For context, I'm trying to see if there are any graded 2015 $1/10c mules.
If I look at the Comprehensive view of Australian $1 coins there are separate sections for 2000 $1 coins and 2000 mules - https://www.pcgs.com/valueview/1-dollar-1984-date/2000-1/5078?sn=466114&h=pop and https://www.pcgs.com/valueview/1-dollar-1984-date/2000-1-mule-struck-w-10c-obv/5078?sn=506638&h=pop
I know there is a graded 2014 $1/10c mule: https://www.pcgs.com/cert/34092470
But I don't see a type for it at https://www.pcgs.com/pop/detail/category/5078?l=1-dollar-1984-date&ccid=0&t=5&p=MS&pn=4
Its type (E530611) is the same type for the standard 2014 $1: https://www.pcgs.com/valueview/1-dollar-1984-date/2014-1-100-years-anzac/5078?sn=530611&g=63&h=
Ooh, you might know about this. I was talking to someone selling the 1 ounce silver Britannia mule (2014 I think) and there are about 3000 of them. I said that seems like a lot and they said the Australian $1/10 cent mule has about 30,000 minted.
Have you seen numbers/figures of the mule produced?
As for what you posted, I had no idea there even was a 100 Years of ANZACs 2014 mule. I'll have to look more carefully.
An "uncirculated" 2015 $1 mule went for $2,700 (plus commission etc) yesterday at the Roxburys auction (lot 176). It had what appears to be a large gash across the Queen's cheek so not sure how it managed to be graded as uncirculated - wouldn't have in my book.
https://bid.roxburys.com.au/lots/view/4-TVQWW/elizabeth-ii-one-dollar-2015-uncirculated
Pedro
That would likely be Uncirculated according to the auction house, not a TPG (no actual grade like MS64 is mentioned). If sent off it would probably slab as Unc Detail. It seems that most auction houses are lenient in what they call Uncirculated and we have all seen them do that with cleaned, polished, dipped and lightly circulated coins.
I think 6,000 mules is right based on Goldseeker's stats.
Thanks for the info Pedro. There may be another one out there but this one isn't graded I guess.
Error coins do not appear on the pop report. For the purpose of grading, the 2000 mule is not an error coin, but at the moment the 2015 $1 is. The 2007 double header 5C is also considered an error.
Eric
Hm okay so is there any way of finding them through the website?
Quote from: 'Pedro' pid='123325' dateline='1599948861'An "uncirculated" 2015 $1 mule went for $2,700 (plus commission etc) yesterday at the Roxburys auction (lot 176). It had what appears to be a large gash across the Queen's cheek so not sure how it managed to be graded as uncirculated - wouldn't have in my book.
https://bid.roxburys.com.au/lots/view/4-TVQWW/elizabeth-ii-one-dollar-2015-uncirculated
Pedro
Just looked at the image now - that look like a different one to the one that Noble sold a couple of years ago.
How on earth could that coin be classified as "Uncirculated"?
It has SCRATCHES all over both sides and a gash on the queens head!
Said to be "struck through", good one, I must keep that in mind to explain circulation scratches, the next time I sell a coin.
I always thought UNC meant just that, minted but never circulated.
That means this coin must have had a clear provenance and proof of being struck and then transferred straight from the press to be held for special packing such as in a "UNC set" or Specimen.
UNC my backside, some one cant tell the difference between "shiny" and "unc".
Fred.
Hi Fred, I think you are being too pedantic about the definition of Unc. Theses days the coins leave the mint, go into Armaguard or whatever distributor who puts them in rolls or baggies and then delivers them to the banks or major retailers. At that point the coin has not circulated and when the checkout chick cracks a roll and gives you a nice shiny coin would you call that coin circulated when you add it to your collection?
But Yeah, I snarled too when I saw what they called "struck through".
Yeah I guess its the old argument and why Greg Mac has aunc, unc, choice unc and gem unc columns in his catelog!
That the "uncs" means a coin is shiny, but, aunc = lots of dings and scratches, unc=not so many dings and scratches, choice unc = a few dings and scratches and gem unc = one scratch!
Fred.
"UNC" is abbreviation for uncirculated. But what does that really mean?
If I have a sealed mint bag then it contains coins that have not been circulated -not issued by a bank, used to pay for a transaction or given in change. However, I have opened quite a few such bags and found many really shiny coins but badly scratched, in some cases very disfigured.*
Do these coins deserve to be called UNC grade? I would presume yes, because of absence of "normal use wear" to the fine details.
That's where confusion enters. When I look up descriptions, or photo sets, for Sheldon MS grades 60 to 70 (that is "uncirculated") I keep coming across a correlation between amount of marking and loss of lustre. But those coins have full lustre and severe marking yet still nice fine detail intact. So where do they fit in the scheme of things?
One article about Sheldon grading but plenty more on the net. Sheldon coin grading scale (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sheldon_coin_grading_scale#Uncirculated_grades)
Like most collectors I strive to find coins with least wear and marking (bags marks if you like) but nice and shiny is also rather nice to get. I must admit though that I am a sucker for coins with interesting toning that gives them some character (underlying lustre good to have).
*When you see how the Mint handles new, intended for circulation, coins it is unsurprising that few get out the door without being marked.
Any system of grading should as a basis for UNC, commence with evidence of wear, then move on to other detractions. Whatever system is in place, consistency is the key.
https://www.pcgs.com/grades
The adjectival system of grading is often criticised for its inconsistency which IMO mainly centres around subjectivity, and should not be confused with, for example, dodgy ebay sellers and hobbyists who deliberately or innocently over grade. Sometimes there is a lesser inconsistency among major dealers and auction houses as well, the trick here is for collectors to be informed.
The Sheldon system is absolutely no different IMO, and is just as subjective in the grading process, with many, many graders turning up at their desks each day and applying their interpretation of the Sheldon bible.
From my own experience and relatively small involvement, there is a similar inconsistency happening within each system, and again, being informed and buying the coin, not the grade, is key.
To be honest, if a targeted coin is as rare as hens teeth, who cares about a small disparity in grade, you probably won't see another.
One thing is obvious as I get older, my coins get better :blush: :angel: :yahoo: