halfpenny; that obverse die had last been used in 1956, but why is there such a long gap before its reappearance? Perhaps, with the halfpenny soon due to be demonetised, they scoured the Mint for any old dies / punches to be used up? Can this be considered a mule of any sort? Over to you.

I'd say that is a mule by either use.

By the same token, all 4 instances of 1953 farthings would be normal. ~~~~~ In the case of the 1926ME penny, my theory does not say it was simply a transitional phase, though that can certainly be said of the silver coins: new reverse designs were on the way, but it was presumably considered a priority to 'transition' to the ME obverse as soon as possible, given the Mint's obsession with eliminating the 'ghosting' phenomenon which had plagued them since 1911. It's clear that the pairing of old and ME obverses with the old reverse halfway through the runs of silver denominations was deliberate and was also successful; you don't see ghosting on the ME silver denomination reverses. The bronze is a different scenario. The worst affected of all denominations was the halfpenny, and therefore it's no accident that the ME was brought in approximately a year before most other denominations .. it was accompanied by a modified reverse to really make sure the ghosting was banished. That ME + modified reverse pairing was used for the entire 1926 farthing run, and would have been repeated for 1927 pennies. Now, the 1926 penny mintage was an anomaly, any way you look at it. It was a small issue after three years with none, and was completed with a few of the ME obverse dies. So, let's SUPPOSE that they had produced enough reverse dies (the old 1922 reverse) to do the entire run, and let's also suppose that they first thought they could use their remaining supply of unused 1921/22 obverse dies; when they ran out of them, they decided the best - and cheapest - thing to do was commandeer a few 1927 obverse dies to finish the run. I admit, this is speculation only, but I've not yet heard a different explanation that explains the 1926 anomalies. The question for this topic is : is the 1926ME penny a mule? I would say that IF you can allow that a mule is (for example) the emergency use of a die pairing that was originally unintended, then it's a mule. If you don't allow that, then it's not. Simple as that!

Assuming the coin is kosher I'd say around EF.

Go for it!

Just the modelling I suppose - the design looks more "3D" than those coins actually are (quite flat designs). But it's probably just the photography.

To be serious for a moment - the whole subject of what exactly constitutes a mule and the grey areas surrounding this, are very interesting and have opened up good discussions. I for one would be happy to continue, while those who are less interested can always drop out of the discussion (it's not compulsory to read every single topic!!!)

Maybe it's just the way it was photographed (flash?) but something bothers me a bit about those pictures.

Interestingly, here's a topic here on Predecimal from 2013 where someone called Peckris (who he? ) questions whether the 1926ME should be referred to as a "mule"! The rest of you are more consistent and say it shouldn't ... http://www.predecimal.com/forum/topic/7920-is-the-1926me-penny-a-mule/

Agreed. Unless the 1897 was an experiment left unfulfilled until 1902?

I was talking about the unique 1926ME paired with the 1927 reverse, what were you referring to? That one CANNOT be called a mule as it obvious that it was the intended design as we see the following year with the 1927. No-one (at present) knows when the unique variant was struck, i.e. whether before, during or after ME dies were used for the end of the 1926 penny run, but by any definition of the term 'mule', it isn't. I was theorising, that's true, but I felt it was the best explanation (so far) for the several questions posed by the mere existence of the 1926 penny. As for experimental dies, are there any obverse dies that weren't in fact used for currency runs? Even the short lived 'recessed ear' of 1915 and 1916 was used on several million pennies (though it would be fascinating to know why that was abandoned, as that particular experiment resulted in fully struck up Britannia reverses which the normal obverse did not). The only experimental die I know of for sure, is the 1922 so-called "reverse of 1927" which only exists for a few specimens and was never used again. Yes, "pattern" seems more appropriate than "mule". We'll have to leave the normal 1926ME as a "grey area" and agree to differ! Though I will say that 1902 HT and LT is less of a controversy as that design changed partway through the run, and clearly 1902 LT was the first design as per 1895-1901, which then got changed to HT as per 1902-1926 for reasons we may never know, i.e. neither 1902 is a mule. My main case for the 1926ME is that (theoretically) the ME dies were grabbed to finish the run but they had enough reverses to do the job. In other words, the pairing was "deliberate" but not "intended" by which I mean that if normal circumstances prevailed that particular pairing would not have been used.

I think that's what I was saying? However, I'm not sure I understand what you mean by 'experimental' - neither the 1926 reverse nor both the obverse dies used, were experimental, all being used for other currency date runs. Yes, I do understand that the banks triggered demand for coinage, but the factors around the General Strike might have precipitated this as you go on to say. The localised shortages you theorise was exactly what I meant earlier when I used the word 'regional' - what I meant was what you're saying, that some parts of the country (e.g. the industrial North) might have experienced a shortage not felt in the more prosperous South. ~~~~~ One thing I should add about mules: even if the currency 1926ME is something of a grey area on this subject (depending on how you interpret 'intentional'), the possibly unique 1926ME penny with the actual reverse of 1927 cannot be considered in any way to be a mule. It is the currency 1927 penny in all but date, and therefore comprised the intentional design of the RM. Indeed, the combination of ME (albeit shrunk from 1928) with that reverse persisted until the end of the reign. I'd agree that - in the circumstances - you could describe the unique 1926ME as a pattern, but not a mule.

Could have been worse, I suppose. And MAYBE $150 will prove worthwhile in the long run for the experience gained? We've all been there!

I haven't contacted the RM yet as 1) I can't write or send letters anymore (though I could send them an email?) and 2) I've made the rather lazy assumption that someone would have delved into this matter long ago ... though I'd be amazed and gratified to be the first! I'd been musing on the General Strike too - I wondered if perhaps collecting small change for newly unemployed or redundant strikers was one of the factors for a sudden need for pennies? A mint report for 1926 is the first thing I'd ask for if I did contact the RM though again, I'd be amazed that no-one had previously done so. Certainly my theory would allow for the production of the required number of reverse dies as they'd have to punch the date for that issue specially, but the obverse dies could well have been unused ones from 1922, and may not have lasted out the full run, hence the need to use a few 1927s to complete it. ~~~~~ On the subject of mules generally, I think it's clear (to me at least) that the ME wasn't intended to be paired with the old reverse, but circumstances dictated otherwise. It could be a grey area though Chard's site points out that there are mules of a modern Britannia issue, there being both types of muled pairings (like the beaded/toothed pennies) but many thousands of each, which does imply that though not intended, the Mint went ahead anyway and issued them.

"Bit of a mess"? A huge understatement! The first time I ever came across the use of the word "mule" (I remember that I had to laugh!) was in relation to the 1926ME penny. Since then I've seen it used many times, e.g. the beaded/toothed borders on 1860 bronze and the 1983 NEW PENCE 2p, and other instances too. I'm afraid I simply cannot remember or list the 1926 references, as I didn't ever think I would be called upon to cite them, as I have taken it as a given, and have seen it referred to as a mule probably 3 times or more? I think this (from Chards' site) is significant: Mules A mule, is a coin where the obverse and reverse of the coin have been struck from dies which were not meant to be paired together; this can be an intentional action or a production error. The latter error becomes highly sought after and collectors can be willing to pay highly for examples of these coins. The critical words here are "this can be an intentional action". Obviously we can tell from 1925 halfpennies and 1926 farthings that the ME obverse was to be accompanied by a modified reverse - indeed, the 1925 halfpennies are of two types, and in each case the obverse and reverse are the appropriate pairing for the type. Add to that the 1927 pennies, and that makes a very strong case for an intended modified reverse. I've several times referred to my theory about the 1926 issue, so it's about time I said what it is! So: By the end of 1921, well over half a BILLION pennies had been minted in 5 years. Clearly the demand for pennies was greatly reduced by 1922 so a possibly larger intended mintage ended at only 16m. After that, there were so many pennies sloshing around that none were minted for 3 years. My theory is that this was intended to be 4 years, and the next major issue of pennies would be 1927 with ME and modified reverse. However - and this is the radical bit - there was a small but urgent demand (perhaps regional?) for a limited issue of pennies in 1926. The Mint already had its hands full changing over to the ME for silver AND designing a new set of silver reverses for 1927, so they hastily brought into use some leftover obverse dies from the 1922 issue and struck a little over 4m pennies. Nearing the end of this issue they ran out of dies, but knowing the 1927 obverse dies were ready for use, decided to press a few of them into service. As for reverses, they would have had to punch a 6 onto the 1922 matrix and presumably created enough dies from this to complete the issue. People are obviously free to accept or reject this theory, but if rejecting, the following questions are left to be resolved: With so many pennies in circulation, why was such a small issue of 4m minted after 3 years of nothing, yet with 60m due in 1927? Why would the ME obverse have been used for a very small proportion of what was in any case a small issue? Why was the old reverse used for the very small issue of 1926ME pennies when clearly the intent was to have a modified reverse for bronze? This is why I believe the 1926ME penny has been referred to as a mule (sorry, I don't have the references) - the action of pairing the new obverse with the old reverse was deliberate but not intended under normal circumstances; my theory brings in a set of circumstances that are not normal. It's just a great pity that we don't have the documentation to conform, deny, or otherwise explain the 1926 issue of pennies. (I'd be grateful if anyone decides to cite my theory elsewhere, they give me a credit for it.)

OMG. No offence meant, I honestly didn't know that (and the OP didn't mention it as part of their post.) Oh dear, what can I say, except that was only thing that leapt out at me. It is a brilliant resource (can I stop digging now?) I proffer two things. 1. An apology for undiplomatic language. 2. I hope you didn't mind me correcting you about the "mule" situation?

I tried to get in touch with its creator but there seems no way to do so - every icon on that blog takes me to MY Word Press account, not the creator of that one. There's no 'Contact us' (or 'me') spiel so I'm a bit stuck. However if you know them, perhaps you could pass the message on? (More diplomatically obviously than "appalling error"!)