» Quick access to the last post
Quote: "Chilian"But, doesn't that create a new problem? Then the coin is listed twice on Numista. That would mess up statistics, as well as personal, as Numista's.You only have to enter it in one of the pages. you don't have to put it in both. If you collect NZ coins, put it in the NZ page, if you collect bahamas ones put it in the Bahamas page, If you just picked it up because you like it, then put it in both, put it in either, or put it in none, it's really up to you.
Quote: "Oklahoman"I have a bunch from Egypt as well.info/pics?
Quote: "AmerSalmeh"Look at the top of the thread, there's a good example of the NZ/Bahamas mule. It has the reverse of a NZ 2 cent coin but the obverse of a Bahamas 2c coin
Quote: "Oklahoman"I have a bunch from Egypt as well.info/pics?
Essor ProfYes, I have the same opinion. Better to put it only in one place. And Numista could make guide lines for such additions, for instance add it at the country with the obverse. What to do when the mule has two obverses or two reverses is something else. A mule is an error, so I guess a mule with two obverses or two reverses can be theoretically possible.
It's more than 6 years later but I still canot find any info about "Mule coins" in guidelines (or maybe it is somewhere but I cannot find it).
@Xavier @Jarcek @tdziemia @ArsenEverlast what is your opinion about mule coins - where there should be catalogued in case when obverse is from country 1 and reverse from country 2? Like this one: N#26621
MMowiec
Essor ProfYes, I have the same opinion. Better to put it only in one place. And Numista could make guide lines for such additions, for instance add it at the country with the obverse. What to do when the mule has two obverses or two reverses is something else. A mule is an error, so I guess a mule with two obverses or two reverses can be theoretically possible.
It's more than 6 years later but I still canot find any info about "Mule coins" in guidelines (or maybe it is somewhere but I cannot find it).
@Xavier @Jarcek @tdziemia @ArsenEverlast what is your opinion about mule coins - where there should be catalogued in case when obverse is from country 1 and reverse from country 2? Like this one: N#26621
I don't think a coin could be a legal tender if it has two obverses or two reverses or obverse/reverse from different countries or any of the mules were officially released (like some patterns/trials/piedforts), so should they go into Exonumia → Coin pattern or new section Exonumia → Mule/planchet/error coins?
When I document a mule, I normally make a CR for two km# of the mix of coins and then of course one for the mule page by itself!
Here an Egyptian mule following the rule of 3 km#
Here an Indian mule, where the rule of a special km# for the mule, is NOT followed.
Sjoelund
When I document a mule, I normally make a CR for two km# of the mix of coins and then of course one for the mule page by itself!
But what if the mule had the obverse of an Italian coin and the reverse of a Polish coin?
Arseneverlast,
We have some points of agreement, but we have some points of not agreeing as well. Mules have been popularly collectected for perhaps as long as there have been coins to collect. I think it would be wrong to not consider this reality if Numista were to develop a policy for dealing with mules. ( I think they are properly listed in the coin catalog, as patterns, piedforts should be.)
In some cases, mules are from the same nation, like the many Egyptian mules. They did circulate. Many of those mules were discovered in this way.
The New Zealand/Bahamas mule is interesting. Obviously struck by the same mint. But from two different currencies that were not necessarily equal.
Then there is the Isle of Man/Ascension Island mule, arguably the same currency, struck by the same mint, but two different entities.
Numista is going to make it difficult for themselves if they just stick these mules in exonumia.
We want coin collectors to use our site. Coin collectors want to track their collections. Once they understand that we create listings for our pieces we cannot find in the catalog, they will attempt to create these pages because they will not know to look in the exonumia part of Numista.
And perhaps they should not have to. It is rare that these pieces are not catalogued with coins in standard catalogs or other collecting websites.
Please share this with the decision makers.
Thanks,
Oklahoman
Give me an example?
I just made the Ascension Island mule:
OK?
Sjoelund,
Nice job but the IOM coin is incorrect . This is from 1970 when the mule was 1978 (km#43) coin (obverse with IOM on it).
Oklahoman
Arseneverlast,
We have some points of agreement, but we have some points of not agreeing as well. Mules have been popularly collectected for perhaps as long as there have been coins to collect. I think it would be wrong to not consider this reality if Numista were to develop a policy for dealing with mules. ( I think they are properly listed in the coin catalog, as patterns, piedforts should be.)
In some cases, mules are from the same nation, like the many Egyptian mules. They did circulate. Many of those mules were discovered in this way.
The New Zealand/Bahamas mule is interesting. Obviously struck by the same mint. But from two different currencies that were not necessarily equal.
Then there is the Isle of Man/Ascension Island mule, arguably the same currency, struck by the same mint, but two different entities.
Numista is going to make it difficult for themselves if they just stick these mules in exonumia.
We want coin collectors to use our site. Coin collectors want to track their collections. Once they understand that we create listings for our pieces we cannot find in the catalog, they will attempt to create these pages because they will not know to look in the exonumia part of Numista.
And perhaps they should not have to. It is rare that these pieces are not catalogued with coins in standard catalogs or other collecting websites.
Please share this with the decision makers.
Thanks,
Oklahoman
I missed the earlier (5 years ago) discussion, but these are all important points.
Still, mules are a kind of error (even if some other catalogs list them as types).
MMowiec
Sjoelund,
Nice job but the IOM coin is incorrect . This is from 1970 when the mule was 1978 (km#43) coin (obverse with IOM on it).
The mule is 1978, as indicated on the ASC coin, the portrait of the Queen is from a die from 1970…..
A mule is an error, but still numista needs to treat them equally (which is not the case today). In my opinion, they are coins!
Sjoelund
A mule is an error, but still numista needs to treat them equally (which is not the case today). In my opinion, they are coins!
Agree on both points.
Sjoelund,
I think what he is trying to say is that the coin you used for the Isle of Man side of the mule is wrong. Instead of KM#18a it should be KM#43.
The km18 just says “Elizabeth the Second”,
Where the 43 says “Isle of Man Elizabeth II”
If you would change your graphic to KM# 43 it would be correct.
Done:
Thanks, please verify again
The mule is .925 silver, therefore it has to consist of Isle of Man KM# 43a and Ascension Island KM# 2. You mixed copper nickel obverse with silver reverse.
The real question of this post is which country the mule should be under. Why does Krause put it under Ascension Island and not Isle of Man?
Now it's good, I suppose?
KM deemed it good for Ascension Island, so maybe the coin was “ordered” from there? The books from PM should show that, shouldn't they?
I would put the documentation at IOM km43a, ASC km1a and km2 and also make the links between the pages for all three coins.
The idea (from some years ago) was to list the mule coin on the country list of issuer which appears on the obverse. Listing this one mule on Ascention is in contrary to this idea.
However, this was only idea raised on this forum but not yet supported by guidelines. I asked Numista team for their opinion and for more precise guidelines in the subject of mule coins. It's why I "reactivated" this old topic.
BTW/ Thank you Ole for this nice graphic that document this case.
I own this coin. Because it is silver, I am sure the Mint tracked the mintages for this issue better than they would have for a base metal issue. I believe that is why they have an exact mintage for this piece.
I am also pretty sure that the contention that it was sold as an Ascension Island commemorative is also true. By this time, the Machin portrait was not anything new. But the 1978 25th anniversaries of the Queen's this and that was a new current thing.
I am pretty sure that evidence would support this coin as being sold as an Ascension Island coin, and then having the people notice the wrong obverse.
However, I am also of the mind that when two designs from two nations are a part of a mule, that the coin should be listed under the nation that is specified on the obverse of the coin.
It is not unheard of for countries to commemorate events of another nation. In fact, Isle of Man does this plenty.
I just hope that it is codified so that if it regrettably happens again, we can proceed in a timely way.
If I had a coin that says Isle of Man on the national side, and that it is not there, I would want to create a new page and list it. It has happened, and I am sure that it will happen again with other countries as well. A comparable mule to this one, is an Australia 50 Cent obverse with a Fiji 50 cents reverse. It is listed as Australian because the obverse says Australia. Strangely it is a 1978 issue as well.
It illustrates a need for a policy regardless.
neilithicman
Quote: "AmerSalmeh"
Quote: "Oklahoman"I have a bunch from Egypt as well.
info/pics?
Look at the top of the thread, there's a good example of the NZ/Bahamas mule. It has the reverse of a NZ 2 cent coin but the obverse of a Bahamas 2c coin
The obverse is of the Bahamas 5 Cents - & the Bahama Islands mule 2 Cents was in circulation in New Zealand only, not in The Bahamas.
Aidan.
Used time zone is UTC+1:00.
Current time is 09:39.