When is a "mule" not a "mule" ?

[secret santa]

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 !

[Rob]

You first need to define the term mule. A better definition might be to consider normal as per the proclamation in force at any particular time, with any deviation from this defined as a mule.

Yes if one of the dies used was normally paired with one from an obsolete die pairing. Clearly a production run was intentional, even if an obsolete die was used. You do not inadvertently strike 100,000 coins. The intent is to produce the coins, irrespective of the die pair used - but it is still a mule. Nobody disputes the undated 20p as a mule.  A one-off strike from a normally unconnected die pair is not contentious.

Where you have a short and fairly seamless overlap between design changes which are closely related in style, it is difficult to attribute these as mules. Dies are used until they become too worn or break, at which point the offending die is replaced and production continues. I suspect this to be the case in 1926 with the waters being muddied on account of the relatively low mintage for the year. I suspect in the case of designs which closely resemble the current norm, the mint actually couldn't give a damn.

One mustn't underestimate the desire for collectors to have something special, as witnessed by the excessive number of 'rare errors' advertised. A mule will satisfy this need for a premium coin.

Edited August 21, 2018 by Rob

[VickySilver]

I agree, if there are transitional years then there may be "mules" that are just that - transitional. I think of a mule as being obv. and rev. dies intended for different usage that are paired.

[1949threepence]

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. 

Edited August 21, 2018 by 1949threepence

[mrbadexample]

I think the key word is "error".

If someone chooses to use a die that they didn't originally plan to use, but was necessitated by the failure of a current working die (as Rob suggests with the 1926), I don't see this as a mule - it's intentional.

1 hour ago, Rob said:

Nobody disputes the undated 20p as a mule.

Agreed - this was an error as they wouldn't deliberately produce undated coins...

1 hour ago, Rob said:

You do not inadvertently strike 100,000 coins.

...but they did. A couple of hundred thousand as I understand it.

So I don't think quantity comes into it. 

[Rob]

36 minutes ago, mrbadexample said:

I think the key word is "error".

If someone chooses to use a die that they didn't originally plan to use, but was necessitated by the failure of a current working die (as Rob suggests with the 1926), I don't see this as a mule - it's intentional.

Agreed - this was an error as they wouldn't deliberately produce undated coins...

...but they did. A couple of hundred thousand as I understand it.

So I don't think quantity comes into it. 

You didn't read it in context - the production run was intentional.

'Clearly a production run was intentional, even if an obsolete die was used. You do not inadvertently strike 100,000 coins.'

In the case of the 20p, it was pass as an example of a transitional type. The mule attribution comes from the general agreement that they wouldn't strike, or didn't intend to strike an undated coin. I suspect the change of dated side was simply overlooked.

[mrbadexample]

1 hour ago, Rob said:

You didn't read it in context - the production run was intentional.

Yes, but not with the die pairing used. Someone made a mistake.

That's not the same as choosing to fulfill an order with a die that you hadn't originally planned to use but would do the job.

[davidrj]

Likewise the 1913 “mules” can be considered as normal, not accidental

[1949threepence]

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? 

  

[Peckris 2]

2 hours ago, davidrj said:

Likewise the 1913 “mules” can be considered as normal, not accidental

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!

Edited August 21, 2018 by Peckris 2

[Peckris 2]

3 minutes ago, 1949threepence said:

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? 

  

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

[1949threepence]

14 hours ago, Peckris 2 said:

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

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. 

[Peckris 2]

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.

 

[JimShillingford]

The word mule is interchangeably used with 'error'. Mules should mean coins that are not erroneous but are struck from unintended dies. Taking that view the Jersey penny won't be a mule. 

There is also an Obv 3 1862 penny as a matter of fact 🙄

[Mr T]

There was an article in the Australasian Coin and Banknote magazine a few years about mules which proposed the term 'hybrid' for so-called deliberate mules.

I don't think there's any doubt about the obvious mules (dies from different countries or denominations and other combinations that should never have appeared together) but the rest, regardless of intent, aren't truly mules in my opinion - new designs get tried and possibly adopted; making coins is a business and it's not unreasonable to expect a new design to be gradually phased in , or possibly not and just used up to reduce waste.

[JimShillingford]

Some mule eye candy

[JimShillingford]

Or not?

[1949threepence]

2 hours ago, JimShillingford said:

Or not?

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 

  

[secret santa]

6 hours ago, JimShillingford said:

Some mule eye candy

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

[davidrj]

Surely a pattern with veil head obverse IIRC

[Rob]

14 minutes ago, secret santa said:

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

No by definition, because a pattern is an unadopted design and can be a combination of any dies. A mule can only be produced from an obsolete and therefore superseded die (with the caveat of how ongoing changeovers are treated) in combination with a current die or dies that are completely unrelated, but somehow were paired. Crucially the dies already have to be or have been current.

[1949threepence]

7 hours ago, Mr T said:

There was an article in the Australasian Coin and Banknote magazine a few years about mules which proposed the term 'hybrid' for so-called deliberate mules.

I don't think there's any doubt about the obvious mules (dies from different countries or denominations and other combinations that should never have appeared together) but the rest, regardless of intent, aren't truly mules in my opinion - new designs get tried and possibly adopted; making coins is a business and it's not unreasonable to expect a new design to be gradually phased in , or possibly not and just used up to reduce waste.

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

[Bernie]

It is difficult or even impossible to prove whether a die pairing was intentional or not. In my opinion coins such as BB/TB, TB/BB and 1862 2 & 3+G are not truly mules as they were possibly struck deliberately. A true mule in my mind is something like the 1966 Jersey obverse with British penny reverse.

[Bronze & Copper Collector]

58 minutes ago, Bernie said:

It is difficult or even impossible to prove whether a die pairing was intentional or not. In my opinion coins such as BB/TB, TB/BB and 1862 2 & 3+G are not truly mules as they were possibly struck deliberately. A true mule in my mind is something like the 1966 Jersey obverse with British penny reverse.

Although the status of the 1860 & 1862 coins could be debated ad naseum (depending upon how mule-headed the debaters are) there is no doubt that the Jamaican obverse penny is a mule by any definition of the term.

[scott]

what about the 1967 halfpenny with the obverse used on 1961s?