Re: 1860 Mule Farthing

[Peter 615]

Is the super bowl tenpin or carpet?

[RLC35 288]

I think it is mostly hype, to be honest!

Halftime: Indy 16, Chicago 14

[Colin G. 147]

When I originally e-mailed the seller, I did say that it appeared that a single rock was present, and that if 3 rocks existed to the left of the lighthouse it would confirm this to be an original, and I was interested in the item. Because I never had a response from the seller after the e-mail, I decided to make the post to the forum to try and give people my opinion.

I provided the seller with links to 2 separate websites with which to compare the coin. From the images I saw I still currently stand by my opinion although from the images it was by no means 100% clear. and if the coin does turn out to be a mule, Gary you got a bargain!!

I await the verdict with anticipation!!

[scottishmoney 29]

All I will weigh in on this, is that the image is small. If I were going to sell such a thing, and hopefully if the seller looks at this, I would have much larger images.

Selling point for the coin, for those in the know, is that it is in an original green PCGS holder, these date from the days when PCGS was much stricter at grading coins than they are these days, so coins in the older green label holders are a bit more desired here. My advise to the buyer - keep in the original holder, it is a bit more desirable.

[Peter 615]

At Coinpeople I've noted that people want to break out slabs so they can get a coin upgraded.

I find this whole subject albeit financially rewarding JUST NOT BRITISH.

It smacks of complete hype....My MS63 is better than yours etc.

If you can't grade,appreciate and value a coin you are no collector.

[Rob 3,152]

At Coinpeople I've noted that people want to break out slabs so they can get a coin upgraded.

I find this whole subject albeit financially rewarding JUST NOT BRITISH.

It smacks of complete hype....My MS63 is better than yours etc.

If you can't grade,appreciate and value a coin you are no collector.

I broke a coin out today. MS63 not, courtesy of ANACS. Still, at least I only paid EF money for an EF+ coin albeit a fairly rare variety. I will not be resubmitting it in case it gets a downgrade.

[Bronze & Copper Collector 412]

The coin has been shipped to me today.... I should receive it towards the end of the week....

I'll let you know the result once I receive the coin......

[Bronze & Copper Collector 412]

Hello Everyone....

The coin in question arrived today... VERY FAST SHIPPING.....

I believe it to be the MULE FARTHING...

It is virtually impossible to get a decent angle to take a photograph, but I did scan it at 2400 DPI....

I posted the image on a websote and have links to it here...

REVERSE

OBVERSE

The images are LARGE in size, but if you study the reverse, you CAN see the beads of the border very clearly at certain points......

I'd like to hear comments from the forum regarding the coin though....

[Bronze & Copper Collector 412]

I should also add that the color is MUCH nicer in reality.. the scanner does NOT do it justice... Lots of red... not dull as scanned.....

[Guest Guest]

Gary,

It is definitely still my opinion that the coin attribution is incorrect. If you look at the Reverse of my Beaded Border farthing, you will clearly see the three rocks (that almost look like people) and the separate beads. The rocks are always the clearest way of identifying the type. I would contact the seller and explain. I would be interested to see what other users of the forum think.

[Colin G. 147]

Gary,

It is definitely still my opinion that the coin attribution is incorrect. If you look at the Reverse of my Beaded Border farthing, you will clearly see the three rocks (that almost look like people) and the separate beads. The rocks are always the clearest way of identifying the type. I would contact the seller and explain. I would be interested to see what other users of the forum think.

Sorry forgot to log in!!! The previous post was me!!

[Rob 3,152]

My initial reaction was it is a beaded border irrespective of the absence of the 3 rocks, but looking again it could be a mixture of beads and teeth although the picture isn't very clear. Ideally it wouldn't be in a slab, but I can see why it must remain in one. Certainly the beads are closer to the rim than on the pieces with the 3 rocks, but some are clearly separated from the rim even given the image quality. I think the reverse was intended to be a beaded border as all the visible dots on the right side are individual circles rather than short teeth although it is unclear at the bottom and left side.

How about an old die repaired. If the edge of the die was getting ragged, how about reducing the diameter? (This is what I discovered Taylor had done when making the 1807 proof halfpenny die) This would give you a thicker rim than usual and the gap between rim and beads would be reduced depending on how much it was turned down.

Don't know if this is important but there are minute lumps on my TB 1860 corresponding to the position of the rock tips found on the BB

How about a different variety of beaded border reverse for the farthing? After all, it took about 140 years to realise there are 2 significantly different BB halfpenny reverses.

[Bronze & Copper Collector 412]

Here is an email that I just sent to the seller regarding the coin....

HI Mark,,

As per our conversation,, I am attaching the 2400 DPI scans of the coin, as well as images of my current specimen of the mule, along with the images of a toothed and beaded border reverses that I had sent to you last week.....

As I told you, although there are areas of the border that look like beads, there are also areas that look like teeth, and the slab itself is preventing closer examination....

Anyway, these are the prinicipal points of doubt (and there may be more)...

1: The rock formation to the left of the lighthouse is as on the toothed border, not as on the beaded border....

2: The Beads (?) are closer to the rim than on beaded border, very much like a toothed border.... touching in some areas, indicative od a toothed border........

3: The Beads (?) seem a trifle thicker that beads, more like teeth......

4: The 0 in 1860 is touching the linear circle, which it does not do in any known specimen of the mule.....

Just from examining these points, I am very hesitant to absolutely conclude that this is a mule, although I find it somewhat difficult to believe that PCGS would get something as simple as this attribution incorrect.... but that may be exactly what happened.... And the only way to be absolutely sure is to crack it out of the slab, which I don't want to do at this point, especially if it has been mis-attributed and we need to get PCGS involved....

Regards,

Gary

[Colin G. 147]

Rob,

Peck decribed the reverse of the 1860 BB by the distinctive rocks to the left of the lighthouse, as did the late great Colin Cooke. Every Mule I have ever seen has had the three rocks present and by the scarcity of the variety I would not consider it feasible that there is the possibility of 2 different mule varieties one of which has never been seen before.

The beaded border style is surrisingly different in that all of the beads are individual and placed on a flat area, whereas the toothed edge may have some teeth that are separated but is not consistent on every tooth. The 0 in 1860 is another area where the variety can be compared, the 1860 Beaded reverse has a gap between the 0 and the linear circle and a marginally smaller 0.

You may be correct in that there could be a type of Beaded Border farthing with a single rock, but would you realistically gamble £400 on the possibility when every specialist source/reference book states otherwise.

Believe me when I say there is nothing I would have liked more than to say to Gary that the piece appeared correct, and I get no pleasure from saying otherwise, but from a collector to a fellow collector I have to give my honest opinion, and would appreciate people doing the same with me in similar circumstances.

[Bronze & Copper Collector 412]

I know that there is also an unrecorded mule variety with obverse 3, but this is on obverse 2, so speculation on the matter of that die combination is moot....

[Colin G. 147]

"Just from examining these points, I am very hesitant to absolutely conclude that this is a mule, although I find it somewhat difficult to believe that PCGS would get something as simple as this attribution incorrect.... but that may be exactly what happened.... "

Gary please do not think I am a merchant of doom or have anything personal against grading companies, but I remember this earlier thread on this forum

N over E 1844 Half Farthing

This was another slabbed coin that was definitely incorrectly attributed, and I think this is one of the clearest error overdates there is, so they are certainly capable of making the mistake. It is also interesting that Spink currently have an 1844 half farthing for sale on their site and have made the same mistake!!

I think the case you are stating is correct, and as you say the slab itself may be distorting the image around the edge of the coin. You could always e-mail Colin Cooke's and see what there opinion is.

[Gary D 76]

I know that there is also an unrecorded mule variety with obverse 3, but this is on obverse 2, so speculation on the matter of that die combination is moot....

Now, I guessed that it was an Odv 3 from the 5 berries, 2 has 4 and the wavy hair over the ear.

Edited February 7, 2007 by Gary D

[Colin G. 147]

I know that there is also an unrecorded mule variety with obverse 3, but this is on obverse 2, so speculation on the matter of that die combination is moot....

Now, I guessed that it was an Odv 3 from the 5 berries, 2 has 4 and the wavy hair over the ear.

I agree it is an Obverse 3, and I am also intrigued what does moot mean?

I have provided a link to an FAQ page on my site which details the different obverses and the images are all stacked, so it makes comparison easy.

Different Obverses

[Rob 3,152]

Rob,

Peck decribed the reverse of the 1860 BB by the distinctive rocks to the left of the lighthouse, as did the late great Colin Cooke. Every Mule I have ever seen has had the three rocks present and by the scarcity of the variety I would not consider it feasible that there is the possibility of 2 different mule varieties one of which has never been seen before.

The beaded border style is surrisingly different in that all of the beads are individual and placed on a flat area, whereas the toothed edge may have some teeth that are separated but is not consistent on every tooth. The 0 in 1860 is another area where the variety can be compared, the 1860 Beaded reverse has a gap between the 0 and the linear circle and a marginally smaller 0.

You may be correct in that there could be a type of Beaded Border farthing with a single rock, but would you realistically gamble £400 on the possibility when every specialist source/reference book states otherwise.

Believe me when I say there is nothing I would have liked more than to say to Gary that the piece appeared correct, and I get no pleasure from saying otherwise, but from a collector to a fellow collector I have to give my honest opinion, and would appreciate people doing the same with me in similar circumstances.

Peck also mentioned that the rocks could be struck up very weakly. My TB farthing has the tips of the rocks to the left of the lighthouse as found on the BB rev. showing and it looks as if the large rock was cut over these which were weak in order to reinforce the design. There are clear remnants of the two highest rocks sticking above the large rock. Given that I have a reverse showing both features, there is nothing to say that the large rock didn't appear until the beaded border dies were safely under lock and key as we are looking at a short period of time in 1860 when the transition was made. I think it is perfectly feasible that you could find a piece that had been touched up. If I thought everything had been found that there was to find, I'd give up and do something else.

Consider the BB 1860 1/2d. It took well over 100 years to realise that there are two reverses. One is short hair/wide date and the other is long hair/narrow date. In the middle of December, Chingford sent me a picture he had for appraisal comparing 2 1860 reverses. The first thing that struck me was the combination of short hair/narrow date which I hadn't seen before. There is always something new to find.

Conventional wisdom and statements of fact reflect the conclusions that have been drawn in the past, not what remains to be discovered, so sometimes it is necessary to think outside the box whoever made the statement. Considering the above paragraph and having disproved Peck's statement that a ball on the trident shaft of 1806 halfpennies is an infallible way of identifying proofs, I am more than willing to accept the possibility of an unrecorded reverse design. And would I spend £400 going against conventional wisdom? Yes if I believed I were right when all things were considered.

[RLC35 288]

From the larger pictures, it does appear that some of the Beads (the ones you can see clearly) are really beads, but you would have to be a lot closer to the coin than the picture, to be sure. Even then you may have to remove it from its case. I cannot see the detail to the left of the lighthouse to be able to tell anything about the number of rocks that are to the left. It also appears the the 0 in 1860 touches the ring, whcih is not usually the case.

Freeman mentions the fact that the 1860 Mule penny has two differant reverses, as well may be the farthing, as the book refers you back to the penny with regard to the reverse.

The main differance in the two penny reverse's is that on one, the beads are clearly defined, and on the other (Rev D) there are occassionally beads with "legs" due to reverse die deterioration.

To be sure on this coin you would have to have it in front of you, and maybe even out of the case.

Bob C.

[Colin G. 147]

Rob,

Peck decribed the reverse of the 1860 BB by the distinctive rocks to the left of the lighthouse, as did the late great Colin Cooke. Every Mule I have ever seen has had the three rocks present and by the scarcity of the variety I would not consider it feasible that there is the possibility of 2 different mule varieties one of which has never been seen before.

The beaded border style is surrisingly different in that all of the beads are individual and placed on a flat area, whereas the toothed edge may have some teeth that are separated but is not consistent on every tooth. The 0 in 1860 is another area where the variety can be compared, the 1860 Beaded reverse has a gap between the 0 and the linear circle and a marginally smaller 0.

You may be correct in that there could be a type of Beaded Border farthing with a single rock, but would you realistically gamble £400 on the possibility when every specialist source/reference book states otherwise.

Believe me when I say there is nothing I would have liked more than to say to Gary that the piece appeared correct, and I get no pleasure from saying otherwise, but from a collector to a fellow collector I have to give my honest opinion, and would appreciate people doing the same with me in similar circumstances.

Peck also mentioned that the rocks could be struck up very weakly. My TB farthing has the tips of the rocks to the left of the lighthouse as found on the BB rev. showing and it looks as if the large rock was cut over these which were weak in order to reinforce the design. There are clear remnants of the two highest rocks sticking above the large rock. Given that I have a reverse showing both features, there is nothing to say that the large rock didn't appear until the beaded border dies were safely under lock and key as we are looking at a short period of time in 1860 when the transition was made. I think it is perfectly feasible that you could find a piece that had been touched up. If I thought everything had been found that there was to find, I'd give up and do something else.

Consider the BB 1860 1/2d. It took well over 100 years to realise that there are two reverses. One is short hair/wide date and the other is long hair/narrow date. In the middle of December, Chingford sent me a picture he had for appraisal comparing 2 1860 reverses. The first thing that struck me was the combination of short hair/narrow date which I hadn't seen before. There is always something new to find.

Conventional wisdom and statements of fact reflect the conclusions that have been drawn in the past, not what remains to be discovered, so sometimes it is necessary to think outside the box whoever made the statement. Considering the above paragraph and having disproved Peck's statement that a ball on the trident shaft of 1806 halfpennies is an infallible way of identifying proofs, I am more than willing to accept the possibility of an unrecorded reverse design. And would I spend £400 going against conventional wisdom? Yes if I believed I were right when all things were considered.

Rob,

I also know from past experience that facts stated in Peck and Freeman are not always correct and are as you say a snapshot of varieties known at that moment in time. I also agree that there are a multitude of varieties that have not yet been identified, and as you say I would also call it a day if this were the case.

However the fact still remains that you need solid eveidence of a variety before you can verify it to exist and just because a coin does show certain teeth to be beaded in shape I would not consider it to be identified as a mule. If this were the case there would be a multitude of mules out there, because I have seen many TB farthings that have had that feature. This is the case with many toothed border farthings, and it is only when they start to wear around the rim, that the clear "toothed edge" appears. If you put Gary's images side by side, the borders are very similar on both sides, with the exception of the top left of the obverse which displays this rim wear.

As you say without the coin in hand and possibly out of the slab, individually we will never know.

Would you gamble "Yes if I believed I were right when all things were considered", and so would I, but when all things are considered on this particular coin I would not take that gamble, and my advice to others would be the same.

[Bronze & Copper Collector 412]

Latest Update....

I have been in conversation with both the seller and the owner of the coin, and it has been shipped back to him today..... Amongst the reasons given for my doubt were the following.....

1: The rock formation to the left of the lighthouse is as on the toothed border, not as on the beaded border....

2: The Beads (?) are closer to the rim than on beaded border, very much like a toothed border.... touching in some areas, indicative od a toothed border........

3: The Beads (?) seem a trifle thicker that beads, more like teeth......

4: The 0 in 1860 is touching the linear circle, which it does not do in any known specimen of the mule.....

5: It appears to be an obverse 3, not am obverse 2....

The owner will do further investigation and follow-up studies on the coin, and will keep us informed of the progress and any ultimate determination.....

[Bronze & Copper Collector 412]

The coin in question has been returned.... and a full refund issued....

We will be informed of future developments in the investigation of what this actually is....

I'd like to thank everyone for their input and commend the seller for his integrity and forthrightness in this transaction.......

[Colin G. 147]

The coin in question has been returned.... and a full refund issued....

We will be informed of future developments in the investigation of what this actually is....

I'd like to thank everyone for their input and commend the seller for his integrity and forthrightness in this transaction.......

Yes, the seller definitely gets a pat on the back for integrity in that transaction

[Bronze & Copper Collector 412]

Yes...

The son definitely follows in his father's footsteps.... He was a highly respected coin dealer when he was in business