secret santa

Welcome to the 21st century. I worked in I.T. all my life but now it's making life unbearable. It must be time an A.I. robot joined the forum ?

£6435

Yes, the last example on the page.

I did have a close look at this one in hand and it isn't that much better than the others plus it's got a nasty gouge on the queen's face. It's not as nice as the one you sold Bob.

I was there and saw a bidder win the unc 1897 dot - was that one of our forum members ?

I do - they send a monthly email with a link that you simply log into. I'll try out the back issue option and let you know.

He did !

I've emailed him - it'll be interesting to see whether he pulls it !

Not true - if you have left a postal/commission bid, then the auctioneer will announce it just like a room or telephone bid, so if the last room bid was £1500, he'll say something like "I've got £1600 on commission - Fair warning" and if there are no other bids, you'll get it at £1600. Which is exactly what you said - stupid me 😡

Not true - if you have left a postal/commission bid, then the auctioneer will announce it just like a room or telephone bid, so if the last room bid was £1500, he'll say something like "I've got £1600 on commission - Fair warning" and if there are no other bids, you'll get it at £1600.

I've been to many London Coins auctions where Stephen Locket starts a lot by announcing "£x is bid" - but then no further bids are received from floor or phone and so he brings the hammer down and one can assume that it went for £x - but no, when the results are printed, we find that it went unsold even tho' he didn't use those words at the time. So it's debatable as to whether he had a genuine bid for £x or whether he was just trying to get the bidding started. I'd prefer to hear him say something like "I'm looking for £x on this one" , where £x is hopefully the reserve. I also have to say that LCA did have a reputation (possibly unfounded) of selling lots at the highest bid that a vendor submitted but I can also say that I've won lots for considerably less than my maximum bid. "You makes your bid and you takes your chance."

This thread continues a subject raised under a topic of 1926 and 1927 pennies but probably merits a more general discussion under a more identifiable heading. 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. We have been debating this definition in the context of the 1926 Modified Effigy penny. Some people consider this penny to be a Mule because it is feasible that the modified effigy obverse was planned to be issued paired with the redesigned reverse used on 1927 pennies onwards, and not on on 1926 coins. However, the fact that so many 1926 ME pennies were minted begs the question of whether the obverse and reverse were "meant" to be paired together. I say Yes but others say No. The 1966 penny struck with a Jersey obverse is clearly a Mule. The Freeman 8 and 9 pennies with beaded/toothed borders are almost certainly mules, produced by unintentional actions. Can a particular die pairing struck intentionally really be called a Mule ? Discuss !

I think we're getting there although there will always be a degree of subjectivity as we can never truly know what was in the mind of the "designer" even if it seems obvious.

Bear in mind it's a London Coins photo and they don't always capture coins as they look in hand. Their camera sometimes tells porkies.

That's because it is a proof coin (sold by LCA)

Little Eva and Big Dee Irwin - definitely an unplanned pairing.

I don't think I agree with this - the 1966 Jersey obversed penny ( a quintessential mule in my view) has what I assume (what was still) a current Jersey obverse (tho' I may be wrong)

Ummmmmmmmmmmmmmm.

Can a pattern also be a mule.........?

I've just had a look at my own coin photos and I can't really see the difference (between circulation and proof coins) in the helmet plumes/feathers that you mention.

I had actually considered starting a new topic called "when is a mule not a mule ?" as it probably shouldn't be hidden away in a topic about 1926 and 1927 pennies.

Calm down, dear - just the 1926 ME "mule" !!!!!!!!!!!

We're probably talked out on this one now ???

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. I relate to Mike's view here - how are we to define "meant to be paired together" ? In 1902, which reverse was "meant" to be paired with the Edward VII obverse - High Tide or Low Tide ? And does that make the other pairing a mule ? There is a degree of subjectivity here and to me it is not clear how we can know when a die pairing was "not meant". We are talking about perhaps one person's intention or vision of what obverse should be paired with a particular reverse, which may never have been made explicit. On my varieties website, I shall continue to not refer to the 1926 ME as a mule (if users consider it "an appalling error" then so be it). The 1926 4+C is probably more of a pattern (for the 1927 coinage as described by Chris) than a mule and I'll redescribe it thus.

I've just checked and I'm sure that it was part of the Trevor Legge collection in Dec 2014.