Re: 1860 Mule Farthing

[Bronze & Copper Collector 417]

Update on the coin in question:

I received a phone call from the owner of the coin today.... They received the coin back from PCGS after having resubmitting it for reevaluation of the attribution.

PCGS CONFIRMED their original attribution of this coin and maintains that this coin IS a TB/BB MULE.

Although many users of this forum disagree with this attribution, including myself, I am the only one who has actually viewed the coin and is most qualified to speak against it.

It is the owners position that he took the necessary steps to correct a possible error on PCGS's part, and was very gracious in accepting the criticism heaped upon the coin. I can not and do not disagree with this. I therefore understand and accept the owners request that, when the coin is relisted at auction, since he did take the necessary corrective action, that NO more disparaging comments be made in OPEN forum regarding this coin. Also that any such acts of posting in an OPEN forum and belittling the coin will be treated as slanderous statements and will be reported to the proper authorities....

At this point he feels that any comments made against the coin should be directed toward PCGS, who at this juncture, have now examined the coin twice and arrived at the same conclusion..

As for myself, I am just posting this to keep the forum members abreast of the latest news in this saga. I did purchase the coin and return it as I was not convinced of the attribution, am content that the seller more than extended himself in sending it back to PCGS, and believe that the onus is now upon PCGS to make things right if it should ultimately prove that we were correct.

[josie 8]

Good cycle of conversation mostly balance in all sides.

Wonder how they the company arrived to that conclusion?

Hope they the company will give light to it.

[Colin G. 147]

Thanks for the update, and I would agree that the seller has now done all they can, and should be commended for their integrity!!

[Teg 0]

Thanks for the update, and I would agree that the seller has now done all they can, and should be commended for their integrity!!

I see what you mean Colin - but can't agree.

If he is threatening people (us) with legal proceedings for slander (I guess he means libel), then

that is very out of order.

I have a VF-ish mule, and traded a VG- F one to Colin Cooke. All the same die as his collection coin.

So if the seller wants to describe his coin as "Mule TB/RB, from previously unknown dies - unlike any specimen authenticated from UK experts - however as the British Farthing experts at PCGS have slabbed it, it must be real" then I have no problem. Libel is only libel if untrue.

Back to the numismatics, all beaded border 1860s that I can see have 130 rev border beads. As do the Mules. The toothed borders seem to have slightly more - they are a pain to count, any observations?

Teg

[Bronze & Copper Collector 417]

[Teg 0]

Back to the numismatics, all beaded border 1860s that I can see have 130 rev border beads. As do the Mules. The toothed borders seem to have slightly more - they are a pain to count, any observations?

Teg

[Colin G. 147]

Teg,

I can appreciate your comments regarding the owner, and maybe their appeal could have been worded a bit less aggressive, but I can also see their concerns. They are going to be selling a coin which they have had double checked by the "experts" and negative comments in relation to the coin could affect the sale price. It is not their fault that there are differing opinions on this coin, and at least they reacted to informed opinions the last time the item was put up for sale and sought confirmation before attempting to resell.

At the end of the day the issue will be passed to the new owner, but so will the potential for recourse against the grading company.

I thought I needed a better social life scanning every farthing that passes through my hands , but I have to admit, I have not yet started counting border beads

That will give me something to do on Sunday afternoon

[RLC35 289]

Teq,

Thanks for the pic of your Mule. I had never heard of counting the beads, but I will now do that also. I have a VF (cleaned) Mule, not quite as sharp as yours, I purchased it from Michael Freeman. This has been an interesting conversation on the Mule. Thanks to all.

Bob C.

[RLC35 289]

Teq,

You are right on the bead count...it is exactly 130! I have attached a pic of my Mule, it is not as nice as yours.

Bob C.

[Teg 0]

Hi Bob C.

A rare coin in any grade. The bead counting is my 'insurance policy' it may prove ambiguous.

This mule does seem to have both obverses - that I did not expect. (see Colin Cooke site)

As our host is obviously a big bovine fan - I offer the following rural analogy.

Before crossing a field of cows all of the big cows look like BULLS - is it isn't it etc. When you see a real two ton BULL there is never any doubt.

The beaded border was changed because the die life was so short. Interestingly most of the BB farthings look better than the toothed borders. Better quality control?

Teg

[CoinKing 0]

Gentlemen and Gentleladies,

After having taken a close look at all of the images of the 1860 Farthings on Colin Goode’s website, the images from Gary Schindler, and from having personally examined the coin PCGS certified as a Toothed Border/Beaded Border mule, here are some observations.

The reverse of the PCGS-graded mule appears to be a different die from either Reverse 1 or Reverse 2 displayed by Goode. The inner circle on the PCGS coin appears to have been crudely drawn above the H, I, and G of FARTHING. On the PCGS coin, the T of FARTHING is connected to the circle, but that might be explained by a late state of the die.

The border of the PCGS coin consists clearly of beads, some of which are fully rounded and clearly visible (especially from 4 to 5 o’clock), some of which merge with the outer edge. I have no argument that this is different from Die 1, but to call it anything other than “beaded†is to deny what your eyes are telling you. Further, a direct comparison between the obverse and reverse borders of the PCGS coin shows a distinct difference. The obverse border of the PCGS coin shows clear elongation of the “teeth†or “denticlesâ€, completely unlike that on the reverse.

I can’t tell with certainty, but it appears to me as though Reverse 2 might also be made up of beads. If that were true, there would be no such thing as a mule…they would all be Beaded Reverses.

Either way, the question becomes one of semantics and value.

You can have two mules, one of which is more desirable than the other. Figure out a way to designate the two (or however many), then let the marketplace decide the values. But, call them what they really are.

In the meantime, that’s what PCGS is going to do. We stand by our designation.

Ron Guth

President

Professional Coin Grading Service

www.pcgs.com

[josie 8]

WELCOME.

What is the highest grade mule 1860 farthing slab by PCGS and how many ?

[Teg 0]

Hi,

First a warm welcome to this forum. As a contributer to the 'Darkside' PCGS forum I know you have a genuine interest in 'World Coins'.

Your reasoned argument is also welcome. You have obviously spent time on a relatively small $ coin - to preserve your companies reputation. If I ever decide to slab my collection it would be with you.

However (you knew there was going to be a BUT) I think you are wrong to designate this coin as a TB, BB mule. Peck, Freeman, Colin Cooke (not Goode) have all described this type - a particular rev. die as very rare < 100 known. You are introducing another rev. die - quite common - that they would have seen many times, and giving it the same description. Beaded border means full beads all round. My toothed border 1860 has most of the same characteristics as the PCGS mule. Including the 5 o'clock beads.

If you stay with this stance you will be slabbing a LOT of 1860 TB/BB.

So if it is all semantics, why not call this TB / 5 o'clock beaded look border. Without the lighthouse rock and

bead count of a beaded border.

Just wrong to make people think they have a high value coin, even if us Brits need to re-appraise how we designate border types.

Again welcome to the forum - and thanks for posting.

Teg

[CoinKing 0]

WELCOME.

What is the highest grade mule 1860 farthing slab by PCGS and how many ?

PCGS has graded two examples so far: 1 in MS-63 RB and 1 in MS-64 RB

[CoinKing 0]

Hi,

First a warm welcome to this forum. As a contributer to the 'Darkside' PCGS forum I know you have a genuine interest in 'World Coins'.

Your reasoned argument is also welcome. You have obviously spent time on a relatively small $ coin - to preserve your companies reputation. If I ever decide to slab my collection it would be with you.

However (you knew there was going to be a BUT) I think you are wrong to designate this coin as a TB, BB mule. Peck, Freeman, Colin Cooke (not Goode) have all described this type - a particular rev. die as very rare < 100 known. You are introducing another rev. die - quite common - that they would have seen many times, and giving it the same description. Beaded border means full beads all round. My toothed border 1860 has most of the same characteristics as the PCGS mule. Including the 5 o'clock beads.

If you stay with this stance you will be slabbing a LOT of 1860 TB/BB.

So if it is all semantics, why not call this TB / 5 o'clock beaded look border. Without the lighthouse rock and

bead count of a beaded border.

Just wrong to make people think they have a high value coin, even if us Brits need to re-appraise how we designate border types.

Again welcome to the forum - and thanks for posting.

Teg

Hi Teq,

Thanks for the welcome.

IMO, the confusion was caused by Peck et al when they called a reverse with beads a "toothed" border, which it clearly is not.

Again, I totally agree that the die on the PCGS coin is different from Reverse 1. However, I cannot speak to relative rarity because I am not as well-versed as you on the known populations.

If there is general agreement to differentiate between the dies, PCGS is certainly willing to go along with any scheme that eliminates the confusion we have here. It could be as simple as enumerating the die combination (for example, Obv A/Rev 1 or Obv C/Rev 2)...a similar scheme is used on the 1916 20 Hellers of German East Africa (Tanzania).

By the way, the examples posted by you and Bob C. appear to be the result of a lapped die, which would explain why the beads are so tiny and why the rocks to the left of the lighthouse are so faint. Is the crack that connects the 6th bead (using your numbers) to Britannia's shield diagnostic for the die?

[josie 8]

Thanks CK for the reply.

The hunt for MS 65 or Proof is thier ?

[muygrandeoso 0]

Hi,

First a warm welcome to this forum. As a contributer to the 'Darkside' PCGS forum I know you have a genuine interest in 'World Coins'.

Your reasoned argument is also welcome. You have obviously spent time on a relatively small $ coin - to preserve your companies reputation. If I ever decide to slab my collection it would be with you.

However (you knew there was going to be a BUT) I think you are wrong to designate this coin as a TB, BB mule. Peck, Freeman, Colin Cooke (not Goode) have all described this type - a particular rev. die as very rare < 100 known. You are introducing another rev. die - quite common - that they would have seen many times, and giving it the same description. Beaded border means full beads all round. My toothed border 1860 has most of the same characteristics as the PCGS mule. Including the 5 o'clock beads.

If you stay with this stance you will be slabbing a LOT of 1860 TB/BB.

So if it is all semantics, why not call this TB / 5 o'clock beaded look border. Without the lighthouse rock and

bead count of a beaded border.

Just wrong to make people think they have a high value coin, even if us Brits need to re-appraise how we designate border types.

Again welcome to the forum - and thanks for posting.

Teg

Hi Teq,

Thanks for the welcome.

IMO, the confusion was caused by Peck et al when they called a reverse with beads a "toothed" border, which it clearly is not.

Again, I totally agree that the die on the PCGS coin is different from Reverse 1. However, I cannot speak to relative rarity because I am not as well-versed as you on the known populations.

If there is general agreement to differentiate between the dies, PCGS is certainly willing to go along with any scheme that eliminates the confusion we have here. It could be as simple as enumerating the die combination (for example, Obv A/Rev 1 or Obv C/Rev 2)...a similar scheme is used on the 1916 20 Hellers of German East Africa (Tanzania).

By the way, the examples posted by you and Bob C. appear to be the result of a lapped die, which would explain why the beads are so tiny and why the rocks to the left of the lighthouse are so faint. Is the crack that connects the 6th bead (using your numbers) to Britannia's shield diagnostic for the die?

Hello CoinKing,

I appreciate your willingness to discuss these matters but,

IMHO if PCGS fails to differentiate between broadly accepted varieties (Peck, Freeman, Gouby etc.) and varieties only recognized by PCGS, then the PCGS designation is somewhat de-valued. I realize that this approach has its limits due to the limits of the accepted reference materials, but it seems to me that collectors will be very reluctant to depend on the designations of a slabbing company if they do not have a clear understanding of what those designations mean.

Just my opinion,

Muygrandeoso

Edited May 18, 2007 by muygrandeoso

[RLC35 289]

It is nice hearing from the slabbing company that graded and slabbed the coin that started the inquirey. Thanks for comng on the Forum.

I hadn't noticed the die break on the 6th bead going to the shield, until you mentioned it, but I had noticed the slight die crack in the left field of the reverse that makes the tower look like it is being struck by lightning. Both my speciman, and TEQ's, have that slight crack in the field. Both also have the crack at the 6th bead.

Does the bead count on your slabbed speciman have 130 beads?

It would be interesting to see a pic of your speciman out of the slab, since th picture that was shown on the forum did not have a clear view of the border, and made it hard to determine its validity.

Thanks again for your input.

Bob C.

[CoinKing 0]

Dear Muygrandeoso,

My point is that the long-accepted designations are wrong if any reasonable person looks at a coin and says "Those are beads" or "Those are tooth-like denticles" yet the designation says otherwise. At the risk of sounding sarcastic, we don't have the room to put on our insert "Beaded border, but not the one that everyone pays a premium for, so we'll call it a Toothed Border."

PCGS appreciates and knows varieties...we recognize all varieties on all US coins from 1793-1838 plus all subsequent major varieties. If someone can come up with a standardized numbering scheme (as I proposed in an earlier post), PCGS will support it. That way, everyone will have a clear understanding that the Variety 1A Farthing of 1860 is the most desirable and valuable variety of the year.

[Colin G. 147]

Ron,

It is always encouraging to see personal representation especially from a large company like yourselves, and it really is a move to be commended. I can appreciate your comments about the "toothed/beaded" border designation, and the fact that it is not immediately clear, but the two different reverses that the major references class as toothed or beaded do have differences. When looking at a number of these farthings, it does become clearly apparent that a coin is either the toothed or beaded variety, even down to grades as low as fine.

Historically in literature this has always been defined by the 3 rocks to the left of the lighthouse instead of the large single rock that appears, although as we all know only too well, coins do come to light that differ from the "norm" and hence become a new variety. The fact that new varieties are identified regularly further compounds the fact that the "3 rocks" factor is not a 100% guarantee that a coin can be classed as a Beaded Border. I have no doubt that there could well be a beaded border reverse out there with a single rock waiting to be discovered.

I have provided an image comparing the beaded and toothed borders on several coins at various grades, and I think the difference is readily apparent, not only in the shape of the denticles/beads, which are consistent around the perimeter, but also when considering a section through the coin.

Comparison

Section

The problem is that if I was purchasing a BB/TB mule, I would want to see this feature to determine that my investment was not at risk, unless I was 100% certain that it was a new variety. I also expect that many people would feel the same. However many other investors may not be aware of such distinguishing features and would want to choose the slabbed option, safe in the knowledge that an expert has authenticated the variety.

As you say if there is a portion of the toothed border that has deteriorated to show beads then your description may well be accurate, but I would also suggest that it could be misleading to the buyer who may not be getting what they expect.

I am not stating that the coin in question does not show a mix of beads and teeth, because without the coin in hand it would be difficult to be certain, and the fact remains it may well be a new variety. However my personal opinion was that it did not match what "historically" has been defined as a BB/TB Mule, and should ideally therefore not be labelled as such to avoid confusion similar to that which has already occurred.

If the coin in question has mix of beaded and toothed on the reverse and toothed on the obverse, would it not be better labelled as a beaded & toothed obv/toothed rev mule, I can appreciate its a bit of a mouthful and could probably be better worded, but at least it is an accurate reflection of the coin in the holder.

Fixed Link!!

Comparison

[RLC35 289]

I counted the tooths(beads) on the reverse of the coin (picture) provided by Bronze and Copper, that he had obtained on ebay, and the count came to 136 teeth on the reverse of the coin. This is not consistant with the 130 beads on the normal beaded reverse, of the mule. It also has the teeth closer to the outer rim than the inner circle. The beads on the mule are closer to the inner circle. A couple of other things are... that it has the single rock, more like the toothed type reverse, and the zero (0) of the date touches the inner rim, which it does not on the mule.

I would think a differant designation would better clarify this coin, than to be classified as the classic mule of 1860. I would agree with Colin... that this would better identify the classification of this coin. I think it would also help clear any misunderstanding about this coin variety.

Bob C.

[CoinKing 0]

I counted the tooths(beads) on the reverse of the coin (picture) provided by Bronze and Copper, that he had obtained on ebay, and the count came to 136 teeth on the reverse of the coin. This is not consistant with the 130 beads on the normal beaded reverse, of the mule. It also has the teeth closer to the outer rim than the inner circle. The beads on the mule are closer to the inner circle. A couple of other things are... that it has the single rock, more like the toothed type reverse, and the zero (0) of the date touches the inner rim, which it does not on the mule.

I would think a differant designation would better clarify this coin, than to be classified as the classic mule of 1860. I would agree with Colin... that this would better identify the classification of this coin. I think it would also help clear any misunderstanding about this coin variety.

Bob C.

Hi Bob,

There is no dispute that these are different dies. 130 beads and 3 rocks identifies a specific die; 136 "things" and a single rock identify another specific; other dies may have more or fewer beads or teeth. The value of any die derives from its rarity.

The borders on both coins consist of beads. On the preferred variety, the beads are separated from the border. On the PCGS coin, some beads are separated, many touch the edge, and some are embedded in the edge. But they are not teeth, or denticles, or anything toothlike. The only reason to call them "teeth" is to protect the traditional variety.

In U.S. coins, we have many varieties that are similar, with one worth a significant premium over the others. A good example is the 1922 "Plain" Lincoln Cent, where we have varieties that show ghosts of the mintmark (very little collector value), others that show no mintmark whatsoever (good value), and one specific die variety that is the most desirable and valuable by far.

In fact, the parallels are important because the 1922 "Plain" Cent was struck from a worn die in which the mintmark filled with dirt. My observation of the traditional "Beaded" variety is that it was struck from lapped dies. The polishing of the die face reduced the size of the beads and separated them from the edges. This also accounts for the loss of the shallowest detail in and around Brtitannia.

To me, the traditional Toothed/Beaded designations are inappropriate. If the specific dies have been standardized (i.e. Obverse A, Reverse 1), then that's the way they should be designated to eliminate any confusion.

Best wishes,

Ron Guth

[RLC35 289]

Coin King,

The classic 1860 TB/BB has an extremely worn reverse die, and that is why they are all struck poorly, some woose than others. That is also why is is belived so few exist of the classic TB/BB. The reverse die was scrapped soon after only a few pieces were struck.

Peck puts the Rev A at excessively rare (EXR), the next lower class from unique. (which is one of a kind). Freeman places the rarity of the Rev A at R17, which is 16 to 50 pieces known. These reverses both are in combination with the Obverse 2 (toothed).

The toothed border reverse, with the look-a-like beads appearing from 4 through 5 o'clock are very common, and do not really belong in the class with the classic TB/BB. Many of these are advertised here in the USA as toothed/partial beaded border farthings. I recently received a list that had two of this type for sale. I have one myself, and it is definatley a "toothed" reverse. Additionally the eBay coin that started this inquirey was returned to the seller, by a respected Forum member "Bronze and Copper" as not a vaild TB/BB farthing. It would be nice to see this coin relabeled as TB/Partial BB reverse, so as to make a distinct variety on its own, and better serve its own identity.

It would be also a positive move to bring this controversy to the attention of Michael Freeman, who is probably the most knowledgable person on British coin types and varieties. that is just a thought, as I have not approached him on this.

Does anyone else want to weigh in on the subject?

Regards,

Bob C.

[josie 8]

I dont know but thier are many GB expert base in GB and US that a variety may be accepted by collectors because it is published in a specialized book (thanks to PREDECIMAL forum and CCGB among one) but for me thier is other variety listed in other book that need accrediation or attribution,on how the process work still a mystery to me.

Im thinking that thier is a process of steps from one book to another to one country to worldwide accreditation from general to specialized or vise versa,about the slab company especially in the US is for me somewhat a shortcut dont know because of the records they are holding and various sample of coin they examine or thier experience, regarding GB coins that a lot of question follow on how the company do it and I think they have a consultant and affiliates,GB coin expert base in US on who are them, I dont know who authenticate the GB coins when their is a variety is slab.

(This thread is much better for me for the company base in US are replying in the forum and other staff or person linked in the US mint are gathering info on various forum if my memory served me right unlike other mint official in the world can hardly seen thier shadow,what a job in those mint that they can gather public funds by means of reaching out to forum base and does not wish to or answer other things that readers ask.)

And when question arise like this one it is much better if GB expert dealers base in GB and US forward as a whole or one so that it will be a consensus for the betterment of identification, like as a comment in the past even GB coin collectors most of them dont like company.

If GB expert dealers as a whole says no and a certain company says yes (Im not saying the PCGS giants or other major company) who the collectors will believe or accept.

Or GB variety is surfacing in the mainstream and needs much more attention or exposure just a opinion.

[Bronze & Copper Collector 417]

I really did not want to weigh in anymore on this subject inasmuch as my purchasing and returning the coin speaks for itself.....

However, I think some of the focus is being lost, although Bob C. (RLC35) has made an attempt to place this subject back on track....

The question is, as I see it, "Is the coin an Mule (TB/BB) or not... As the Royal Mint used ONLY Round Beaded Border reverse or Toothed Beaded Border reverse, and at NO time ever used a PARTIALLY BEADED BORDER reverse, the question to be answered is which variety this is.... Creating a NEW name of a reverse to address a specific situation does NOT resolve this question. Calling a duck a swan, does not make it so.

In the interest of full disclosure, I believe there has been a recent discovery of a Mule (TB/BB) struck with an Obverse 3 die (instead of the documented Obverse 2), but with the same Reverse A... As the question regarding THIS coin involves the REVERSE, the subject is moot.

This coin needs to be examined without the slab, by someone who specializes in this subject, and whose expertise is uninmpeachable. (Michael Freeman has been suggested, and as a impartial observer whose book is considered the BIBLE of Bronze coinage, is an excellent choice),

If indeed, after the coin is examined, the determination is that the coin IS a mule, as PCGS has certified on two occasions, then the coin MUST be accepted as such by all, with apologies in order to the OWNER/SELLER and to PCGS.....

More importantly, to both the current owner and/or any potential buyer; should, after EXPERT examination, the determination be that the coin is NOT the certified variety; WILL PCGS GUARANTEE THE COIN AND PURCHASE IT BACK?????

If PCGS stands by its current assessment of the coin (certified as a MULE TB/BB) and an interested party purchases the coin and has it examined by ACKNOWLEDGED & RESPECTED EXPERTS (such as Michael Freeman, the staff of Colin Cooke, the British Museum, the Royal Mint, etc), and their determination is that the coin is NOT the certified variety; WILL PCGS GUARANTEE THE COIN AND PURCHASE IT BACK?????

It all boils down to whether PCGS will guarantee 100% that this coin IS a TB/BB mule, or will PCGS attempt to create a NEW variety, "Toothed / PARTIAL Beaded Border", a variety that does not exist and was never struck, to explain something that is most likely merely the result of as worn die...... A decision that would be viewed as a "cop-out" or evading the issue by most collectors, and would not instill confidence in the numismatic community.

Another question arises as a result of the dispute regarding this coin. Inasmuch as a severe doubt has been placed upon the accuracy of this certification and has therefore hindered the sale of an EXTREMELY RARE COIN IN EXCEPTIONALLY CHOICE CONDITION: Will PCGS arrange for an EXPERT ( or EXPERTS), knowledgeable in this series, impartial to the controversy, whose determination would be unimpeachable, to examine this coin, outside of the slab, AND to accept his/her/their decision as absolute??? And, should that determination be that the coin is NOT as certified, will PCGS stand by its GUARANTEE and purchase the coin back from the owner at its fair market value??? Or will PCGS stand behind its Grade Designation (not in question or disputed) and claim that the INCORRECT VARIETY designation was a "Clerical Error"??? Another decision that would be viewed as a "cop-out" and would not instill confidence in the numismatic community.

At this juncture, I believe the time is right and the neccessity exists for PCGS to state, in public, in UNEQUIVOCAL and UNAMBIGUOUS terms, exactly what its guarantee is regarding this coin, so as to provide, ANY and ALL, past, present, and future owners of this coin the peace of mind that their investment in a RARE coin is secure as to designation......