RE: $1 Mule rarity/scarcity questions

[Steveqld]

....I am not an error collector so the Mule is not a requirement for my Dollar set....

It's not an error (but was made in error) but a variety, you may need to rethink this trout! Subject for another thread......

I don't know that I would agree with that as, to me, it is an error coin.  PCGS defines an error coin as:

error
A numismatic item that unintentionally varies from the norm. Ordinarily, overdates are not errors since they were done intentionally while other die-cutting "mistakes" are considered errors. Double dies, planchet clips, off-metal strikings, etc. also are errors.

An error may occur because of either a mechanical or human failing.  In this instance it was a human failing because they inserted the wrong die.  By the PCGS definition it is an "unintentional variety" hence an error.  If it was intentional then I would agree with Markn.

I know I'm putting a great deal of weight on PCGS definitions (but we have to start somewhere) and they describe the mule (and I think we all agree it is a mule) as:

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. (my emphasis)

[markn]

I agree with PPH and call it a variety and don't care much what PCGS think or say about it.  Apart from the degree of centering each mule is the same as the next so they are not unique (which in my mind an error must be).  

Personally I find the distinction between a "variety" and an "error" one of the most irksome definitions in numismatics.  When does an "error" become a variety?  When there are two the same? Three? Five?  Ten?  Of course there's no hard and fast definition.  So, to me, if there's one, it's an error, if there's more than one and they are practically identical (in the same way that normal circulation coins are identical) then it's a variety.

[Steveqld]

I agree with PPH and call it a variety and don't care much what PCGS think or say about it.  Apart from the degree of centering each mule is the same as the next so they are not unique (which in my mind an error must be).  

Personally I find the distinction between a "variety" and an "error" one of the most irksome definitions in numismatics.  When does an "error" become a variety?  When there are two the same? Three? Five?  Ten?  Of course there's no hard and fast definition.  So, to me, if there's one, it's an error, if there's more than one and they are practically identical (in the same way that normal circulation coins are identical) then it's a variety.

I disagree that an error has to be unique.  If a worker doesn't tighten a collar die and we have 10 consecutive coins (or 20 or 1000) minted "out of collar" with similar degrees of offset then would they be a variety coin or an error coin?

I agree with your comment about "irksome definitions".  There was a similar discussion on this forum not long ago about whether the 2005 MoR was a "mule" or not and that would come down to a defn of a mule.  Existing defn's varied depending on what resource was used.

But we do have to start somewhere.  I think there is some variance between Canada and USA about what constitutes a mule.  Do we start a uniquely Australian definition?

[trout]

I also agree with PP.
A planchet flaw is an error a strike through is an error these are normally single coin events.
6000 single events make the 2000 mule a variety to me, Same as the "Bubble" 20 cents.
Agreed that most varieties are created in error but when there many many coins that have the same features Must make them a variety.

look at the Canadian coins with the die cracks on the one cent coins known as Hanging "Varieties"

[accumulator]

I 've always considered the Mule to be an error,the reason is because the first thing i ever read about the coin & how it happened said the the worker put the ten cent die in "in error" , so with that wording i figured it to be an error coin.

[markn]

I 've always considered the Mule to be an error,the reason is because the first thing i ever read about the coin & how it happened said the the worker put the ten cent die in "in error" , so with that wording i figured it to be an error coin.

Then SOME of the 2005 MOR coins are errors.  Because some were made in error.  Oh and when they found out they made some deliberately and those are NOT errors.  So in one hand I have a 2005 MOR coin that was made in error.  And in the other I have one that was made deliberately.  Is either of them an error?  No.  So, not all coins made in error (or by mistake) are errors.  And the 2000 mule, while made in error, is not an error.  Or that's what I think at least .

[Fulvio]

Personally I find the distinction between a "variety" and an "error" one of the most irksome definitions in numismatics.

Indeed. And don't forget "flaws". In fact, we've covered this ground in quite some detail not that long ago. I'm not going to write it all again though (you're all glad to hear that, aren't you?). Just search for "flaw" and you'll find the thread.

The mule is a variety, because although an unintended pairing, there are no errors on the dies. The incused flag is a variety, because again, there are no errors on the dies. Rabbit ears and bubbles and so on are errors, because the dies are damaged. And of course rips and splits and cold shuts are flaws, being unique individuals.

[Steveqld]

Neffendi mentioned:

Thanks Steve for PCGSs definition of this mule as an error rather than a variety.

 What do they classify the mules that may have been intentionally made?
 I'm thinking of the Bahamas/NZ mule that was reportedly made as a protest against staff cuts at the Royal Mint, or those mules made for the collector market by corrupt staff (has happened at Canberra on multiple occasions).

The "intention" of pairing different dies was something discussed in the other thread and there was no real outcome.

I can't put my finger on it at the moment but one of the websites I consulted did draw a distinction between intended/unintended pairings and even considered the officially sanctioned pairing of different die as being a mule.  I think the examples they quoted were several centuries ago when the correct die was not available so the mint deliberately used a similar die from another coin in lieu.

So, for some, the intention to pair dies is a consideration but not to everyone as is the question of whether the pairing is one permitted my legislation or policy.

No clear answer.

there are no errors on the dies.

I agree but the error was in the use of the die.

I think if we got back into that discussion we would all come out still no wiser.

No doubt there has to be some physical attribute of the coin that would make it an "error".  How that error occurs whether by mechanical or human failing doesn't concern me.

OTOH I also agree it is a variety but being a variety doesn't exclude it from being a variety made in error (if you know what I mean).:dodgy:

[emu666]

It is considered accepted practice to refer to a mule as a mule; i.e. it is a separate category.

[Fulvio]

It is considered accepted practice to refer to a mule as a mule; i.e. it is a separate category.

Well, yes and no.

On one hand, everybody knows what you mean when you say mule. On the other hand, its a pretty lonely category, with only a handful of members. Variety works on both counts, though there is probably no need to refer to it as a "mule variety".

And yes Mark, I do know what you mean.

[nealeffendi]

. On the other hand, its a pretty lonely category, with only a handful of members. Variety works on both counts, though there is probably no need to refer to it as a "mule variety".

And yes Mark, I do know what you mean.

You must have big hands to hold the hundreds of different mules. England has had 3 in the past decade. Same with the US and Canada. I know of mules from dozens of countries and a number of centuries.
Australia has at least 5 mule coins that I know of and that isn't including the 55-56 pennies that many collectors call mules.

[robbiegal]

then they sometimes get called 'hybrid'

[Fulvio]

You must have big hands to hold the hundreds of different mules.

Yeah, yeah... I forgot to specify Australia... so shoot me!

[Unicorn]

[nealeffendi]

This is a friendly place so that would be friendly fire:angel:
And outsiders don't realise how passionate coin collectors can be about their hobby.