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

[Rob]

35 minutes ago, 1949threepence said:

Let's be honest, in the absence of an overriding definition accepted by all, there's never going to be full consensus on this issue, so, in terms of what is a mule and what isn't, to each his own. 

I think we are all agreed regarding definition 4 posted by BCC - '4.   a coin with the obverse and reverse of designs not originally intended to be used together.' The difficulty seems to lie with the interpretation of intent. 

[Bronze & Copper Collector]

22 minutes ago, Rob said:

I think we are all agreed regarding definition 4 posted by BCC - '4.   a coin with the obverse and reverse of designs not originally intended to be used together.' The difficulty seems to lie with the interpretation of intent. 

It can be said that the very act of placing a die in the press indicates intent by definition of the word intent...

The crux of the issue is whether the original intended use of the die was how the die was ultimately used and whether that is the only determination that should be considered as well as how much latitude should be acceptable in making that determination..

[Peckris 2]

1 hour ago, 1949threepence said:

Let's be honest, in the absence of an overriding definition accepted by all, there's never going to be full consensus on this issue, so, in terms of what is a mule and what isn't, to each his own. 

It all depends on what your definition of "is" is...

 

18 minutes ago, Bronze & Copper Collector said:

It can be said that the very act of placing a die in the press indicates intent by definition of the word intent...

The crux of the issue is whether the original intended use of the die was how the die was ultimately used and whether that is the only determination that should be considered as well as how much latitude should be acceptable in making that determination..

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.

[1949threepence]

39 minutes ago, Rob said:

I think we are all agreed regarding definition 4 posted by BCC - '4.   a coin with the obverse and reverse of designs not originally intended to be used together.' The difficulty seems to lie with the interpretation of intent. 

Oh sure. Obviously there are coins which you could say without argument, are definitely mules, such as that Jersey Penny. As well as the overwhelming majority of coins, which aren't.

The difficulty lies in the grey area in between, and it is that which we will probably never achieve total consensus in.

As far as "intent", for me that would have to be officially sanctioned intent. If a die operative on the day inadvertently married up incompatible reverse and obverse dies, then you could argue that his intent was to use the correct dies, but due to a mistake on his part, an erroneous combination was used. The problem with this, of course, is that in most cases you won't know with absolute certainty whether it was a mistake at the sharp end (as it were), or an agreement deliberately arrived at, in the full knowledge of what dies were being used in combination.    

Another area of possible debate would be at what level an intentional decision was made to use incompatible dies. It could be made at operative, or foreman level where the intended die was broken, but to fulfill targets an incorrect one was used. In real life any number of possibilities rest as a potential, and the reasons will have been lost in the mists of time even by the following weeks of production, let alone 150 plus years later.     

 

 

  

[Mr T]

On 8/24/2018 at 7:03 PM, Bronze & Copper Collector said:

It can be said that the very act of placing a die in the press indicates intent by definition of the word intent...

The crux of the issue is whether the original intended use of the die was how the die was ultimately used and whether that is the only determination that should be considered as well as how much latitude should be acceptable in making that determination..

I think this pretty much right - there are plenty of mules were the intent at time of production is unknown and whether it was deliberate or an accident I think it's still obviously a mule.

Intent at the design stage is where the right way is meant to be decided.

[secret santa]

4 hours ago, Mr T said:

Intent at the design stage is where the "right way" is meant to be decided.

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.

 

[Peckris 2]

2 hours ago, secret santa said:

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.

Yes. Getting back to the 1926ME (I hear your groans from here...) - many millions of halfpennies, farthings, and the 1927 penny saw the introduction of the ME obverse on bronze together with a modified reverse. Just because there are maybe 100k (give or take) 1926ME pennies with old reverse that completed what MAY have been an emergency issue of pennies, doesn't prove anything about what the original design intent was .. or wasn't. I personally think there is enough evidence that a modified reverse was the intent, but circumstances proved it impractical for the end of the 1926 penny run.