Message:

<p>[QUOTE=&quot;Jaelus, post: 3147020, member: 46237&quot;]That&#039;s because I feel like coins that fit the second definition are clearly both mules and errors with no ambiguity.</p><p><br /></p><p>As for the first definition, let me give you an example of what I&#039;m talking about. Krause lists a KM-459 <i>type</i> 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.</p><p><br /></p><p>They didn&#039;t just reuse an old die of the KM-441 type, they created <i>a new die</i> 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&#039;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.</p><p><br /></p><p>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 <i>also</i> reused the existing 1868-dated reverse 1 dies as part of this mintage in 1870 since everything except the date matched.</p><p><br /></p><p>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 <i>types</i>, or are they just 1870 (dated 1868) varieties?[/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