2005 $1 coin

[Goldseeker]

As I understand it there was a mistake made by the RAM in minting the MOR.   Once the error was discovered, the TAM went ahead and deliberately minted more MOR coins for 2005 so that there would not be a big argument as to the RAM was influencing the coin market by producing a very small number of the 2005 MOR.   By minting more, this idea was avoided.

I believe that something like the above happened and it was very well discussed in a now defunct coin forum.

[Fulvio]

As I understand it there was a mistake made by the RAM

Now THERE'S a novel concept.. RAM making mistakes... who'da thought? :diablo:

Fact remains though, if there was a currency determination, this whole silly argument would go away. This is not a mule like any other. Its a fabricated paper mule. Intent and wishful thinking does not a mule make.

Nothing to see here.. move along.

[Steveqld]

Just my 2 cents worth.  I favour the PCGS definition of Mule:

Mule Error
This is a rare Mint error where the obverse die is of one coin and the reverse die is of another coin. The most famous of the Mule errors is a Sacagawea dollar/Washington quarter Mule, where a Washington quarter obverse is paired with a Sacagawea reverse. (Yes I know there is a third die)

In the case of the 2005 $1 the obverse is a 2005 dated $1 die and the reverse is the standard $1 MoR die which the mint can use for any year they like.  That pairing doesn't need a Currency Determination as it is already approved in the Currency Regulations. They are a legislatively approved if unintentional pairing of the dies from day 1 and not dies from different coins.

Just being unintentional pairing does not make it a mule.

Comparing it to the 1930 penny.  They were a legislatively approved pairing of the die but presumably were unintended or administratively approved.  No-one suggests they are mules.

As an aside I think we could find out the RAM's rationale/intention by submitting a Right to Information application.  We nominate what info we want, they do their search and tell us what it will cost and if we agree with that then we pay for the info.  Costs is $15 per hour to pull the info out plus a copying cost.  All up probably less than $100.  I don't think the RAM or the info is exempt information.

I'll throw in $10 or so if we go that way but I'm not that interested to pay $100.

[emu666]

Excellent Steve.
I cannot agree more.

In the case of the 2005 $1 the obverse is a 2005 dated $1 die and the reverse is the standard $1 MoR die which the mint can use for any year they like. That pairing doesn't need a Currency Determination as it is already approved in the Currency Regulations. They are a legislatively approved if unintentional pairing of the dies from day 1 and not dies from different coins.

This means:

1955Y penny with obverse 9 is not a mule.
Similarly 1956Y penny with obverse 8 not a mule.
2005 MOR $1 is not a mule (whether proof or circulation)
1977 and 1988 50c Coat Of Arms reverse are not mules.

1916 halfpenny with Indian 1/4 anna obverse is a mule.
2000 $1 with 10c obverse is a mule.
1992 5c with normal obverse and reverse dies but with a $2 collar is a mule.

UK 1983 2p with "NEW PENCE" reverse is a mule as the NEW PENCE reverse was made obsolete in 1982.
Similarly for the "2008" No date Uk 20p (I think).

Hypotheticals:
A 2014 dated 20c with the the Canberra Centenary reverse would be a mule.
As would a 2012 dated one I guess.

[markn]

I can't comment on the 1955Y and 1956Y pennies but I believe the 2005 MOR $1 proof, and the 1977 and 1988 COA coins are mules.  The murkiness comes because the 2005 MOR was (supposedly) initially made in error and then made deliberately.  If it's made deliberately with sanction of the RAM then it's not a mule.

[Steveqld]

I like the thought that the three Mark mentions are mules but can't rationalise that against the PCGS definition in that the dies must be from different coins.

I used the term "legislatively approved" deliberately because they may not be authorized by the Treasurer or the design may not be approved by the "Committee" within the RAM who decides mintage numbers etc.  I simply don't know.  Mark's belief however appears to go past a "legislatively approved" criteria to a "recognized pairing".  

Neither term appears in the PCGS definition but my basis is that if the pairing complies with the Currency Act in terms of edging, size, weight and design then it is a lawful "coin" and hence not die from "different coins".  The confound here is that the 2000 $1/10c mule does comply with the regulations in terms of weight, design, size, edging etc, just that they used a die from 2 different denominations hence different "coins".

[emu666]

I can't comment on the 1955Y and 1956Y pennies but I believe the 2005 MOR $1 proof, and the 1977 and 1988 COA coins are mules.  ......

By the currency determination, they are just rare issues.
At the time of issue it was perfectly valid to have a MOR $1 reverse with the obverse of a $1 as the MOR reverse. If it had not been valid, then the RAM would have been required to seek a currency determination.  The RAM did not need to do so as the die pairing was at all times valid. Therefore it is not a mule.
QED
End of story

[markn]

I can't comment on the 1955Y and 1956Y pennies but I believe the 2005 MOR $1 proof, and the 1977 and 1988 COA coins are mules.  ......

By the currency determination, they are just rare issues.
At the time of issue it was perfectly valid to have a MOR $1 reverse with the obverse of a $1 as the MOR reverse. If it had not been valid, then the RAM would have been required to seek a currency determination.  The RAM did not need to do so as the die pairing was at all times valid. Therefore it is not a mule.
QED
End of story

Fair enough. I like to be conservative about these things and your approach ismore conservative. What do you think about the pennies?

[trout]

I can't comment on the 1955Y and 1956Y pennies but I believe the 2005 MOR $1 proof, and the 1977 and 1988 COA coins are mules.  ......

By the currency determination, they are just rare issues.
At the time of issue it was perfectly valid to have a MOR $1 reverse with the obverse of a $1 as the MOR reverse. If it had not been valid, then the RAM would have been required to seek a currency determination.  The RAM did not need to do so as the die pairing was at all times valid. Therefore it is not a mule.
QED
End of story

Fair enough. I like to be conservative about these things and your approach ismore conservative. What do you think about the pennies?

I am 100% with Feathers on this Mark and in reality so are you Mate
Time us blokes grow some hair on our nuts and stand up for ourselves :ok:
Nothing like getting out of the shadows and saying what you mean and meaning what you say, Honesty is a beautiful thing :dance::dance2::dance:

[Fulvio]

Time us blokes grow some hair on our nuts

:diablo:

[emu666]

I can't comment on the 1955Y and 1956Y pennies but I believe the 2005 MOR $1 proof, and the 1977 and 1988 COA coins are mules.  ......

By the currency determination, they are just rare issues.
At the time of issue it was perfectly valid to have a MOR $1 reverse with the obverse of a $1 as the MOR reverse. If it had not been valid, then the RAM would have been required to seek a currency determination.  The RAM did not need to do so as the die pairing was at all times valid. Therefore it is not a mule.
QED
End of story

Fair enough. I like to be conservative about these things and your approach ismore conservative. What do you think about the pennies?

The designs for the pennies were used until 1964. It isn't relevent that more than one master dies was used in some years.

[Steveqld]

I like the thought that the three Mark mentions are mules but can't rationalise that against the PCGS definition in that the dies must be from different coins.

Just to provide some support for Marks contention that these coins are mules (well 2 of the three anyway) the 50 cent coins are NOT legislatively approved.

The 1977 Silver Jubilee 50 cent is approved in:

(viii)  in the case of a coin of the denomination of 50 cents that refers on its obverse side to the year 1977 as the year of the coin—the inscriptions 'SILVER JUBILEE' and '50 CENTS' and a representation of a wattle blossom surrounded by a representation of 25 overlapping crowns


The 1988 bicentenary 50 cent is approved in:

(viiiBAA)  in the case of a coin of the denomination of 50 cents that refers on its obverse side to the year 1988 as the year of the coin—the inscriptions 'AUSTRALIA 1788‑1988' and 'FIFTY CENTS', a representation of a sailing ship under sail superimposed on a representation of an historical map of Australia bearing the words 'New Holland', a representation of a compass and a representation of the Southern Cross;

The general approval for the CoA reverse is contained in:

(vi)  in the case of a coin of the denomination of 50 cents, other than a coin referred to in subparagraph (vii), (viii), (viiiA), (viiiB), (viiiBAA), (viiiBAB) or (viiiBAC)—the figures '50' and a representation of the arms of the Commonwealth;

Simply put, there is no legislative approval for a CoA 50 cent coin for either of those years.

The difference with the 2005 MoR is that there was no exclusion of the MoR design for that year although there was for 4 years with the last one being 1992.

[markn]

I can't comment on the 1955Y and 1956Y pennies but I believe the 2005 MOR $1 proof, and the 1977 and 1988 COA coins are mules.  ......

By the currency determination, they are just rare issues.
At the time of issue it was perfectly valid to have a MOR $1 reverse with the obverse of a $1 as the MOR reverse. If it had not been valid, then the RAM would have been required to seek a currency determination.  The RAM did not need to do so as the die pairing was at all times valid. Therefore it is not a mule.
QED
End of story

Fair enough. I like to be conservative about these things and your approach ismore conservative. What do you think about the pennies?

The designs for the pennies were used until 1964. It isn't relevent that more than one master dies was used in some years.

So are they mules or not in your opinion?  I've never bothered looking into it.

[Fulvio]

So are they mules or not in your opinion?  I've never bothered looking into it.

Looks like not.

[emu666]

I like the thought that the three Mark mentions are mules but can't rationalise that against the PCGS definition in that the dies must be from different coins.

Just to provide some support for Marks contention that these coins are mules (well 2 of the three anyway) the 50 cent coins are NOT legislatively approved.

The 1977 Silver Jubilee 50 cent is approved in:

(viii)  in the case of a coin of the denomination of 50 cents that refers on its obverse side to the year 1977 as the year of the coin—the inscriptions 'SILVER JUBILEE' and '50 CENTS' and a representation of a wattle blossom surrounded by a representation of 25 overlapping crowns


The 1988 bicentenary 50 cent is approved in:

(viiiBAA)  in the case of a coin of the denomination of 50 cents that refers on its obverse side to the year 1988 as the year of the coin—the inscriptions 'AUSTRALIA 1788‑1988' and 'FIFTY CENTS', a representation of a sailing ship under sail superimposed on a representation of an historical map of Australia bearing the words 'New Holland', a representation of a compass and a representation of the Southern Cross;

The general approval for the CoA reverse is contained in:

(vi)  in the case of a coin of the denomination of 50 cents, other than a coin referred to in subparagraph (vii), (viii), (viiiA), (viiiB), (viiiBAA), (viiiBAB) or (viiiBAC)—the figures '50' and a representation of the arms of the Commonwealth;

Simply put, there is no legislative approval for a CoA 50 cent coin for either of those years.

The difference with the 2005 MoR is that there was no exclusion of the MoR design for that year although there was for 4 years with the last one being 1992.

That is a surprise. The 1977 and 1988 COA 50c would qualify as mules.
Which currency determination is this from?

Steve, I think you should write this up as a CAB article.

Mark, the pennies are of course not mules as I believe it was up to the individual mint which obverse master dies were used (provided they had correct effigy and legend).