Peckris 2

Yes it was the crown apparently. There is an early bronze pattern for the JH (in Peck) where she is wearing a heavy tiara, but she favoured the small crown which was lighter for a long sitting. I once did a Photoshop mock up to show how Boehme's portrait would have looked without a crown:

£1. Even in Guernsey.

They could have done as with the Old Head, and introduced the bronze 2 years after gold and silver i.e. in 1889. I suspect that the JH was already deeply unpopular by then so they abandoned the idea? Also, I suppose, the last iteration of the bun head was already 'aged' compared to the YH silver so there was less urgency.

Ah yes, the unadopted bronze pattern - where did you see this picture?

How very retro of Dire Straits...

Oh, you can trust me...

Let's just hope that the buyer has enough common sense to realise that if it was the mule, it would by now be in 4 figures and rising.

To think.. Reaction was the home of Cream and The Who.

Easy mistake to make though - those early toothed obverses look quite like beaded ones.

He does know the value of coins though, and can be heard going around muttering "Preciousss"

Hi Dave (waves)

It's easy enough to do, using something like Excel - just have column headings for e.g. denomination, date, condition, variety, perhaps reign, date acquired, where from, price paid, and you can always add more column headings later. You could have a separate worksheet for pictures. To sort by any criterion, you'd just click that column heading, and Bob's your mum's brother. I don't know of any particular app (I created my own bespoke solution using a database manager) but post again in the relevant forum, e.g. Free For All and I'm sure someone will help.

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.