Rob

I can't see anything in the illustrations to resemble a JH that is dated correctly. Plenty of veiled head things dated 1894 though. The diademed bust by Minton is paired with 1862/5/70 reverses, though if my conversation a few months ago with Graham Dyer applies, then they could have been made at any time, and in any case appear not to have been made before 1870. There is a pattern sovereign dated 1883 in the Royal Mint Collection (Hocking 2198) which has a diadem and veil, illustrated in W&R, no. 327. The dozen known 1884 pattern halfcrowns by Boehm all had a JH style crown, so the closest datewise to the JH issue we have without crown is the 1888 pattern (5/-)crown with the bust shown here, which was paired with a regular 1888 G&D reverse.

It might be a TB/BB mule if you send it to PCGS. Those of us a bit longer in the tooth on this forum will remember they have past form with this attribution.

I'm thinking about it

Hello Stranger. Doesn't look silver to me, more plated. Should have taken the £100 there and then.

Was there an auctioneer? There might have been someone overseeing the auction, but I'm not convinced there was anybody on the rostrum because all the speech was computer generated.

Realised $75069

Thanks. It would help if they put them in chronological order!.

I couldn't find the sale. When I go to Heritage Auctions, the only current sale I get is one of Americana & Political - so won't be bidding. Heritage stopped sending me catalogues after I didn't buy anything in consecutive sales a few years back. I find their site impossible to navigate, so don't bid.

It isn't either of the Adams or Norweb pieces.

Don't do it. In a week's time you'll be changing direction.

I think we are all agreed regarding definition 4 posted by BCC - '4. a coin with the obverse and reverse of designs not originally intended to be used together.' The difficulty seems to lie with the interpretation of intent.

A decent EF that looks quite attractive IMO. The wear is only minimal. A few really small contact marks won't be a problem - it isn't pretending to be mint state. Any toning can vary wildly as you have had no control over where the coin has been for the past 200 odd years. You don't know where it was stored and under what conditions, what surfaces it was contacting in that period, the humidity levels, the atmospheric conditions........... It may have been in contact with a rusted object, but you would need to see it in hand to be certain. A quick perusal of the silver and copper threads will show you that toning can take on an infinite range of colours.

I didn't explain myself very well, or even at all, there. I was talking about cases where a currency die had been superseded but then reinstated, such as the Anne third bust which was replaced after 1709 by the fourth bust, introduced the following year. However, the reappearance of the third bust on a 1711 shilling was clearly anachronistic, and quite surprising given the output of 1711 shillings. Patterns are a free for all when it comes to die combinations, with many being unique or nearly so and in my view difficult to view as something that shouldn't have happened, or certainly not in advance of their intended normal use. You are of course quite correct in treating the Jersey obverse penny mule as such because this one is just plain wrong. It may however have its roots in a trial as I discussed with Graham Dyer three or four months ago and posted on this forum.

Many patterns could be described as fantasy pieces, with designs that tend to be more intricate with finer detail, which is not helpful when it comes to striking a 100K coins from a die pair. Currency coinage production requires a simplified design that won't clog up. It's much easier to let sleeping dogs lie and say each to their own, coz you sure as hell won't come to any agreement.

Call them what you will. As a private company, everything produced by Boulton & Watt or Taylor with the exception of the commissioned output could be described thus.

That's what I think and is why the 1927 is uniformly sharper. The 1930 has much weaker detail e.g. the drapery folds and the border teeth.

Yes, but they were never from die pairs that had both circulated. Taylor did a few restrikes using one current die, e.g the 1807 proof halfpenny reverse, but the other one of the pair was modified to provide a 'variety'. In the case of the 1807 proof 1/2d obverse die it was the broken jewel 1806 1/2d die last used for the KH35 bronzed proof halfpenny P1365. Other types are known to be modified.

Nothing to get excited about. Value is still 20p.

Everything about the 1927 is crisper.

Do the TPGs have a facility for patterns? All those I have seen are given PR prefixes whether pattern or proof.

No by definition, because a pattern is an unadopted design and can be a combination of any dies. A mule can only be produced from an obsolete and therefore superseded die (with the caveat of how ongoing changeovers are treated) in combination with a current die or dies that are completely unrelated, but somehow were paired. Crucially the dies already have to be or have been current.

You didn't read it in context - the production run was intentional. 'Clearly a production run was intentional, even if an obsolete die was used. You do not inadvertently strike 100,000 coins.' In the case of the 20p, it was pass as an example of a transitional type. The mule attribution comes from the general agreement that they wouldn't strike, or didn't intend to strike an undated coin. I suspect the change of dated side was simply overlooked.

You first need to define the term mule. A better definition might be to consider normal as per the proclamation in force at any particular time, with any deviation from this defined as a mule. Yes if one of the dies used was normally paired with one from an obsolete die pairing. Clearly a production run was intentional, even if an obsolete die was used. You do not inadvertently strike 100,000 coins. The intent is to produce the coins, irrespective of the die pair used - but it is still a mule. Nobody disputes the undated 20p as a mule. A one-off strike from a normally unconnected die pair is not contentious. Where you have a short and fairly seamless overlap between design changes which are closely related in style, it is difficult to attribute these as mules. Dies are used until they become too worn or break, at which point the offending die is replaced and production continues. I suspect this to be the case in 1926 with the waters being muddied on account of the relatively low mintage for the year. I suspect in the case of designs which closely resemble the current norm, the mint actually couldn't give a damn. One mustn't underestimate the desire for collectors to have something special, as witnessed by the excessive number of 'rare errors' advertised. A mule will satisfy this need for a premium coin.

Different engraver?

Never mind. A valiant attempt to reach 1000 posts.