PCGS certifies 1916I mule halfpenny

[nealeffendi]

Auto, the PP beauty is from a different working die to the mule blip die. I spotted that unusual inner circle fault on a couple of halves when I was looking for the mule blip. Both are probably working die faults as a master die fault would be on most/all dies. I know that London only sent one pair of penny masters so I hazard to guess that only one pair of halfpenny masters were sent (IIRC Holland covered that in his excellent research).
30,000 would be an average. If you ever look at references like Mullett (writing about Melbourne mint) it seems some dies were quickly replaced with little/no production and others struck hundreds of thousands of coins.
Back to my goof, the mules (according to Sterling and Currency) have weighed in between 5.11 and 5.90g. I'm still scratching my head to work out how a halfpenny can vary so much in just 10 coins that were presumably all from the same batch of blanks, 5.90g is an overweight coin so that is a screw up. Were some sheets rolled thick and others thin prior to blanking? I'd love to see the weights of all the mules to see if they fall into 2 weight clusters (representing thick and thin sheets).

[autocoupler]

Auto, the PP beauty is from a different working die to the mule blip die.

Niel, I have to disagree. The PP coin does exhibit the blip between beads and just below the inner circle as well as the anomally on the inner rim above E. When looking at the close up photo of a Mule on Strand Coins, there is also evidence of the same anomally on the inner circle above the E, with a slight thinning of the rim either side. Die wear and wear in circulation has probably made it less pronounced, but in my opinion both coins display the same reverse.

http://www.strandcoins.com/categories/search/show/1916-mule-halfpenny?retURL=%2Fcategories%2Fsearch%2F%3F%26q%3Dmule%26item%3D337

[nealeffendi]

We both might be wrong. I did a more thorough check of a sheet (42 coins) of halfpennies and found I had 6 with anomalies in that area.
6 from 42 in a 3.6 million mintage implies around half a million with an anomaly. Even if I'm lucky and got more than an average share it still implies a few hundred thousand. Also the anomalies are all very similar (but not the same) so that indicates a hub fault transferred to the working dies. Because only a minority of coins have this fault they either fixed the hub, made a new hub or did final piece work on the working dies (as it is known they did this for the 1916 penny obverse working dies).
I used my scales on the 42 and the 6 with the anomalies weighed in at:
5.49, 5.52, 5.53, 5.54, 5.55, 5.60g
The PP beauty has slight differences to the Strand coin. For one thing the blip on the Strand coin is outside the lower edge of the inner ring but the PP coin just seems to have the ring get thinner. On one of my 6 anomaly coins there is also a bar cutting across from the lower edge of the inner ring into 2 of the inner ring beads, so I'm confident that more than one die has anomalies.
The other 36 weighed in at
5.64
5.62
5.62x2
5.60
5.59x4
5.58x6
5.56x3
5.55x3
5.54x4
5.53x2
5.51x3
5.50x2
5.47
5.46
5.43
That is a nice cluster at weights to be expected of circulated halves made to strict weight tolerances. That makes the 5.11-5.90 of the mules really stand out.
It would be interesting to determine if the mules were correctly weighed. Also why has nobody (especially back in 1965-67 when they were "thoroughly" checked out) ever investigated the weight range problem of the mules. Seems nuts to me that people pay 6 figures for something without doing their homework/research.

[autocoupler]

That's very interesting Neil, particularly the weight variation, as well as 1 in 7 rate of occurrence. As you say, the population would more than likely be way more than 30,000.

Now I'm not trying to get the last say on this because I simply don't know, I may even be guilty of wanting the evidence to fit a preferred outcome :angel: But getting back to comparisons between coins, I still think the slight differences may just amount to a general progression of die and circulation wear.

Just one point of note. You referred to the blip on the strand coins Mule as being just below the inner circle, but kind of said there is no blip on the PP coin at that point, saying the ring just seems to get thinner. I really must differ on this, as the blip on the PP coin is clearly there.

  If you look really closely at the blip on the Mule coin, it's actually two small sphere like cuds side by side, each the same size and for some twisted reason appear like the testicles on a fruit bat. :dodgy:

I'm sure the blip on the PP coin if blown up would indicate similar tendencies, only one sphere would be smaller than the other. I know this because the UNC coin I have in my possession displays exactly that, and this is why I believe in the progression of die wear theory. Eventually the smaller testicle attains equal status. :yahoo:

Starting to get silly now, but maybe not. If this particular theory were to be true it would suggest the PP coin as well as mine and many others were from earlier strikes. So how can this be true if the Mule obviously has a different obverse? The only possible answer is that at some point after the commencement of the mint run, for whatever reason the Aussie obverse was removed and replaced with the 1/4 Anna obverse die.

[nealeffendi]

I've never examined a fruit bat to check out its testicles:laughingneqw:

[autocoupler]

I've never examined a fruit bat to check out its testicles:laughingneqw:

God bless Sir David Attenborough :laugh2:

[serial]

I was just reading my 1970 copy of Rennicks when I came across a write up on the mule that may help you answer the planchet issue
"first the weighing of ten Indian quarter Anna's disclosed an average weight of 4.768 grams. ten Australian half pennies had an average weight of 5.615 grams. this weight corresponded with the average weight of the mules , 5.670 grams, proving that the mules were struck on Australian Planchets."

[nealeffendi]

I was just reading my 1970 copy of Rennicks when I came across a write up on the mule that may help you answer the planchet issue
"first the weighing of ten Indian quarter Anna's disclosed an average weight of 4.768 grams. ten Australian half pennies had an average weight of 5.615 grams. this weight corresponded with the average weight of the mules , 5.670 grams, proving that the mules were struck on Australian Planchets."

Always be careful of averages. For example people on average have one testicle and one ovary (that also applies to bats).
The average doesn't account for the extreme mule outliers of 5.1g or 5.9g so can anyone explain how they reportedly exist?

[serial]

I am just quoting what is written.

[123456789]

First one I've ever seen on eBay. 

https://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/1916-i-Australian-Mule-Half-Penny-/323280498348

[nealeffendi]

Typical PCGS, even for a six figure rarity they cannot get things right. For the PCGS lookup the image of both the obverse and reverse are at an angle. The reverse image is mostly the black contraption they photograph the coin on AND most horrifyingly it looks like they have a flake of white dandruff just below the 2nd set of pearls (I have a PCGS penny with a flake that is turning green so perhaps PCGS should invest in Head and Shoulders shampoo for their staff).

[wwwww]

Typical PCGS, even for a six figure rarity they cannot get things right. For the PCGS lookup the image of both the obverse and reverse are at an angle. The reverse image is mostly the black contraption they photograph the coin on AND most horrifyingly it looks like they have a flake of white dandruff just below the 2nd set of pearls (I have a PCGS penny with a flake that is turning green so perhaps PCGS should invest in Head and Shoulders shampoo for their staff).

That's from 2014, they used an automated cropper on the free photos back then and it obviously picked up the inner circle.