Error Die Clash/Break | 1999p Lincoln cent Mule

[Petespockets55]

I came across an post from July 19 (2018?) on Lincoln Cent error and Varieties (Facebook Group) for a 1999p Lincoln Cent that had a reverse mule. Mike Diamond did an article on it in Coin World.

Here is a link to the post on Lincoln Cent Errors and Varieties.

LINK .

I'm having trouble finding info as I don't have a Coin World subscription. I did a search here but nothing turned up and I don't remember a post here on LCF.
Anyone else have a link to try?


Thanks in advance as this is really a neat error.
Cliff

[mustbebob]

I hadn't heard about it. That's a pretty special coin!

[jallengomez]

It was originally posted in the United States Error Coins group on Facebook, and further information including Mike Diamond's comments can be found there.

[Petespockets55]

It was originally posted in the United States Error Coins group on Facebook, and further information including Mike Diamond's comments can be found there.

Thanks for the replies.
I think that is the same thread in the link I listed above.
When viewing the images by the original discoverer of the coin, Mike's article only had the first page visible but the images the OP posted were very neat.
Just surprised there aren't more info on the web with images.

[jallengomez]

Thanks for the replies.
I think that is the same thread in the link I listed above.
When viewing the images by the original discoverer of the coin, Mike's article only had the first page visible but the images the OP posted were very neat.
Just surprised there aren't more info on the web with images.

I know Amy is sending the coin off for grading. Maybe we'll have more images then. Mike has some photos up.

http://www.error-ref.com/mule-clash/

[GrumpyEd]

I think there is another one known of before that one.

[Petespockets55]

I guess I'm a little confused because I thought a mule was two different denominations appearing on a coin. This one, if I'm reading it correctly, is produced with only Lincoln cent dies.
I must have misunderstood the definition of mule die coins.

Here is the definiton at Error-Ref.com-
Definition: Clash marks from dies that should never have been paired.

I'm still missing something but thanks for the help.

[GrumpyEd]

I'm still missing something but thanks for the help.

You have it right, a mule is a coin where one die is a different denomination.

This thing is not that, it's a cent made from dies clashed with another denomination.
Similar to the Flying Eagle cents that were made by dies clashed with other denominations. Those were blamed on the "Night Watchman" playing around at night.

In the late 90s into 2000s there are a bunch of tough to believe errors that seem like they might be made intentionally or who knows for sure....

Like the 1999 cent/mule:

http://www.coinfacts.com/error_coins/mules/1999_cent_dime_mule.htm

Or even the 2000 Sac/quarter mules:

http://www.pcgscoinfacts.com/coin/detail/508061

Which makes me wonder if the 1999 mule clash is related to the 1999 cent/dime mule coin.... like if it is the same obv die?

[Petespockets55]

You have it right, a mule is a coin where one die is a different denomination.......

Like the 1999 cent/mule:

http://www.coinfacts.com/error_coins..._dime_mule.htm
....... Which makes me wonder if the 1999 mule clash is related to the 1999 cent/dime mule coin.... like if it is the same obv die?

But all the references call this coin a mule clash, but I haven't seen any mention of what denomination the reverse clash elements are from. (Maybe it should be assumed it is a Roosevelt since that is the only other real possibility.)
This is why my confusion still abounds in great splendor.

And your post made me think the same thing about the 1999 mule and 1999 mule clash being related. I'm surprised no one has done a comparison on the obverse of both coins looking for markers.


Edit: Went back and reread the beginning of Mike's article and the re it was-
"Discovery piece has a reverse that was clashed by a second reverse die for a cent."

So that's why this is a mule clash. It doesn't have to be a different denomination.
The reverse used with " reverse elements of a double clash" shouldn't have been paired with the obverse die. (Think I've got it! Whew. )

[willbrooks]

But all the references call this coin a mule clash, but I haven't seen any mention of what denomination the reverse clash elements are from. (Maybe it should be assumed it is a Roosevelt since that is the only other real possibility.)
This is why my confusion still abounds in great splendor.

And your post made me think the same thing about the 1999 mule and 1999 mule clash being related. I'm surprised no one has done a comparison on the obverse of both coins looking for markers.

It's not just you. After doing a quick pass through all of the links, I had the exact same question.

[Petespockets55]

It's not just you. After doing a quick pass through all of the links, I had the exact same question.

OMG
I hope I don't get blamed for dragging you down to my level!

[willbrooks]

OMG
I hope I don't get blamed for dragging you down to my level!

...and here I was trying to say the opposite-- that you must be a genius!

[Petespockets55]

...and here I was trying to say the opposite-- that you must be a genius!

Thanks and like many have said before, lots of encouragement, knowledge and help from everyone here.

(Edit- My friends and family know me too well to fall for that one, no matter how hard I use this thread
to try to convince them!!!)

[jallengomez]

Here is a list of errors considered "mules."

http://www.error-ref.com/part-iii-die-installation-errors/

[Petespockets55]

Here is a list of errors considered "mules."

http://www.error-ref.com/part-iii-di...lation-errors/

Thanks again for all the links you have provided. They are very helpful.
Here is one definition in the link that got my attention-

Temporal mule (mule die representing same denomination but from an earlier or subsequent year)(CW 1/24/14)

By this definition would this include the 1988 RDV-006?
Or was the 006 intended for use in 1988 but there were not many produced?