Peckris 2

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!

I haven't contacted the RM yet as 1) I can't write or send letters anymore (though I could send them an email?) and 2) I've made the rather lazy assumption that someone would have delved into this matter long ago ... though I'd be amazed and gratified to be the first! I'd been musing on the General Strike too - I wondered if perhaps collecting small change for newly unemployed or redundant strikers was one of the factors for a sudden need for pennies? A mint report for 1926 is the first thing I'd ask for if I did contact the RM though again, I'd be amazed that no-one had previously done so. Certainly my theory would allow for the production of the required number of reverse dies as they'd have to punch the date for that issue specially, but the obverse dies could well have been unused ones from 1922, and may not have lasted out the full run, hence the need to use a few 1927s to complete it. ~~~~~ On the subject of mules generally, I think it's clear (to me at least) that the ME wasn't intended to be paired with the old reverse, but circumstances dictated otherwise. It could be a grey area though Chard's site points out that there are mules of a modern Britannia issue, there being both types of muled pairings (like the beaded/toothed pennies) but many thousands of each, which does imply that though not intended, the Mint went ahead anyway and issued them.

"Bit of a mess"? A huge understatement! The first time I ever came across the use of the word "mule" (I remember that I had to laugh!) was in relation to the 1926ME penny. Since then I've seen it used many times, e.g. the beaded/toothed borders on 1860 bronze and the 1983 NEW PENCE 2p, and other instances too. I'm afraid I simply cannot remember or list the 1926 references, as I didn't ever think I would be called upon to cite them, as I have taken it as a given, and have seen it referred to as a mule probably 3 times or more? I think this (from Chards' site) is significant: 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. The critical words here are "this can be an intentional action". Obviously we can tell from 1925 halfpennies and 1926 farthings that the ME obverse was to be accompanied by a modified reverse - indeed, the 1925 halfpennies are of two types, and in each case the obverse and reverse are the appropriate pairing for the type. Add to that the 1927 pennies, and that makes a very strong case for an intended modified reverse. I've several times referred to my theory about the 1926 issue, so it's about time I said what it is! So: By the end of 1921, well over half a BILLION pennies had been minted in 5 years. Clearly the demand for pennies was greatly reduced by 1922 so a possibly larger intended mintage ended at only 16m. After that, there were so many pennies sloshing around that none were minted for 3 years. My theory is that this was intended to be 4 years, and the next major issue of pennies would be 1927 with ME and modified reverse. However - and this is the radical bit - there was a small but urgent demand (perhaps regional?) for a limited issue of pennies in 1926. The Mint already had its hands full changing over to the ME for silver AND designing a new set of silver reverses for 1927, so they hastily brought into use some leftover obverse dies from the 1922 issue and struck a little over 4m pennies. Nearing the end of this issue they ran out of dies, but knowing the 1927 obverse dies were ready for use, decided to press a few of them into service. As for reverses, they would have had to punch a 6 onto the 1922 matrix and presumably created enough dies from this to complete the issue. People are obviously free to accept or reject this theory, but if rejecting, the following questions are left to be resolved: With so many pennies in circulation, why was such a small issue of 4m minted after 3 years of nothing, yet with 60m due in 1927? Why would the ME obverse have been used for a very small proportion of what was in any case a small issue? Why was the old reverse used for the very small issue of 1926ME pennies when clearly the intent was to have a modified reverse for bronze? This is why I believe the 1926ME penny has been referred to as a mule (sorry, I don't have the references) - the action of pairing the new obverse with the old reverse was deliberate but not intended under normal circumstances; my theory brings in a set of circumstances that are not normal. It's just a great pity that we don't have the documentation to conform, deny, or otherwise explain the 1926 issue of pennies. (I'd be grateful if anyone decides to cite my theory elsewhere, they give me a credit for it.)

OMG. No offence meant, I honestly didn't know that (and the OP didn't mention it as part of their post.) Oh dear, what can I say, except that was only thing that leapt out at me. It is a brilliant resource (can I stop digging now?) I proffer two things. 1. An apology for undiplomatic language. 2. I hope you didn't mind me correcting you about the "mule" situation?

I tried to get in touch with its creator but there seems no way to do so - every icon on that blog takes me to MY Word Press account, not the creator of that one. There's no 'Contact us' (or 'me') spiel so I'm a bit stuck. However if you know them, perhaps you could pass the message on? (More diplomatically obviously than "appalling error"!)

You have to understand what a mule is. All ME bronze was intended to be introduced with a modified reverse. The 1925ME halfpennies were (the non-ME 1925 halfpennies used the old reverse); all 1926 farthings were ME and all had a modified reverse. My theory has it that the penny was not intended to be introduced until 1927, with both ME and modified reverse. However, along came the 1926 penny issue (and my theory about that is quite radical but makes sense) which muddied the waters. It's quite possible the small issue was intended to be completed with the old obverse, but then they ran out of dies - possibly left over from the unexpectedly reduced 1922 issue? - and as the 1927 obverse dies were already there, they decided to use them but possibly under the pressure of time and other factors, they weren't going to produce a special modified reverse for 1926 which was unplanned anyway. So their use of the ME along with the old reverse means the 1926ME is - AND ALWAYS HAS BEEN - referred to as a "mule". The unique D+d 1926 is what the 1927 penny looked like, and that's when (according to my theory) it was planned to be introduced. The definition of mule has absolutely nothing to do with rarity.

Great record ... but come on! it was quite successful.

If you avoid the iPad Pro series (she doesn't need that!), you can get a very capable iPad that's up to date, fast, but without all the bells and whistles of the Pro series. The best thing about it? It's around half the price or less of the Pro series. It's on sale here: https://www.tobydeals.co.uk/en_GB/product/apple-ipad-9-7-2018-32gb-wifi-silver-2.html?gclid=CjwKCAjwh9_bBRA_EiwApObaOP_agx1yA2KYFjiimPRwyF9wVDsynHRK_E25Hf6vTCfY3IARzORv-hoCgWcQAvD_BwE for about £50 less than the full price (though I have no idea what that seller is like). That's the 32GB model which ought to be enough for your mum? My mum got sucked into a "Breezie" via Age UK but that's a Samsung and it's been fine for her.

I think it must have been corrected since you posted? I see only 4+C for 1927? Yes, all reverses from 1927 onwards use the Gouby D reverse. There is an appalling error in that page you linked to - the 1926 D+d (Probably Unique) pattern is described as a mule. NO!!! That's how the 1926ME should have been struck - it's the currency D+b 1926ME that is the mule!

Wow, you never heard that before? My favourite Shadows hit!

Fine for this forum then!

Very underrated , The Alan Parson Project. "Eye In The Sky" is the album to have though.

If you're only interested in the money, then they're not worth anything much. However, if you're interested in coins and varieties, there are at least 3 different varieties of the 10p and 5p in the sets, but I don't know about relative rarity of these.

The short answer is that die issues are very localised and will be seen in the same particular place(s) on many top grade examples. Wear tends to be more generalised, starting from the highest points of the design and spreading downwards. I'm not sure what you mean by reflections in relation to wear?

Although I'm too disabled to use it now, my Ion amplifier - though solid state - was designed to give a similar reproduction to valve amplifiers.

Then you should be very happy - the sole bidder is at $449 A$ (or does your $600 not include the $200 refund?)