Peckris 2

Yes, that's right. The auctioneer would open - if he had a bid on the books - at the reserve or estimate. Then if there were bids in the room, the auctioneer would raise (often by pointing at his book) with the next highest bid. If the room cleared what was on the book he would say something like "I'm out" and point to the overbidder.

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.

Fur muff...? Oh I see. There's a nice kinky boot on the reverse.

https://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/1911-KING-GEORGE-V-ONE-PENNY-1d-COIN-/283083061180 "Rare coin", a USED 1911 1d? You're right, that's a deceptive listing even though all is made clear in the description.

Anyone who can confidently differentiate between GEF and AUnc should be wearing a red cape and dating Lois Lane.

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

There's only one way to follow that...

I'd concur with Nick - the reflections suggest full lustre? The slightly flat top lion could be die wear.

"Your perfume's smelling sweeter, since when I saw you down on the dance floor..."

Now we're really getting into murky waters! Weren't some tokens (i.e. what we would call 'trade tokens') actually produced specifically for collectors or as pieces not meant to be used for trade? Those could also be called Fantasy pieces.

Good point ... but didn't Taylor do some pattern restrikes that were mules in the sense that he paired obverse and reverse dies had never before been paired?

Couldn't the differences be merely down to wear in one die not present in the other? I don't personally see any differences that couldn't be explained that way.

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.

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

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!

Assuming the coin is kosher I'd say around EF.

Go for it!

Just the modelling I suppose - the design looks more "3D" than those coins actually are (quite flat designs). But it's probably just the photography.

To be serious for a moment - the whole subject of what exactly constitutes a mule and the grey areas surrounding this, are very interesting and have opened up good discussions. I for one would be happy to continue, while those who are less interested can always drop out of the discussion (it's not compulsory to read every single topic!!!)

Maybe it's just the way it was photographed (flash?) but something bothers me a bit about those pictures.

Interestingly, here's a topic here on Predecimal from 2013 where someone called Peckris (who he? ) questions whether the 1926ME should be referred to as a "mule"! The rest of you are more consistent and say it shouldn't ... http://www.predecimal.com/forum/topic/7920-is-the-1926me-penny-a-mule/

Agreed. Unless the 1897 was an experiment left unfulfilled until 1902?

I was talking about the unique 1926ME paired with the 1927 reverse, what were you referring to? That one CANNOT be called a mule as it obvious that it was the intended design as we see the following year with the 1927. No-one (at present) knows when the unique variant was struck, i.e. whether before, during or after ME dies were used for the end of the 1926 penny run, but by any definition of the term 'mule', it isn't. I was theorising, that's true, but I felt it was the best explanation (so far) for the several questions posed by the mere existence of the 1926 penny. As for experimental dies, are there any obverse dies that weren't in fact used for currency runs? Even the short lived 'recessed ear' of 1915 and 1916 was used on several million pennies (though it would be fascinating to know why that was abandoned, as that particular experiment resulted in fully struck up Britannia reverses which the normal obverse did not). The only experimental die I know of for sure, is the 1922 so-called "reverse of 1927" which only exists for a few specimens and was never used again. Yes, "pattern" seems more appropriate than "mule". We'll have to leave the normal 1926ME as a "grey area" and agree to differ! Though I will say that 1902 HT and LT is less of a controversy as that design changed partway through the run, and clearly 1902 LT was the first design as per 1895-1901, which then got changed to HT as per 1902-1926 for reasons we may never know, i.e. neither 1902 is a mule. My main case for the 1926ME is that (theoretically) the ME dies were grabbed to finish the run but they had enough reverses to do the job. In other words, the pairing was "deliberate" but not "intended" by which I mean that if normal circumstances prevailed that particular pairing would not have been used.

I think that's what I was saying? However, I'm not sure I understand what you mean by 'experimental' - neither the 1926 reverse nor both the obverse dies used, were experimental, all being used for other currency date runs. Yes, I do understand that the banks triggered demand for coinage, but the factors around the General Strike might have precipitated this as you go on to say. The localised shortages you theorise was exactly what I meant earlier when I used the word 'regional' - what I meant was what you're saying, that some parts of the country (e.g. the industrial North) might have experienced a shortage not felt in the more prosperous South. ~~~~~ One thing I should add about mules: even if the currency 1926ME is something of a grey area on this subject (depending on how you interpret 'intentional'), the possibly unique 1926ME penny with the actual reverse of 1927 cannot be considered in any way to be a mule. It is the currency 1927 penny in all but date, and therefore comprised the intentional design of the RM. Indeed, the combination of ME (albeit shrunk from 1928) with that reverse persisted until the end of the reign. I'd agree that - in the circumstances - you could describe the unique 1926ME as a pattern, but not a mule.

Could have been worse, I suppose. And MAYBE $150 will prove worthwhile in the long run for the experience gained? We've all been there!