As you would have read in Part 1, the proof dollar coin manufactured in the sets by the RAM was the dancing man dollar and not the standard design mob of roos in 2005. But a number of proof sets in 2006 were released with an error including a 2005 dated mob of roos dollar. This 2005 proof mob of roos coin just isn't meant to exist!
There has been much debate in numismatic circles whether or not the term "mule" is the correct definition for this coin, or in fact it is simply a date error. What I always understood as the definition of a mule is that it is a coin struck from dies not intended to be paired together. Now you can see where the doubt comes into the label with "dies not intended to be paired together". The 2005 Elizabeth II one dollar obverse die was never intended to be paired with the standard mob of roos design for the year 2005. Very simple. But...... it was the standard design issued many other years so for any other year it was just a regular coin. Therefore is it just a date error?
An example of a genuine mule coin is the 2000 $1/10 cent mule where the obverse die of the 10 cent coin was accidently struck on the dollar reverse die and released into circulation. There is no denying that this is a true mule coin.
The problems with labeling the 2005 proof mob of roos dollar is in how you understand the wording of the definition of the term "mule". Coming away from a very long discussion on the now defunct aussiecoins forum I think numismatists agree there will never be closure on this question and we'll just agree to have our own opinions on what we perceive the definition to mean.
If the Royal Australian Mint come forward and recognize this error we might only then have an official term to use to describe this coin.
Posted by harrisk at February 21, 2009 8:25 AM
Subscribe to our Newsletter
