How do you all feel about mules? Are they errors, varieties, or types? Can they be all three depending on the circumstances of how and why they were struck?
I'm pretty sure it counts as an error coin. They could have been illegally struck by mint employees, or simply the wrong dies could have accidentally been used.
Absolutely. Both of those scenarios have happened many times. What about an instance where the mint deliberately employs an unintended die pairing out of necessity? If only a few examples are known (such as the Washington/Sacagawea reverse dollar) it's considered to be an error (or variety) - but what if they made 10,000 of them deliberately due to a lack of dies, as was frequently the case with classic mules? Does that make a difference? What if one of the dies was not intended for pairing with the other, but they were from the same denomination/type? Generally these are considered to be varieties - coins that have the "reverse of" an atypical date, but aren't those mules as well? If you're looking at a coin catalog, how would you want to see known mules represented (if at all)?
Well normally an "error" coin is a coin with an extra feature that was not officially intentional with the mint. So if the mint put out a mule coin on purpose, and had no accident in making the coin, then yes I suppose it would be a variety rather than an error coin.
I suppose the point of my question is whether or not mules should ever be designated as types. I've been working on a type set, and also authoring a catalog, and so I've come across this issue and have been mulling around with different ways of approaching it. To me, a mule is always also either a variety or an error. Many catalogs approach some mules as types. That just doesn't sit well with me, partially because of the inconsistency with some mules being elevated to types somewhat arbitrarily with other mules being ignored. To me, a type is where the design of the coin was changed deliberately (even if it's a very minor change). With a mule, there is no design change. Two dies with their intended designs are just paired differently. If it's by accident (especially if quickly caught) that is an error, and if it is intentional (or through prolonged indifference) it is a variety.
I only encounter mules with my $1 small-size currency collection. My references for those bills avoid characterizing them as errors or varieties by ignoring the categorization altogether. They just call them "mules".
What about a case where the mint knowingly used dies from one denomination and paired them with the dies of a different denomination? It was done with the draped bust heraldic eagle dimes. The dimes and the quarter eagles were very close in size and had the same design. At least five different reverse dies were used to strike quarter eagles, and then later paired with dime obverses to strike dimes. All the rev dies were used first on the gold coins and then on the silver, No reverses went the other way. It was basically a way for the early mint to conserve die steel. (There were dimes that used there own reverses as well, and not all the quarter eagle reverse were used for dimes.)
There is one primary thing at play here - definitions; but there are two separate issues involved. Issue one would be the definition of a mule, and issue two would be the decades old argument/debate of exactly what defines a variety and an error. Or perhaps more succinctly, the difference between the two. And as I've pointed out many times, when it comes to definitions people have a very strong tendency to choose the definition that most suits their own personal purposes. Regarding the definition of a mule, there are two: 1 - a coin that has been struck with obverse and reverse dies that were not originally intended to be used together. 2 - a rare Mint error where the obverse die is of one coin and the reverse die is of another coin. e.g. - where a Washington quarter obverse is paired with a Sacagawea reverse. The first would be the one Jaelus is apparently talking about. At first glance, it is accurate, but it is far too broad for it completely ignores the aspect that in order for a coin to be a mule the obv must be of one type of coin and the rev of a completely different type of coin. As Jaelus points out with his comments - - the first definition allows this to be true when the coins are not mules at all. But in no case could that be true were the second definition used. And I think that pretty much settles the question. For those who think it doesn't then I can see no other reason besides your wanting to call a coin a mule - when it isn't ! As for the second issue of the difference between a variety and an error, that's not going to be settled here any more than it has been settled anywhere else. And again it's because people choose definitions to suit their own purposes. That said, I believe pretty much everybody considered mules to be an error.
A few mules get listed in the catalogs. The most valuable ones merge coins from two different countries like the German / Polish issues around 1917. In the US the double denomination pieces with quarter / dollar tracked back to a crooked mint employee with a unique "retirement" plan. At their peak they were fetching in excess of $79,000 and one poor fool roped in twelve of less than twenty found before the truth was known. I have no idea what they sell for now.
What about wide am’s. Obverse business die and rev proof die. Would that be a mule? They were not intended to be together. Just wondering....
That's because I feel like coins that fit the second definition are clearly both mules and errors with no ambiguity. As for the first definition, let me give you an example of what I'm talking about. Krause lists a KM-459 type for Hungary - 1 krajczár 1878KB Mule. This coin has the obverse of the KM-458 (1878-1888) type, but the reverse of the KM-441 (1868-1873) type. Krause seems to think this coin is special enough to be its own type, and I completely disagree. They didn't just reuse an old die of the KM-441 type, they created a new die from the old hub and used the current date - 1878. The reverses are extremely similar. Both are laurel reverses with only slight differences such as the number of acorns. This could have been on purpose or it could have been an accident. I'm not sure the intent matters here. I do not think this coin is a true mule, and that Krause got this very wrong. I think this is just a 1 krajczár 1878KB (reverse of 1868) variety of KM-458 and nothing more. There are two other examples of mules from the Hungarian mint of this period where they straight up reused dies from earlier types. The 10 and 20 krajczár coins of 1868 both had two types. Each used an obverse 1 paired with a reverse 1 (the first type). Then the legends were changed part way through the year, and the obverse 1 was paired with a new reverse 2 (the second type). In 1870 they created a new obverse, but decided to revert back to using reverse 1 for this new type (with new dates). They also reused the existing 1868-dated reverse 1 dies as part of this mintage in 1870 since everything except the date matched. The only thing different about the coins to distinguish them from the type of 1870 is the 1868 date, however, since they technically used the reverse dies from the earlier types and did so with intention, these coins are true mules. But, are they really their own types, or are they just 1870 (dated 1868) varieties?
I thought that was the kind of thing you were talking about, and I agree, coins like that are not mules at all. But a lot of people claim they are because they choose to use that first definition. But in the specific case you are using, the first definition doesn't even work because the dies were fully intended to be used together !
