Possible 2014 $1 Mule

fred lever · March 09, 2019, 07:15:49 AM

Well decimal coins are a bit of a mystery to me, is this the PCGS E530611 coin we are talking about?
Its notated as a "regular strike".
I just looked in my paper money tin and found a 2014 and it does not have a double rim, just a normal thin rim.
Fred.

Unicorn · March 09, 2019, 08:29:33 AM

Yes Fred it's a little confusing when looking at the PCGS site.

The 530611 is the standard 2014 Anzac of which there are around 21.9m made.

The E530611 is the 2014 Anzac with the 10c obverse, but is linked to it's parent coin on the PCGS site at the moment. There's at least the 1 in existence that's been graded and I've seen images of the second.

One day PCGS might give it it's own number like the 2000 $1 ..... standard = 466114 10c mule = 506638

fred lever · March 09, 2019, 12:52:18 PM

Thanks Uni, when I look at that coin in the PCGS image it is a well centred well struck coin just like a specimen strike.
Looks like something from the press room that should not have found it way out of the mint
If time proves it to be the only one, that will suggest its not a accident like the 2000 mules but a deliberate trial strike.
Trial strikes should not get past the press room door unless ordered and signed out. Unlike the old days of pre-decimal before the 1940's where trials and specimens were handed out to the few collectors , in 2014 an incident like that would cause an unholy ruckus and grief poured over the head of the rostered staff responsible. Oooowah!!!!
Fred.

JeffH · March 09, 2019, 02:44:22 PM

I was thinking similar -almost exactly perfect centering, good strike and doesn't look to be circulated.
Rather suggestive of a "test" strike.
If it was one from a run then it is a one in a hundred (or maybe thousand) to be that good. That would mean there should have been a number make it into circulation. If it was an error then it is possible that run was stopped and the batch sent to be melted down. So how did one or two escape"? Accidentally dropped into someones shoe, eh!

HINT (if you don't already know it). Right click on the photo of that coin and select "View Image", you get a bigger picture and cursor turns into a magnifier, click to get full size image. On my system only about 10% of the picture fills the screen. Exact procedure might depend on you computer type, operating system or browser but should be similar.
Here is a full screen grab.

Unicorn · March 09, 2019, 03:48:18 PM

You'd near have to assume it was a mint sport smuggled out, but interestingly it has the marks where a coin(s) has fallen on it (or it has fallen on a coin) resulting in reeding marks on HM's chin. Hmmmmmm ...... :scratch_one-s_head:

nealeffendi · March 10, 2019, 07:58:02 AM

Could be a case they struck a number, then realised they had goofed and scratched the batch. Then a couple either got caught in a void and escaped destruction and then when further properly pair coins were struck they ended up getting in with them and are legitimate error coins OR somebody took a couple of them from the batch awaiting destruction and smuggled them out (so they are not kosher mint releases).

frenc11 · March 11, 2019, 02:16:51 AM

question is it against the law to own one

?

fred lever · March 11, 2019, 11:01:15 AM

The word is "offence".
The argument could go on and on about coin collecting and the situation with regards to the law.
Two interesting reads are the Currency Act and the Crimes (Currency) Act. It is scary reading.
I reckon if you tried hard enough you could "offend the law" by doing anything including breathing!
Yes, try the crimes currency act 1981, Part 2 section 17 and 18 regarding the possession and selling of "defaced coins and paper money. A person shall not have in his possession....blah blah...a coin that has been "defaced, disfigured or mutilated" blah blah...blah.... As the coin does not comply with the description of the current currency it could be regarded as "disfigured".
What you need is two teams of second year Law students (they know more about the law than anybody!) to argue that one out for a couple of days and in the meantime I"ll just keep putting cracks and CUD's and Mules into my coin album and get on with life.
Fred.

nealeffendi · March 11, 2019, 08:32:21 PM

Quote from: 'frenc11' pid='118752' dateline='1552232811'question is it against the law to own one ?

Almost certainly not. They are not counterfeit and unless the mint/government had evidence "beyond reasonable doubt" that this particular coin was illegally taken from the mint then the owner could reasonably claim that just like the dozens of other accidents involving the release of mules that this coin was put into circulation by the mint. Short of a mint employee fessing up in a plea bargain how can it be proven beyond reasonable doubt?

gnome · March 24, 2019, 06:36:45 AM

Morning all, I have been thinking about this one since it first popped up at Bigfellas shop. Now opinions vary on it and most likely will continue to, so no offense is meant by my posts. Some things had me overthinking on it and were bugging me. The rim and the letters were way to flat, different to the 2000 mule. What if it may have been another 2014 $1 obverse used, just thinking out aloud. If this was so what marks etc would likely be from the die if this was a possibility. Came up with these possible ones. This isn't my image, it's the PCGS one.

gnome · March 24, 2019, 06:39:51 AM

Found a similar marks on my only 2014 baby set, $1. This is still a work in progress and maybe way off the mark.

gnome · March 24, 2019, 06:40:41 AM

This was taken through the baby set packing.

gnome · March 24, 2019, 06:42:06 AM

Image of the $1 taken from the baby set.

gnome · March 24, 2019, 06:46:05 AM

Thoughts appreciated, thanks .

Mister T · March 24, 2019, 12:00:08 PM

[quote="gnome" pid='118862' dateline='1553371605']
Morning all, I have been thinking about this one since it first popped up at Bigfellas shop. Now opinions vary on it and most likely will continue to, so no offense is meant by my posts. Some things had me overthinking on it and were bugging me. The rim and the letters were way to flat, different to the 2000 mule. What if it may have been another 2014 $1 obverse used, just thinking out aloud. If this was so what marks etc would likely be from the die if this was a possibility. Came up with these possible ones. This isn't my image, it's the PCGS one.
[/quote]

I don't think the difference in rim and lettering is an issue - the font has changed since 2000 and production has as well (looking at 1999 and 2000 dollar coins the rims tend to taper down to the surface).
I thought there was a second possible mule photographed somewhere in the thread - possibly it has the dot between the A and U? The other things look like dings or scratches.

edit: oh wait it was on Coin Community: https://www.coincommunity.com/forum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=292022&whichpage=2 fourth image down looks like it has the bump between the A and U.