Definations of a mule coin

Brissyboy

Hi all,

There has been much debate in Australia over the defination/s of what constitutes a mule in numismatic circles.

I would like to hear from our North American and European brothers and sisters of what constitutes a mule coin.

We have a situation in Australia where the Royal Australian Mint accidentally issued some 2006 Proof Year Sets containing a 2005 dated proof dollar with the Mob of Kangaroos reverse. This coin should not have been issued in proof.

History.

In 2005 the dollar design for the year was a commemorative reverse featuring the "Dancing Man" symbolising Peace at the End of World War 2. This design featured on our circulation dollars, dollar coins in both the Uncirculated Mint Sets and the Proof Sets. For 2006, the dollar reverted back to the generic or standard dollar reverse of the Mob of 5 Kangaroos introduced in 1984.

This design has been used on circulation coins in 1984 with young head of Queen Elizabeth II, in 1985, 1994, 1995, 1998 with mature head, and in 2000, 2004 and 2006 with old head. It appearred in Mint Sets in 1985, 1987, 1989, 1990, 1991, 1994, 1995, 1998, 2000, 2004, 2006 and in Proof Sets in 1985, 1987, 1989, 1990, 1991, 1994, 1995, 1998, 2000, 2006 and as an individual carded unc and cased proof in 1984.

While RAM was striking proof 2006 dated dollars for the 2006 proof sets in late 2005, they accidently paired the generic Mob of Roos reverse proof die prepared for 2006 issues with a 2005 dated obverse proof die. An unknown number of proof dollars dated 2005 were struck and found their way into 2006 Proof Year sets. The RAM found out an error had been made and is said to have removed any error coins and sets they could find. However some sets containing this 2005 dated proof coin escaped and have been found by a couple of dealers.

In the mean time the RAM in the final months of 2005 went and issued a circulation dollar coin using the Mob of Roos reverse and 2005 dated obverse. Some have speculated that an error had occurred here too and rather than withdraw the coins they issued between 5 and 10 million.

So we have a circulation 2005 Mob of Roos dollar which appears to be an authorised issue and we have a 2005 Mob of Roos Proof dollar in 2006 Proof Year Sets which is an unauthorised issue and should not exist. Some claim this coin is a mule error having the pairing of a 2005 obverse with 2006 reverse and others say it is just an unauthorised issue with the generic obverse and generic reverse for this era of coinage, the date is irrelevant to the die pairing.

So I would like to hear what definations there are for a mule. Has anyone any knowledge of other coins where this type of pairing of dies has occurred and that coin is called a mule by peers in the numismatic field?

Thanks
Wayne

satootoko

For whatever it's worth, I've always understood a mule to be a coin with the wrong combination of genuine dies.

That would seem to cover your coin, just as it covers the famous "11¢" pairings of a cent and a dime.

The common fake Japanese Trade Dollar with the reverse of a ¥1 and the obverse of the TD would be a mule it it were real.

Dabigkahuna

I have always been under the impression that it was an error coin that was made specifically as such and to be slipped out of the mint for profit. Not a true error that was realeased by mistake by the mint. I'm probably wrong though.


Larry
Dabigkahuna

Brissyboy

<< <i>I have always been under the impression that it was an error coin that was made specifically as such and to be slipped out of the mint for profit. Not a true error that was realeased by mistake by the mint. I'm probably wrong though.
Larry Dabigkahuna >>


Hi Larry

You are partly right. A mule coin is certainly an error. It occurs when two mismatched dies are used accidentally or intentionally to produce a coin or coins that should not be. Most "mule" errors are discovered by Mints and distroyed but sometimes they get through.

In most cases to date mules have resulted accidentally when -

1/ one die of one denomination has been paired with one die of another denomination (examples are USA undated (2000) Washington (P) Quarter obverse with the Sacagawea Dollar reverse, the USA 1999 cent obverse with the dime reverse, the Australia 2000 dollar reverse with 10 cents obverse);

2/ one die of a coin from one country has been paired with one die of a coin from another country ( examples are 1916 Australia Halfpenny reverse with the India Quarter Anna obverse, the 2000 New Zealand $5 Cormorant reverse with the Solomon Islands obverse);

3/ one die of a current denomination coin has been paired with one die from the same denomination but that has become obsolete (examples are 1961 Eire Half Crown obverse with 1927 Eire Half Crown reverse, 1983 UK obverse with pre1983 Two New Pence reverse) or that is current but different die (example is 1994 UK Two Pounds Gold Proof Bank of England reverse with the 1994 Two Pound Proof St George & the Dragon obverse).

Hope that helps Larry. The problem with our Australian 2005 dated proof dollar is that one group believe it to be a "mule" based on mismatched dies and another group believe it is not a "mule", only an unauthorised issue of a standard "generic" dollar in proof.

Wayne

theboz11

The 1991 Mexican One Onza proof has the obverse of the 1990 and the reverse of the 1992. The mint state coins can have either combination and are classed type 1 and 2. They are considered mules, but are not errors. Just a one year type coins.

Conder101

A mule is a coin struck using two dies that were not INTENDED to be used together. Since the 2005 die was obviously not intended to be mated with a Roos reverse and placed into a 2006 proof set And they didn't make any for the 2005 proof sets it is almost certainly a case of dies that were not intended to go together. So it is a mule.

A mule is not always an error coin though. As a die conservation measure early US quarter eagle dies, after they were too worn to strike quarter eagles were then paired up with dime dies and used to strike dimes. Since the dies were not INTENDED to be used together, they would be considered to be mules, but they are not errors.

Ricke

It was my understanding that in earlier years muling was perfectly intentional to conserve the die, and keep them in use until they were worn out, so whereas they would be more rare, they were intentional strikes, to be circulated as struck, and not considere an error.

FilamCoins

<< <i>A mule is not always an error coin though. As a die conservation measure early US quarter eagle dies, after they were too worn to strike quarter eagles were then paired up with dime dies and used to strike dimes. Since the dies were not INTENDED to be used together, they would be considered to be mules, but they are not errors. >>



This is exactly correct. The 1928 U.S. Philippines 20 Centavos was an intentional muling (I forget the reason why), whereas the 1918 U.S. Philippines 5 Centavos was a pure error (and is much rarer than the former).

Happy Hunting! Mules are great.

laurentyvan

that were not INTENDED to be used together.

Yup, intention is everything...

Brissyboy

Thanks guys for your responses to date.

Below is a link to a well known Australian mule - the 2000 $1 Mob of Roos/10 cents mule from circulation.

Australian 2000 $1/10c Mule MS62

The Mule defination applies well to this coin and the Mint eventually admitted an error with the dies was made.

Here is a link to the Australian 2005 Proof $1 Mob of Roos in the 2006 Proof Year Set.

Australian 2006 Proof Year Set with 2005 Mob of Roos Proof $1

The argument in OZ revolves around the fact that the RAM after making this error then released coins of the same paired dies into circulation. Some people claim because both the uncirculated $1 and the proof $1 have the same reverse/obverse generic designs that the 2005 Mob of Roos proof coin cannot be a mule. They say the date is irrelevant. Others claim that because the intention of the Mint was to produce 2006 Mob of Roos proof dollars for the 2006 Proof Sets, then the coin should not exist and is therefore a mule.

The debate in the Australian Coins, Banknotes and Tokens Forum is running at about 50/50 mule/not mule.

Any further examples of similar coins or situations would be greatly appreciated. I will declare my view as "yes it is a mule" but I would appreciate all views and (interpretations of the) definations of a mule.

I also believe that uncirculated coins are different to proof coins and the dies are also different so one should not use one coin to down the argument for the other.

Thanks
Wayne

Brissyboy

<< <i>The 1991 Mexican One Onza proof has the obverse of the 1990 and the reverse of the 1992. The mint state coins can have either combination and are classed type 1 and 2. They are considered mules, but are not errors. Just a one year type coins. >>

theboz 11, can you tell me, was this proof therefore dated 1990 having a 1990 obverse? I assume you mean it had the design of 1990 on the obverse and the new design of 1992 on the reverse but was dated 1991. Would appreciate clarification, thanks, Wayne.