Message:

<p>[QUOTE=&quot;funkee, post: 1764355, member: 37925&quot;]In general terms, mules have face and back plates from different eras. Unfortunately there are only two distinct changes in the design to help us identify them. In the era of large size notes it was the position of the back plate number. Among small size notes, it was the size of the plate numbers.</p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>Although other mules exist based on the definition, they aren&#039;t really recognized because there aren&#039;t any ways to identify them without a cohesive list of production data.</p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>For large size notes, the position of back plate numbers changed when Frank White took over from John Burke as Treasurer.</p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>Therefore notes with signatures up to Elliot / Burke have back plates in one position and notes starting with Elliot / White have back plates in another.</p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>Only two signature combinations can be large size mules, and those are Elliot / White and Speelman / White. There were later officials that appeared on a few large size notes like Woods, Tate and Jones, but I don&#039;t believe any of those issues were mules.</p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>It can be a bit cumbersome to figure out which notes are mules without a reference showing the back plate positions. I think the Complete Catalog of Large Size Star Notes by Douglas Murray has some illustrations.</p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>One way is to pull up photos of notes from the Teehee/Burke variety and compare the back plate position to notes from the Speelman/White variety. I like to use HA.com for the high-res photos, since some plate numbers are hard to see... especially on gold certificates. If a note has the signatures of Elliot/White or Speelman/White but the back plate number is in the same position as a note from the Teehee/Burke note, then that note is a mule.[/QUOTE]</p><p><br /></p>

Your name or email address:

Do you already have an account?

• No, create an account now.
• Yes, my password is:
• Forgot your password?

Stay logged in