1949threepence

That's a very sensible way to look at it.

Oh c'mon......we'll need to see the obverse before we can arrive at a consensus as to mule status or otherwise........ OK, I'll get me coat

This is almost as cryptic as "when is a door not a door?" - answer "when it's ajar". It literally hinges on how you define the word "intentional". When is intentional not intentional? When it was intended by the person on the day acting on an incorrect assumption or mistaken identity of the equipment being used.

Another interesting mule conundrum to ponder, is the F38 1862 penny. Given that by that point the de facto obverse for a number of years to come, was already established as obverse 6, could the use of the by that time, apparently discarded obverse 2, be considered as a mule? Was the use of obverse 2 a mistake by a production operative, or the intentional using up of old dies?

The 2008 undated 20p can reasonably be described as a mule, by virtue of the fact that it could never have been the intention to use an undated die. Indeed, it would never have been the intention to use that die at all unless the date was added - so.....on reflection is it another grey area? Just wondering about the 1862 penny using halfpenny dies? The die was meant to be used, but the numerals not.

Good point - similarly with the 1895 2mm and 1 mm trident. Is one of them a mule by such definition as Chards? At the end of the day, I suppose if some individuals want to think of the 1926 ME as a mule, then so be it. For me a mule can only be a pairing that was clearly never meant to be, and would have been avoided had the production operatives at the time, been on the ball. I'll go along with Freeman's definition of a mule at page 30 of his book (1985 & 2016 editions):-

If not mules 🐎

Not meaning to get into semantics, or indeed to appear pedantic, but for me if an obverse or reverse die were not meant to be paired together, then subsequently saying it was an intentional action is somewhat contradictory, since at that point they clearly were meant to be paired together, as the intention at that point was to do so. It may not have previously been the intention, but once it is accepted, even as a short term expedient, then they are clearly meant to be paired together. So in my humble opinion, the 1926 ME is not a mule. The 1860 beaded/toothed border is a mule, as this was much more likely to be a production error.

Incidentally, Richard, on your rarest pennies website for the F32, I think the one you recently added as Example 15, from the DNW auction of Sep 16 (now mine), is actually the same coin as example 9 in that list, sold in Sep 15 by Spink, as part of the Andy Scott collection, but a much better photograph than Spink's effort. Note the identical prominent gouge on the Queen's neck. I stand to be corrected, but I think it's the same coin.

Right, well in that case I'd go along with what Peck said. The 4G tablets are a lot more expensive for either apple or android, and using a mifi is extra cost on a monthly basis.

Has your Mum already got a wifi connection at home, John?

No, never. I've missed out badly. Music from the early 60's hardly ever gets a play, and from what I can recall, never has in my personal lifetime. Only very occasionally. I've been listening to a few more of their tracks on you tube. They were truly talented musicians. Better than the endless generic bilge we are subjected to now.

Heard this on the radio today - never heard it before - what a superb instrumental. From 1962, The Shadows, Wonderful Land:-

The Royal MInt do have an x-ray fluorescence spectrometer. It's one of the tests they used a couple of years ago on fake £2 coins in circulation, discovering that the metal mix was out of tolerance.

...er, yes, I suppose it is actually...Fair comment.

Much of the website concerns Russia, and indeed when you click on the one thing that does refer to coins, you get a website in cyrillic script, completely unconnected to coins.

Me too........

F98 is the narrow date 1879, Jon. Freeman 98 (not mine I hasten to add !!!)

It's a logical impossibility, Pete. The true cost of the meal, as you say, is £27.00 (£25.00 + the £2.00 they give to the waiter as a tip) therefore 27/3 = £9.00. That leaves £3.00 from the original £30.00, of which they all got £1.00 each. Total still £30.00 That's how it works out in reality.

By the way, there was no "solution" with this. I suppose it's just left to resolve via logical application.

You'd think on the law of averages that a few more would have come to light since then. But maybe they were all - or nearly all - melted down at the time of withdrawal.

Very neat find.

Yeah, totally different sellers, I note.

It wasn't. The winning bid was £122 - link Absolute blatant fake.

Maybe the photography detracts slightly on that one @Madness - perhaps a bit too much light on the obverse? Based on screen appearance I'd say VF on both sides.