Re: 1860 Mule Farthing

[RLC35 288]

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......

B&C Collector,

Thanks for your input. I agree with your statements, and suggestions. While I am not a confidant of Michael Freeman, I have conducted business, and correspondance with him, and would try to place PCGS in contact with him, should they come forward with that request. I cannot say that Michael would entertain the idea, but he would be a respected impartial party, with an excellant reputation, should the request be made from PCGS. I think the ball is in PCGS's court at this point.

Bob C.

[Peter 615]

I won't give you a link BUT london coins in their next auction have a mule.

My collecting is so far laid back I will get my 1771 © et all ....I,m sure.

[RLC35 288]

I won't give you a link BUT london coins in their next auction have a mule.

My collecting is so far laid back I will get my 1771 © et all ....I,m sure.

Peter,

You are correct. Lot #933 is the real McCoy! There would not be any dispute on the validity of that Mule. Thanks for the information.

Bob C.

[RLC35 288]

Here is another eBay offering of a 1860 Mule

http://cgi.ebay.com/1860-British-Farthing-...8QQcmdZViewItem

This one is certified to have beads between 4 o'clock and 5 o'clock, along with a letter from PCGS. The price on this one is $3,500.

Bronze and Copper...is this the same one you won for $800 on eBay, and returned?

Bob C.

[Bronze & Copper Collector 412]

Yes..... It is the same coin... Relisted AFTER the owner followed through and did what was suggested..... He can only rely upon PCGS at this point......

Insofar as I am concerned, he has done ALL that he can do..... PCGS needs to 100% GUARANTEE the coin beyond ANY question or doubt......

Edited May 26, 2007 by Bronze & Copper Collector

[Bronze & Copper Collector 412]

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

This is in response to the suggestion that the round beads are actually toothed beads that were LAPPED, or struck from worn/polished dies.... (Highlighted and BOLD within the quoted remarks)....

It is my understanding that there is NO doubt that the ROYAL MINT used ROUND BORDER BEADS in the initial striking of the bronze coinage on all three denominations (Farthings, Half-Pennies, and Pennies)... This has been documented as such, as well as the fact that there were difficulties with the design and they were therefore redesigned with a TOOTHED BORDER.... There are HIGH GRADE examples of all denomintaions which show this clearly. There are records that document the fact that a ROUND BEADED BORDER was the original design...

It has NEVER been suggested (to the best of my knowledge) that a ROUND BEAD BORDER was the result of a defective strike, polished/lapped dies, etc..... It has ALWAYS been acknowledged to be the original design, and then later that year (1860) changed to the TOOTHED BORDER....

The mere suggestion that this is the case sends up red flags and begs the question that "If the ROUND BEADED BORDER is the result of DIE WEAR/POLISHING/DAMAGE, then how did it happen that the ROUND BEADED BORDER was released into circulation first...." ALSO, why has there been NO question of attribution or question of LAPPED dies in relation to the OBVERSE DIES.......

Calling a WORN TOOTH a BEAD does NOT make it so........ In the example of the 1922 "PLAIN" cent, it is known that there were NO Philadelphia mint cents struck.... We KNOW that it is an error from a worn/filled die... As such, we can document the various stages as the die deteriorated..... There were also different reverse dies used..... That with the D missing completely and the strong reverse being the most desireable..... I have a PCGS specimen of the missing D with the WEAK reverse, still rare although not as valuable as the STRONG reverse... I also have an ANACS example of the WEAK D, an intermediate stage, and FAR LESS valuable than either of its siblings....

In any case, had there been a 1922 PHILDELPHIA MINT coin struck, the 1922 "PLAIN" would STILL NOT be a PHILADELPHIA MINT COIN.... IT would be MOST ACCURATELY a "1922-D NO D" or "MISSING D"....

Calling a WORN TOOTH a ROUND BEAD as a means of making an expedient explanation of a question at hand is counterproductive to discovering the TRUTH , and in this instance also does not instill confidence in PCGS's GUARANTEE....

Using another US coin as an example, the 1866-S dime notoriously has a WEAK mintmark and is quite often not visible on worn specimens..... HOWEVER, calling it an 1866 as another 3rd party grader, NOT PCGS, did in certifying a specimen, does not make it so.... The 1866-S is relatively common, the 1866 Philadelphia mint coin is significantly RARER.... The proper attributions can be made by using die diagnostics, as should be used in this case... In the case of the 1866 Dime, the other 3rd party grader tossed it off as a "CLERICAL ERROR" and refused to offer or provide any guarantees... PCGS has ALWAYS stood behind its certifications; will they continue to do so???? Or will they continue to obfuscate the issue by presenting speculations that do not fit the facts?????

Admittedly there are new discoveries being made, but until this coin is examined by experts knowledgeable in THIS series (farthings), we can not have a satisfactory resolution to this attribution..... This raises an issue too... Which experts (and what were their qualifications insofar as GB coinage?) originally examined and certified the coin???? Also, which experts (and what were THEIR qualifications insofar as GB coinage is concerned, especially as this was a re-examination) studied the coin in its second review (the one that prompted PCGS letter standing behind its original attribution?????

Calling a duck a swan does not make it one.....

A rose is a rose is a rose......

It's up to PCGS now state in open forum exactly what their guarantee will be... For the protection of the OWNER, if he is unable to sell the coin due to this controversy.. And to any potential buyer of this coin, should someone take a chance on the coin and trusting in PCGS stature....... This coin has a significant value, and I;m sure was originally purchased with PCGS's attribution factoring heavily into the transaction....

[Bronze & Copper Collector 412]

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

Actually, according to Michael Freeman's designations in "The Bronze Coinage of Great Britain", the attribution is F-498 (Obverse 2, Reverse A)...... Obverse 1 is described as having Round Beads, Obverse 2 and later Obverses as having a Toothed Border.... Reverse A is described as having Round Beads, Reverse B and later Reverses as having a Toothed Border......

"The Bronze Coinage of Great Britain (1986 and 2006 editions)" is considered the authority for Bronze Collectors. Peck for tin, copper and bronze.... Although neither is absolutely complete, their respective descriptions are the accepted standards for attribution and are considered authoritative. In virtually every instance of a new discovery or variety, that discovery only complemented the text and/or added information, and did not change the information already in existence.....

Krause merely designates TB/RB and gives no accompanying text to ensure that the proper attributions are made and might be the text that is referred to in the quoted text.

Possibly the proper question should be; "Is this coin an F-498 (Obverse 2, Reverse A) as listed in Freeman?", the variety that is universally accepted as a mule.

[josie 8]

Other variety in lincoln cents are listed in world coin book reference almost peppered of die and variety, but after a thread about modern high grade variety on lincoln cents on other forum and expert and author (aka coopercoins)of die and varieties he mentioned that they have different finds almost all dates but attribution and certification on duoble die takes time before it have to be listed in world reference but listed in specialized books.

For me it something to do with tha sample coin and to attached a die most of them will have a die crack or a minor error two finds to distinguished from the rest that may also go to examining the die it self in the mint just a comment ,for other mint officials are quite hard to locate and approach as seen in other thread in this forum.

That may goes to other world coins and how they do it or how to make it faster, I guess it may fall down to great minds of experts as a whole to write a note of something in writting that they fully back it up and accapted by the numismatic or coin collecting, that they have a records of sale just an opinion among others.

But in europe coincollecting is a hobby that even dealers have day jobs just an opinion, unlike in the US that they have major slab company who have the machinery to funds for research or maybe go to the mint itself and examine the die itself, that may help listing it to world reference and exposure to other world collectors.

That may also apply to GB coin slab in GB but I have more question on them.

Im Still learning.

[RLC35 288]

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

Actually, according to Michael Freeman's designations in "The Bronze Coinage of Great Britain", the attribution is F-498 (Obverse 2, Reverse A)...... Obverse 1 is described as having Round Beads, Obverse 2 and later Obverses as having a Toothed Border.... Reverse A is described as having Round Beads, Reverse B and later Reverses as having a Toothed Border......

"The Bronze Coinage of Great Britain (1986 and 2006 editions)" is considered the authority for Bronze Collectors. Peck for tin, copper and bronze.... Although neither is absolutely complete, their respective descriptions are the accepted standards for attribution and are considered authoritative. In virtually every instance of a new discovery or variety, that discovery only complemented the text and/or added information, and did not change the information already in existence.....

Krause merely designates TB/RB and gives no accompanying text to ensure that the proper attributions are made and might be the text that is referred to in the quoted text.

Possibly the proper question should be; "Is this coin an F-498 (Obverse 2, Reverse A) as listed in Freeman?", the variety that is universally accepted as a mule.

Did you notice in the new eBay Mule offering...the seller does not offer a refund? The coin is being sold based on PCGS's letter, with assurances that the coin has "limited" beads (4 to 5 o'clock, etc.). I don't blame the seller for trying to sell the coin, I think he is using the PCGS letter as proof of the coin authenticity, much like a lot of slabbed coins are sold. I don't think many people would buy a $3,500 coin though, without the opportunity to get a private, independant verification, along with a return privilege, if the coin proved to "fail" the test!

Bob C.

[Colin G. 147]

Gary,

I have to say I agree with your comments, and would add that by definition a "mule" is an obverse and reverse that were not intended to be paired, however due to some reason (probably an error) during the period of transition, some coins have been produced with a mismatch of intended obverse and reverse die pairings.

If PCGS are defining the beaded designation by some partial beadings on the border then this does not constitute a mule. Whilst the labelling on the slab, would be interpreted by many collectors as detailing an example of the established mule variety, the labelling on the slab does not indicate it as a mule whilst the accompanying letter certainly does. They can call it what they wish, but it should not be clearly described as something it is not.