|
This page may contain links that result in small commissions to keep this free site up and running.
Welcome Guest! Registering and/or logging in will remove the anchor (bottom) ads. It's Free!
To participate in the forum you must log in or register. | Author |
 Replies: 26 / Views: 10,987 |
|
|
|
Valued Member
Australia
206 Posts |
I posed that exact same question on a chat on this subject on the ebay forums a while ago re the other die pairing varieties in the penny series. If it fits for 1, then why not the others. I got no real response other than ,to be classed a mule, it has to be an unintended die pairing of 2 dies that do not match the official or regular reverse. My stance on varieties is, they are just that, varieties, as were all planned outcomes IMO. However, other experienced collectors and sellers are unconvinced that the 55y obv 9 and 56 obv 8 were a planned outcome, rather, a simple mix up at the mint. Hence my question, what is the mints official stance on this. I have not seen a good definition of exactly what a mule is, they are all too loose and open to interpretation. I think QldSandy's quote, including unintentional, is a good place to start. If they need to be of a different denomination mix, or country mix, then this needs to be stated. It is missing from all the quotes I can find, other than being presented as examples of some of the unintended die pairings. I agree gnome, a much clearer definition needs to be presented to the community for clear clarification of what is, and what is not a Mule. There are so many sellers listing and describing these 2 varieties as mules nowadays, you say to some people the obv 9 variety 55y., and you get a blank expression in return. You then say the mule and a look of understanding then comes forth. I know this does not make it so, and only recently started referring to them as mules to save time explaining what I am on about. |
|
Valued Member
Australia
372 Posts |
I understand, I don't frequent the ebay forum alot, did pop in once in awhile. In the old Aussie forum chatroom, we had some great debates on mules. I learnt from some very knowledgeable people through these debates as well. Later |
|
Valued Member
Australia
206 Posts |
I never wrote on SS old Aussie forum, but did read it. The quote for mule from that site was "A coin struck from dies not originally intended to be used together".
gnome would you be so gracious to further explain why it is just the different denominations and country matches you consider mules.
I agree and understand that these configurations are indeed mules, but what is it about the differing definitions that would exclude coins minted with unintended die pairings of the same denomination/ Country?
This question I have asked often, and to date, no reply, is it a secret?.
Why when the mint made the initial error with the 05 roo dollars, did they say that they decided to continue to make the pairing, to prevent the release of a low mintage Mule? Same denomination, same country.
Is very confusing and conflicting to me, not to mention frustrating that even from the most experienced, can't get a straight answer.
Please, can someone set me straight on this.
|
|
Valued Member
Australia
372 Posts |
Sorry, farnbycoins, I may have not be as clear as I should have been with the definition I consider to be mules. They were just 2 examples of what I consider to be true mules that fit the definition.
The obverses of the the 1955 and 1956 were intended to have her majesty on the obverse whether it had the Perth or Melbourne design.
Both mints struck coins for these years.
If it had been struck with say a NZ QE11 obverse, then it would qualify as a mule. Different dies not intended to be used together.
I believe, from memory now, mints often exchanged dies when there was a shortage of either obverses or reverses. Sorry can't confirm where I have read or heard that.
When the mint discovered the error in matching the 05 $1, they continued so as not to have a low mintage mule, the normal pairing for the non commerative $1 is the mor. So 2005 had both issues, a commerative and a normal issue.
You will probably have noticed there are a few years now that have both the mor and a commerative issue for circulation, 07 had the apec and mor, and 08 is supposed to have the scouting and mor.
I recently read in an English report, that the English only issue so many commemerative issues for circulation, then if more coins are required for that year they revert back to the normal reverse.
Perhaps, and this is only speculation now, the RAM have changed to this policy, so if any further mistakes are made, it was intended to be like that.
Hope this helps a little, I once found a link of different types of mules somewhere, but for the life of me cannot find it again.I am sure others have different opinions what constitutes a mule.
For me the 1955, 1956, 2005 $1 are not mules.
|
|
Valued Member
Australia
372 Posts |
Sorry had to cut it short in the previous answer, was cooking the barbie tonite.  Quote:
My stance on varieties is, they are just that, varieties, as were all planned outcomes IMO.
The problem with the mule definition has always been, for me, in the interpretation of the definition, the" not intended" wording. Not intended to be paired together. I believe it was meant for coins of different denominations and, or different countries as not intended to be paired together, eg the 1916 1/2 mule, the 2000 10c/$1, or the $200/$1 from the Perth Mint. All of these were mistakes in the pairing of the dies. Not intented, unintentional, a screwup, a pairing of dies not intended to be used together, a mule All of these fall into the NOT INTENDED to be paired together category. The Bahama/NZ 5c/2c, They were intentionally struck with different die combinations as a protest and sent off to NZ,from the London Mint. Another version of a mule definition, intentionally paired together with dies not intended to be paired together. The way I look at it now days is basically, if it doesn't fit the known mules definition of dies not supposed to be paired together, then it probably isn't. We need to keep the definition in context as what it was meant to mean, and not the interpretation of the wording as happen nowadays. Of course this is only my view and the way I handle the mule term now.  |
|
Valued Member
Australia
206 Posts |
Quote:
The obverses of the the 1955 and 1956 were intended to have her majesty on the obverse whether it had the Perth or Melbourne design.  And the penny finally drops, so to speak, thanks ever so much for that logical reply gnome. So is paramount on portrait/design change, within own country(there's my stumbling block gone), or intended or not by way of country of origin, or denomination based, makes perfect sense now. Puts this issue to bed for me now, so simple. I can now see where the frustration comes when known coin enthusiasts insist on calling the different 55 and 56 obverses mules. Quote:
Perhaps, and this is only speculation now, the RAM have changed to this policy, so if any further mistakes are made, it was intended to be like that Let's hope it is the case, would make life much easier, and may also encourage more experimentation with all our denominations.  edited "intended or not " Edited by farnbycoins
06/08/2008 06:25 am
|
|
Valued Member
Australia
372 Posts |
Just glad you made sense of my ramblings.. Of course there will always be the ones that don't agree. |
|
Pillar of the Community
Australia
2830 Posts |
G'day,
I think the big difficulty with the usual definition of "mule" arises when one considers the concept of "intention". As coin collectors, we deal with hard facts, observable facts.
Whose intention is it that determines the question:
the Mint-Master's ?
One engraver, out of several ?
To me, the varieties of 1955 penny are just varieties: they all have a correct-size QE2 on one side, and a kangaroo on the other, which is what was "intended".
Just an aside: Gnome - are you saying that there is a 2007 $1mor ? Haven't seen that one yet.
Peter
|
|
Formerly nancyc
Australia
5385 Posts |
My 2007 Mint Set has a MOR $1, so I'm guessing all sets probably have them.
life is a mystery to be lived not a problem to be solved
|
|
Pillar of the Community
Australia
2830 Posts |
G'day, thankyou Nancy,
I'm deducing from your answer, that the 2007mor is apparently a MSO coin.
And isn't that odd: you buy a mint set of 2007, and you get a coin that didn't circulate, the $1mor; but you don't get the coin that did circulate, the $1apec.
I checked the RAM circulation page: it hasn't been updated since 2006.
Enough of this off-topic discussion: I'll revitalize the 2007 circulation thread.
Peter in Darwin
|
|
Valued Member
Australia
372 Posts |
The 2007 may only be in the mint sets, my appologies for the misleading comments. I did pull a couple from the pokies awhile back and was under the assumption they were being circulated. I didn't actually check any references there, just going on what I had found.
|
| |
Replies: 26 / Views: 10,987 |
To participate in the forum you must log in or register.
Disclaimer: While a tremendous amount of effort goes into ensuring the accuracy of the information contained in this site, Coin Community assumes no liability for errors. Copyright 2005 - 2026 Coin Community Family- all rights reserved worldwide. Use of any images or content on this website without prior written permission of Coin Community or the original lender is strictly prohibited.
Contact Us | Advertise Here | Privacy Policy / Terms of Use
|
| Coin Community Forum |
© 2005 - 2026 Coin Community Forums |
| It took 0.39 seconds to rattle this change. |
 |
|
| |
| |
First Page
Posted 06/08/2008 12:47 am
