Fake 1916 Halfpenny Mule On Ebay

to my eye, the obverse looks cast.

This was from the coin the other day. (111481392713)

Did a quick search online and found the I between the denticles for 1913, 1916, 1918, 1919, 1925 and 1926. I at a denticle for 1927,1928,1929,1934,1935 and 1936.
So this might be a restrike as the mint would be more likely to have the newer obverse die in storage.
A good test is that The Royal Mint sent out the specifications for a different alloy mix in mid 1921 to the branch mints. So metallurgical analysis (such as non destructive XRF analysis) might show the wrong alloy for 1916 was used. Even the right alloy wouldn't be conclusive as forgers have been known to melt down old coins to make the blanks.

That is awful news about Jon. He has always been one of the most decent and helpful blokes in the hobby.

thanks agent86

IT IS A FAKE.

The join is visible just inside the rim.


Look at it and as I said before, get a grip on reality.

Enough people who know what they are doing have looked over those mules during the past 50 years. It is accepted they are real and for good reason.

If you look carefully at the Saxton coin you can see an excellent reason why it is genuine. It's up to you to see it as I'm not going to tell you what it is.

Agent 86
I hadn't realised that rbarat was using the arrows to show the line. So looks like a fake from 2 halves.
I do have a grip on reality, I'm a numismatic researcher who regularly finds evidence in archives that contradicts the accepted opinions of others. There are so many fakes out there that it isn't possible to trust any consensus. BTW could you specify which "people who know what they are doing" have examined the mules to declare them genuine? How can they declare them genuine without any research on the subject since 1965?
The editor of Australian Coin Review was the one who decided that the mule was genuine and thereafter refused to consider other opinions. Those who were more doubting were effectively silenced. It was most convenient that the only person who could claim to have a mule prior to 1965 was dead when the find was announced and within a month several more were found.
There has not been a single paper published on the subject and the only tests were those rudimentary tests carried out in 1965. Have they been XRF analysed? What about an extensive search of 1916 standard halfpennies to identify the working die? Same with an examination of 1/4 Annas. Which of the researchers has been to India to examine mint records? Has microscopic metallurgical analysis been conducted on 1916 halfpennies in general to identify which ore bodies the metals came from?
"The people who know what they are doing" have been proven wrong in the past few years about much of what was accepted as fact. Just last year I read a paper that identified that at least 20% (and sometimes over 50%) of artworks in museums and galleries are misatributed (and often fake). There are also many thousands of misidentified/fake coins in museums and I know of cases that the errors have been pointed out but they don't want to know about it.
The little bump on the inner ring on Saxtons coin only proves it came from the same die as the other mules, doesn't rule out the possibility that they are all fake (or all genuine).
Shane, yes there are lots of things claimed for David Gee. I'm not saying he had anything to do with the mule, but fakers of his calibre might have. Gee had inside contacts at the Australian mints that gave him access to the dies in storage here, so that opens the possibility he also had contacts (perhaps through Henderson?) in India with similar access.