1860 farthing "Large Bead", toothed/beaded mule?

[SRSNUM 2]

I would appreciate the opinion of the members as to whether the coin pictured in the attached digital images is a genuine 1860 'large bead' toothed over beaded border mule.  Below, I have described the item in some detail to help with attribution.

The obverse appears to be of the toothed type with 137 toothed denticles.  The wreath appears to have 5 berries.  A small area of corrosion appears in front of the bust below the neck of the Queen.  Though not obvious from the digital scan, the coin "in person" shows full cartwheel effect with considerable mint red in the protected areas of the devices "BRITT:REG:F:D:" and "VICTORIA ".  The lower stop on the last colon after the 'D' appears to be somewhat truncated.  All other devices appear sharp and intact.  The obverse field appears without evidence of die polishing.

The reverse appears to my eye to have a beaded border.  There appears to be 133 beads.  Although not apparent from the digital images, "in person" the reverse die appears to have been polished or wire brushed, as the entire field of the coin  is replete with dozens of raised lines perpendicular to the exergue running vertically from rim to rim.  The 'polishing' seems to have reduced the sharpness of the 'lighthouse' and the 'boulders' to the left of the lighthouse.  The balance of the reverse appears to be sharp.  The reverse maintains full cartwheel effect with just a hint of red in the 'H', 'N' and 'G' of "FARTHING".  The one in the date is embedded in the inner circle and the zero in the date touches the inner circle.  The 'T' in "FARTHING" is punched high and there appears to be two tiny die breaks or die gouges  above the 'T' touching both the 'T' and the inner circle.  Lastly, at the intersection of the exergue and the inner circle to the left of the date there appears to be a die break or gouge.

I trust this description along with the images may prove adequate for a full attribution.  I can supply images with greater resolution upon request.  Please email (see below) if you may have questions or comments.

 

Steve Schor

LHNUMIS@BELLSOUTH.NET

[RLC35 288]

30 minutes ago, SRSNUM said:

I would appreciate the opinion of the members as to whether the coin pictured in the attached digital images is a genuine 1860 'large bead' toothed over beaded border mule.  Below, I have described the item in some detail to help with attribution.

The obverse appears to be of the toothed type with 137 toothed denticles.  The wreath appears to have 5 berries.  A small area of corrosion appears in front of the bust below the neck of the Queen.  Though not obvious from the digital scan, the coin "in person" shows full cartwheel effect with considerable mint red in the protected areas of the devices "BRITT:REG:F:D:" and "VICTORIA ".  The lower stop on the last colon after the 'D' appears to be somewhat truncated.  All other devices appear sharp and intact.  The obverse field appears without evidence of die polishing.

The reverse appears to my eye to have a beaded border.  There appears to be 133 beads.  Although not apparent from the digital images, "in person" the reverse die appears to have been polished or wire brushed, as the entire field of the coin  is replete with dozens of raised lines perpendicular to the exergue running vertically from rim to rim.  The 'polishing' seems to have reduced the sharpness of the 'lighthouse' and the 'boulders' to the left of the lighthouse.  The balance of the reverse appears to be sharp.  The reverse maintains full cartwheel effect with just a hint of red in the 'H', 'N' and 'G' of "FARTHING".  The one in the date is embedded in the inner circle and the zero in the date touches the inner circle.  The 'T' in "FARTHING" is punched high and there appears to be two tiny die breaks or die gouges  above the 'T' touching both the 'T' and the inner circle.  Lastly, at the intersection of the exergue and the inner circle to the left of the date there appears to be a die break or gouge.

I trust this description along with the images may prove adequate for a full attribution.  I can supply images with greater resolution upon request.  Please email (see below) if you may have questions or comments.

 

Steve Schor

LHNUMIS@BELLSOUTH.NET

This coin is a TB/TB example. Even though the reverse teeth have a somewhat rounded appearance, they are indeed toothed in reality. On a real BB example the beads are closer to the inner ring, not the outer rim. There is also a differance in the Bead count, though I don't recall what it is. Every coin dealer here in the US has a example like yours marked as a Mule, which is incorrect.  I have a example I purchased from Michael Freeman on my website, if you care to see a authentic example.

 

Edited November 23, 2016 by RLC35
correction

[Rob 2,996]

Just now, RLC35 said:

Every coin dealer here in the US has a example like yours marked as a Mule, which is incorrect. 

Which probably stems from the spat with PCGS a few years ago on this forum attributing one as a mule.

[RLC35 288]

1 minute ago, Rob said:

Which probably stems from the spat with PCGS a few years ago on this forum attributing one as a mule.

Exactly.....

[1949threepence 3,366]

Quite a few 1860 toothed border bronzes can appear like beads in certain areas. But they are teeth, not beads. To be a beaded border, the beads would have to go all the way round, 360. Even if the other side was toothed, making it a mule. You don't get part mule/part tooth on one side.     

Edited November 23, 2016 by 1949threepence

[Colin G. 147]

I agree definitely a TB/TB

[Garrett 76]

Steve

Welcome to the forum.

Some of the foremost experts in the field have given their judgement. 

I hope this does not deter you from sticking around and becoming one of the "regular crew".

cheers Garrett.

[RLC35 288]

23 hours ago, Rob said:

Which probably stems from the spat with PCGS a few years ago on this forum attributing one as a mule.

 

In Heritage's (www.HA.com) December auction, they have on page 8 of the auction, two 1860 Farthings (both slabbed by NGC) as TB/BB. The first one is VF, and is correctly attributed. The second one, MS63BN, is also slabbed as a TB/BB is incorrectly attributed...it is a TB/TB...and both were slabbed by the same company! It happens all the time here. Buyer beware. 

Edited November 24, 2016 by RLC35
correction

[Colin G. 147]

That second one doesn't even remotely look beaded...bad day at the office 

[Mr T 169]

The beaded and toothed reverses are different too aren't they? The beaded one has an extra rock next to the lighthouse I think.

[Colin G. 147]

The indisputable fact is that the number of teeth and beads on the Reverse are different...therefore no excuses for mistakes by grading companies....but it is hard to back track when you are already financially committed to those you have already attributed incorrectly

[copper123 1,352]

OMG you actually counted the beads on the obverse totally pointless , I honestly dont know how anyone has that much patience LOL

[Nordle11 564]

Not exactly pointless if it can be used to confirm a variety

[copper123 1,352]

Yes but it took me three seconds to know it was not a mule , so like i said pointless ,my favorite early evening quiz show

[Nordle11 564]

Just because it took you 3 seconds doesn't mean it's pointless 

Anyway, it took me 1 second to know it's not a mule so you're just wasting 2 seconds there. Which is kinda pointless.

[copper123 1,352]

[Colin G. 147]

You don't need to count the beads as an identifier when you are familiar with the series, but when TPG's are getting this wrong (when there are indicators that even someone not familiar with farthings can use as certainty) it does not fill you with confidence.

I agree that when you regularly look at farthings even design types jump out quite readily, but that is not the case for many people. If you are thinking of getting an example but are unsure use the bead count then there is no dispute. 

 

[RLC35 288]

On 11/26/2016 at 4:15 AM, Colin G. said:

The indisputable fact is that the number of teeth and beads on the Reverse are different...therefore no excuses for mistakes by grading companies....but it is hard to back track when you are already financially committed to those you have already attributed incorrectly

You are correct Colin, here is Heritage's reply to me telling about the Mule error in their auction!  ... They still believe that NGC is correct with their identification of the Mule!

Hello Bob,

 

Thanks for your comment. I took a look but think that NGC got it right in this case. The rims are pretty poorly struck, but you can see in places where the beads are separate from the rim.

 

Michael Peplinski
Senior Numismatist – International Numismatics

 

Please take a moment to browse our December Hong Kong auction at www.ha.com/3050.

 

HERITAGE AUCTIONS

3500 Maple Avenue
Dallas Texas, 75219

Direct: 214-409-1959

 

Email :  mpeplinski@ha.com
Fax : 214-409-2959

Visit our website: www.HA.com

Dallas | New York | Beverly Hills | Paris | Geneva | Amsterdam | Hong Kong

 

 

 

From: Bob Crawford [mailto:rlc35@aol.com] 
Sent: Saturday, November 26, 2016 8:53 AM
To: Bid@ha.com
Subject: Your Auctions and Bidding Question (Thread:1663505)