Which of these two 1928/7-M 20 centavos Mule would you rather own?

jetblack740il

Which of these two 1928/7-M 20 centavos Mule would you rather own? A or B and why?

A).

.

JoesMaName

If they were the same price I would probably go with the top.

Tough call - they both have pros and cons. I like the strike on the top better but the spots,
slight wear and possibility it could tone badly make me leery.

The bottom one has a weak strike (looks like liberty has only one leg) and I’m not sure about
the tone may be too dark may be pretty, can’t tell from the pic.

Are they graded? I see the look of plastic in the pics (at least the bottom one)

coinpictures

Too many unknowns to say for certain without seeing coins in hand, but I'll give it a shot.

1. Are they graded the same?

2. Are they priced the same?

Assuming "yes" on both, I probably would lean towards the bottom coin, depending on the amount of lustre evident in hand, and what hits are revealed; can't tell from pics.

Why?

1. Bottom coin looks more original.

2. Top coin has some long hits I'm not thrilled with (a) under wing at left of obverse, and (b) below volcano on reverse).

3. Flatness of eagle's breast seems more apparent on the top coin than the bottom coin.

Conversely, the top coin appears to have more remaining frost on the devices.

JCMhouston

B, it's just a better looking coin to me, A looks dipped and spotted.

jetblack740il

Yes, they are both graded the same and A). cost less than . Here is an individual image of the coins for better comparison.

A).

.

coinpictures

I'll still stick with B over A. Less beat up.

jetblack740il

Indeed, I like B also. Field is much nicer than A.

ormandh

B looks better to me. -Dan

krueger

I like "B" . There is less action in the fields , and there is more breast feather detail. Maybe Get NCS to conserve and grade.

I think the vertical line that looks like a scratch on "A" just to right of the figures waist is a clash mark. I have several of these in high grade and it is there also.

Krueger

krueger

Forgot to add one comment.

The overdate is a misnomer 1928/7. No one to my knowledge has ever documented the overdate. It seems to to have been carried along without question for many years. I have never seen one nor have I ever found anyone in 33 years of collecting this series who can show me a photo or tell me what one looks like. I see nothing of an overdate in these very nice large clear photos.

Krueger

jetblack740il

<< <i>Forgot to add one comment. >>



<< <i>The overdate is a misnomer 1928/7. No one to my knowledge has ever documented the overdate. It seems to to have been carried along without question for many years. I have never seen one nor have I ever found anyone in 33 years of collecting this series who can show me a photo or tell me what one looks like. I see nothing of an overdate in these very nice large clear photos. >>



Well, according to Lyman Allen's book he noted that the obverse shield is narrower and the date is much larger. The MULE was manufactured "intentionally" to fill a rush order by the banking community and since no 20 Centavos dies were available a 1927 5 Centavos die was altered and used for the 1928 issue. The underdate feature is faint at best and is rarely if ever detectable.

I wonder if the real overdate showing the 7 will command a higher premium.

GeorgieB

<< <i>B, it's just a better looking coin to me, A looks dipped and spotted. >>



Totally agree.

krueger

I have noticed and have written about that the shape of "2" on the 1927-M 5 centavo is different that the shape of the "2" on the 1928-M 5 centavo.
The shape of the "2" on the 20 centavo mule conforms to the shape of the "2" on the 1928-M 5 centavo. This leads one to a conclusion that the 20 centavo obverse was muled with a 1928-M reverse not a 1927-M reverse with an 8 punched over the 7. I believe this is why no one has ever identified an example of an overdate.

Krueger

jetblack740il

Good observation! Your analysis makes sense and I have imaged the reverse of the coins and shows on the date 192 are all different in shapes.