@Romrob1843rr said:
I never stated I had one with raised dots, this was done on planchet, incluse as in below surface! MasonG
I didn't say you said that. What you did say is that the test is done on dies along with planchets. And in that case, there'd be millions of coins with raised dots on them.
@Romrob1843rr said:
The planchet tested pieces were to be discarded by the mints and not put into circulation.
I'm not talking about them. I'm talking about the dies that were tested, that you said was done. Certainly, they wouldn't throw the die away after testing, so there should be millions of coins with a raised dot.
@Romrob1843rr as I suggested send the coin off to ANACS. It's inexpensive and fast. I think you may have something here and don't feel you would be wasting your $$$ finding out. This is a tough crowd...your best bet is to prove them wrong. Send the cent off tomorrow....in a few weeks we all will have an answer. I for one wish you good luck!
MasonG I am not concerned with the dies tested all I’m concerned with is the planchet testing, I commented on that because Mr. Weinberg stated dies were not tested!
A Rockwell test mark will appear on a die face as a small pit. On a coin it will appear as a tiny dome-shaped or cone-shaped elevation. It is most likely to appear in the field. No unambiguous examples of Rockwell test-marked dies are known among U.S. coins.
Your claims have been thoroughly disputed if not fully disproven by a number of highly knowledgeable members here, and some are experts in this field, and yet you continue to argue with the experts.
If you are so convinced you have gold on your hands, "put up or shut up" as they say. Put your money where your mouth is. Send it to a tpg and find out, since if it's worth what you say, surely they, who have literally seen it all, will validate your claims.
I have doubted members opinions here before and they have been proven right by doing just that, putting my money where my mouth is.
So what's it going to be? Are you going to believe the experts here, or the experts at a tpg, or are you just arguing for arguments sake?
I see you are brainwashed into their thinking also, none will be found in circulation. My intent is to sent to get verified soon. Will post results when I get them. Not arguing someone said dies not tested, dies are tested pcgs, 65-80 tons,cents about 40, not that high of pressure. Nothing has been disproven it’s just their opinions. Person was wrong on tonnage, about 40 for cents, wrong that dies at not tested, pcgs and other credible expert sights state dies are tested so what makes you think he cannot be mistaken as to this coin?
Brainwashed? No. I've seen the expertise here firsthand, and their expertise has been proven to me multiple times.
But, we will all await with baited breath (🫣😂) for you to prove the experts here wrong. I hope for your sake you are right, lest you waste $50 or more on a penny worth a cent.
Side note... I can recreate what you've shown with a center punch and a hammer, or a drill bit... But hey it's only money right?
For clarification, in my post I stated that I saw the Rockwall test operation at the West Point Mint only – although I’ve had floor tours of thePhiladelphia and Denver Mints, I did not see the Rockwell test operation in those other locations – the tonnage for striking pressure that I quoted was for what they were striking at the West Point Mint, which did not include cents.
In my opinion, I can’t see a reason to do a Rockwell test on a finished die – if the Philadelphia or Denver mint do these tests, they would do them on the die shaft before it was hubbed, test the metal before it went to the next operation of being turned into an actual die. My opinion only.
Although I appreciate the kind words, I do make mistakes as does anyone and I admit I am not 100% aware of the exact process of the Rockwell test procedure, but I do not feel that these coins shown with the indentations are from the US mint - I still say the striking pressure, even at 25 tons, would obliterate the much smaller test marks that I’ve seen done at the West Point Mint on planchets. and again, there is no reason to do a Rockwell test piece on a struck coin, imo
Hope this clarifies what I originally posted – I’m always open to learn, but logically,
these pieces don’t make sense. Feel free to disagree and discuss.
Retired Collector & Dealer in Major Mint Error Coins & Currency since the 1960's.Co-Author of Whitman's "100 Greatest U.S. Mint Error Coins", and the Error Coin Encyclopedia, Vols., III & IV. Retired Authenticator for Major Mint Errors for PCGS. A 49+-Year PNG Member...A full numismatist since 1972, retired in 2022
@FredWeinberg said:
and again, there is no reason to do a Rockwell test piece on a struck coin, imo
And even if there was, nothing is stopping anybody from doing the test on a coin they got in change so there'd be no way to confirm that a specific coin was tested at the mint.
@FredWeinberg said:
and again, there is no reason to do a Rockwell test piece on a struck coin, imo
And even if there was, nothing is stopping anybody from doing the test on a coin they got in change so there'd be no way to confirm that a specific coin was tested at the mint.
The conical shape of the OP coin makes me 99.75% that he has a PMD coin and nothing of any numismatic interest.. Unless you want to know what happens to a cent when you drill into it...
If you believe you have what you have... Send it to PCGS why are you arguing with us plebeians... Use your expertise to fill our the PCGS grading document and send it in... or send it to CONECA or anywhere else and prove to the masses your knowledge is so great...
There is no reason to do a Rockwell test on the face of a die. It can be done on the side of the die where it wouldn't show on the struck pieces. The side of the die near the face would have the same hardness as the face itself.
All of the dimples on struck coins shown in this thread appear to have been made post-strike by a small tool, or strike-throughs where the small spherical item fell out after the strike.
@Romrob1843rr said:
I see you are brainwashed into their thinking also, none will be found in circulation. My intent is to sent to get verified soon. Will post results when I get them. Not arguing someone said dies not tested, dies are tested pcgs, 65-80 tons,cents about 40, not that high of pressure. Nothing has been disproven it’s just their opinions. Person was wrong on tonnage, about 40 for cents, wrong that dies at not tested, pcgs and other credible expert sights state dies are tested so what makes you think he cannot be mistaken as to this coin?
Looks to me like you came here expecting a thread full of folks telling you how awesome, rare and valuable your piece is. The unfortunate reality is that unless you were actually there when the test was done at the Mint or have ironclad provenance from someone who was, there's no way you can prove this is what you claim because it can be so easily duplicated by anyone with a punch. You're pinning your hopes on descriptions from a 50 year old guide. The only person here that's brainwashed is you...you found it, thus it MUST be the real deal... and no one here will ever be able to convince you otherwise. I'd bet money that even if/when you send this in and it comes back as a non-error piece, you still won't even believe the TPG. As the old saying goes..."those convinced against their will are of the same opinion still".
Used a Rockwell tester for 37 years for my work in metal heat treating. At first had a dial tester as in the pictures but later had a digital one, more accurate and easier to use.
"There is a notable lack of consensus in the Numismatic Community over whether there are actually any legitimate Rockwell Test Marks on coins. Absolute certainty requires that the test itself be witnessed and the planchet followed through the complete minting process!"
Most of the photos in the article have been used to support the OP's damaged Cent, so he's probably read it. And of course, ignored this quote.
Dead Cat Waltz Exonumia
"Coin collecting for outcasts..."
"There is a notable lack of consensus in the Numismatic Community over whether there are actually any legitimate Rockwell Test Marks on coins. Absolute certainty requires that the test itself be witnessed and the planchet followed through the complete minting process!"
Most of the photos in the article have been used to support the OP's damaged Cent, so he's probably read it. And of course, ignored this quote.
I'm not sure that quote changes anything. 'LACK OF CONSENSUS IN THE NUMISMATIC COMMUNITY" suggests there is legitimate belief in the existence of such coins even without "absolute certainty".
I'm not sure that quote changes anything. 'LACK OF CONSENSUS IN THE NUMISMATIC COMMUNITY" suggests there is legitimate belief in the existence of such coins even without "absolute certainty".
There is also a legitimate belief among certain people without "absolute certainty" that someone's sitting on another roll of 1933 Saints and that Bigfoot is real.
Like I stated earlier, unless someone actually witnesses the test or has ironclad provenance from someone who did, there's ZERO way to prove a Rockwell test piece is what it is claimed to be.
I'm not sure that quote changes anything. 'LACK OF CONSENSUS IN THE NUMISMATIC COMMUNITY" suggests there is legitimate belief in the existence of such coins even without "absolute certainty".
There is also a legitimate belief among certain people without "absolute certainty" that someone's sitting on another roll of 1933 Saints and that Bigfoot is real.
Did you read the bold text or are you the devil's advocate???
Even the OP is in the "numismatic community."
Absolute certainty isn't the test. 1913 Liberty nickel, shenanigans? Mint product? Not a Mint product? There isn't absolute certainty about its origins.
So, lack of consensus and lack of absolute certainty is evidence of nothing. It's just establishing parameters.
I don't think the OP has anything. But that's not the same as trying to use that quote as evidence. It proves nothing. It's not even trying to price anything.
I'm not sure that quote changes anything. 'LACK OF CONSENSUS IN THE NUMISMATIC COMMUNITY" suggests there is legitimate belief in the existence of such coins even without "absolute certainty".
There is also a legitimate belief among certain people without "absolute certainty" that someone's sitting on another roll of 1933 Saints and that Bigfoot is real.
Like I stated earlier, unless someone actually witnesses the test or has ironclad provenance from someone who did, there's ZERO way to prove a Rockwell test piece is what it is claimed to be.
On the coin, yes. On the die, no.
But my only point is that the quote provided is evidence of nothing.
The quote isn't the evidence of anything @jmlanzaf
It's just reality. If you want to be sure that your Rockwell tested Cent was Rockwell tested at the Mint, you would need to follow it through the process when it leaves. Otherwise your Rockwell tested Cent could have been Rockwell tested by anyone with the machine at any time.
Get it?
Dead Cat Waltz Exonumia
"Coin collecting for outcasts..."
@DCW said:
The quote isn't the evidence of anything @jmlanzaf
It's just reality. If you want to be sure that your Rockwell tested Cent was Rockwell tested at the Mint, you would need to follow it through the process when it leaves. Otherwise your Rockwell tested Cent could have been Rockwell tested by anyone with the machine at any time.
Get it?
Dude, I'M THE FIRST ONE THAT SAID IT. Go back and look at the top of the thread.
@DCW said: @jmlanzaf
You also said:
"I don't think the OP has anything. But that's not the same as trying to use that quote as evidence. It proves nothing."
Arguing both points again?
No. 2 different points. You made the implication that the OP (who had disappeared) was intentionally ignoring the quote you posted. I simply suggested there was no probative value to that quote and that the existence of a lack of consensus means that others believe in their existence besides the OP. Honestly, I'm not sure why that is such a big deal.
Edited to add: that statement is also only true of one of the 3 possible Rockwell test marks.
Not a big deal at all. A man can believe whatever he wants, despite all evidence to the contrary. I wasn't implying he ignored MY quote, but rather that section of the article that stated the obvious.
Since the test can be performed ANYTIME, the only way to know if the Rockwell test was performed at the Mint would be to observe the entire process.
And personally, I look at them as damaged regardless of when this test is conducted.
PMD
Dead Cat Waltz Exonumia
"Coin collecting for outcasts..."
@DCW said:
Not a big deal at all. A man can believe whatever he wants, despite all evidence to the contrary. I wasn't implying he ignored MY quote, but rather that section of the article that stated the obvious.
Since the test can be performed ANYTIME, the only way to know if the Rockwell test was performed at the Mint would be to observe the entire process.
And personally, I look at them as damaged regardless of when this test is conducted.
PMD
Well. It's not PMD if it happened prior to striking
I stand by the point I have already made... The OP image has a conical shape which is not inline with any of the imaged cents nor inline with how the test would be performed. The conical shape of the OP coin is proof it was made with a drill bit or something of that ilk... Thus most of this whole thing is moot. The coin in the original post is clearly PMD.
@DCW said:
Not technically, but the mark is the same...and therein lies the point.
It wouldn't be. You could definitively tell a planchet Rockwell test or a die test without following the coin through the process. I don't think you are understanding the different types.
A planchet test would show metal flow from the strike and could be identified.
Enlighten me...how would you differentiate between a mark left by a test on the planchet in the area of open fields of a cent at the Mint and one done in the open fields of a struck cent in someone's basement?
Why would they not be identical?
Dead Cat Waltz Exonumia
"Coin collecting for outcasts..."
@DCW said:
Enlighten me...how would you differentiate between a mark left by a test on the planchet in the area of open fields of a cent at the Mint and one done in the open fields of a struck cent in someone's basement?
Why would they not be identical?
Because striking the planchet causes the metal to flow. The hole would no longer be the same shape. It likely depends on where exactly it is relative to design elements as to exactly how the shape warped.
You couldn't tell a test on a struck coin at the mint from a struck coin in a basement.
If you read the rest of the CONECA document, it did describe it.
@DCW said:
Enlighten me...how would you differentiate between a mark left by a test on the planchet in the area of open fields of a cent at the Mint and one done in the open fields of a struck cent in someone's basement?
Why would they not be identical?
From the CONECA document:
"This was authenticated as a Rockwell Test Mark by “Lonesome” John Devine. The author states that this example is convincing.
“The floor of the cup-shaped depression is completely smooth, as would be expected of a dimple produced by a pin tipped by a small steel ball. Although there is no metal flow in the design bordering the crater, there is also no trace of a pressure ridge, indicating that the defect was present before the strike. The pit is oval, rather than circular, but this can be attributed to distortion produced by the strike. There is always the chance that such a defect could be the result of a struck-in or rolled-in piece of debris that fell out after the strike. But the smooth texture of the pit and its central location provide a strong argument in favor of a Rockwell test mark.” (Diamond, Pages 17 – 18)
“Lonesome” John Devine, who died in 2013, was a highly respected error coin pioneer. He was a founding member of the Combined Organizations of Numismatic Error Collectors of America (CONECA) and the first inductee into the CONECA Hall of Fame. He created the Error Coin Museum, which was the umbrella under which the Collectors of Numismatic Errors (CONE) and the Numismatic Error Collectors of America (NECA) were able to merge into CONECA in 1983. (Fern and Potter, July 30, 2013)
This description provides a working definition of how a Rockwell Test Mark in planchet is to be recognized. I would add the notation that the depression would appear more hemispherical if it were not located adjacent to devices which contribute to its elongation. Otherwise, there is minimal distortion of the mark by the strike, as can be seen by observing the shape of the mark on the East/West axis."
Here is one from 1944 wheat penny. T and R were distorted. And R is somewhat faint and is about 1.5 times larger in size. These are, I believe, impossible to simulate on a struck coin. Therefore it is a real example of Pre-Strike Damage, Rockwell test mark.
Comments
I didn't say you said that. What you did say is that the test is done on dies along with planchets. And in that case, there'd be millions of coins with raised dots on them.
Where are those coins?
After Mr. Weinberg stated they did not test dies is when I made my comment.
OK. And you say they do test dies.
Where are the coins struck by those dies?
?
The planchet tested pieces were to be discarded by the mints and not put into circulation.
I'm not talking about them. I'm talking about the dies that were tested, that you said was done. Certainly, they wouldn't throw the die away after testing, so there should be millions of coins with a raised dot.
Where are they?
@Romrob1843rr as I suggested send the coin off to ANACS. It's inexpensive and fast. I think you may have something here and don't feel you would be wasting your $$$ finding out. This is a tough crowd...your best bet is to prove them wrong. Send the cent off tomorrow....in a few weeks we all will have an answer. I for one wish you good luck!
MasonG I am not concerned with the dies tested all I’m concerned with is the planchet testing, I commented on that because Mr. Weinberg stated dies were not tested!
From Error-Ref.com:
Rockwell Test Mark In Planchet
Update 5/7/20
All alleged Rockwell test marks in planchets are now considered suspect, including the 1971-S cent described above.
https://www.error-ref.com/rockwell-test-mark-in-planchet/
Rockwell Test Mark Left in the Die
A Rockwell test mark will appear on a die face as a small pit. On a coin it will appear as a tiny dome-shaped or cone-shaped elevation. It is most likely to appear in the field. No unambiguous examples of Rockwell test-marked dies are known among U.S. coins.
http://www.error-ref.com/rockwell-test-mark-left-in-die/
Error-ref.com is Presented By
Mike Diamond (Senior Editor & Author)
Fred Weinberg (Consulting Editor)
Jon Sullivan (Consulting Editor)
BJ Neff (Editor & Author)
JC Stevens (Administrator & Editor)
Will Brooks (Editor)
Peter Lukic (Consulting Editor & Web Master)
A pit would be from a test on a coin not a die. So what does this have to do with your coin?
Then why are you picking a fight with Fred?
Check picture, it’s pressed into surface of coin.
Your claims have been thoroughly disputed if not fully disproven by a number of highly knowledgeable members here, and some are experts in this field, and yet you continue to argue with the experts.
If you are so convinced you have gold on your hands, "put up or shut up" as they say. Put your money where your mouth is. Send it to a tpg and find out, since if it's worth what you say, surely they, who have literally seen it all, will validate your claims.
I have doubted members opinions here before and they have been proven right by doing just that, putting my money where my mouth is.
So what's it going to be? Are you going to believe the experts here, or the experts at a tpg, or are you just arguing for arguments sake?
https://www.the4thcoin.com
https://www.ebay.com/str/thefourthcoin
I see you are brainwashed into their thinking also, none will be found in circulation. My intent is to sent to get verified soon. Will post results when I get them. Not arguing someone said dies not tested, dies are tested pcgs, 65-80 tons,cents about 40, not that high of pressure. Nothing has been disproven it’s just their opinions. Person was wrong on tonnage, about 40 for cents, wrong that dies at not tested, pcgs and other credible expert sights state dies are tested so what makes you think he cannot be mistaken as to this coin?
Brainwashed? No. I've seen the expertise here firsthand, and their expertise has been proven to me multiple times.
But, we will all await with baited breath (🫣😂) for you to prove the experts here wrong. I hope for your sake you are right, lest you waste $50 or more on a penny worth a cent.
Side note... I can recreate what you've shown with a center punch and a hammer, or a drill bit... But hey it's only money right?
https://www.the4thcoin.com
https://www.ebay.com/str/thefourthcoin
I wonder if the OP even realizes that before he retired that @FredWeinberg would be the person deciding if that coin got put into an error slab?
Arguing with Fred one of the most respected if not the most respected authorities on error coins is not a good idea.
If Fred says its no good, then its no good PERIOD.
Successful BST with ad4400, Kccoin, lablover, pointfivezero, koynekwest, jwitten, coin22lover, HalfDimeDude, erwindoc, jyzskowsi, COINS MAKE CENTS, AlanSki, BryceM
For clarification, in my post I stated that I saw the Rockwall test operation at the West Point Mint only – although I’ve had floor tours of thePhiladelphia and Denver Mints, I did not see the Rockwell test operation in those other locations – the tonnage for striking pressure that I quoted was for what they were striking at the West Point Mint, which did not include cents.
In my opinion, I can’t see a reason to do a Rockwell test on a finished die – if the Philadelphia or Denver mint do these tests, they would do them on the die shaft before it was hubbed, test the metal before it went to the next operation of being turned into an actual die. My opinion only.
Although I appreciate the kind words, I do make mistakes as does anyone and I admit I am not 100% aware of the exact process of the Rockwell test procedure, but I do not feel that these coins shown with the indentations are from the US mint - I still say the striking pressure, even at 25 tons, would obliterate the much smaller test marks that I’ve seen done at the West Point Mint on planchets. and again, there is no reason to do a Rockwell test piece on a struck coin, imo
Hope this clarifies what I originally posted – I’m always open to learn, but logically,
these pieces don’t make sense. Feel free to disagree and discuss.
for PCGS. A 49+-Year PNG Member...A full numismatist since 1972, retired in 2022
And even if there was, nothing is stopping anybody from doing the test on a coin they got in change so there'd be no way to confirm that a specific coin was tested at the mint.
Faith
The conical shape of the OP coin makes me 99.75% that he has a PMD coin and nothing of any numismatic interest.. Unless you want to know what happens to a cent when you drill into it...
If you believe you have what you have... Send it to PCGS why are you arguing with us plebeians... Use your expertise to fill our the PCGS grading document and send it in... or send it to CONECA or anywhere else and prove to the masses your knowledge is so great...
There is no reason to do a Rockwell test on the face of a die. It can be done on the side of the die where it wouldn't show on the struck pieces. The side of the die near the face would have the same hardness as the face itself.
All of the dimples on struck coins shown in this thread appear to have been made post-strike by a small tool, or strike-throughs where the small spherical item fell out after the strike.
Looks to me like you came here expecting a thread full of folks telling you how awesome, rare and valuable your piece is. The unfortunate reality is that unless you were actually there when the test was done at the Mint or have ironclad provenance from someone who was, there's no way you can prove this is what you claim because it can be so easily duplicated by anyone with a punch. You're pinning your hopes on descriptions from a 50 year old guide. The only person here that's brainwashed is you...you found it, thus it MUST be the real deal... and no one here will ever be able to convince you otherwise. I'd bet money that even if/when you send this in and it comes back as a non-error piece, you still won't even believe the TPG. As the old saying goes..."those convinced against their will are of the same opinion still".
RIP Mom- 1932-2012
^
^
^
Thwap!!!
Even PCGS refers to die face being tested along with other coin sites. I’ll start a new post with picture of die and planchet pressed coin.
Used a Rockwell tester for 37 years for my work in metal heat treating. At first had a dial tester as in the pictures but later had a digital one, more accurate and easier to use.
https://conecaonline.org/rockwell-hardness-test-marks-on-lincoln-cents/
From the article above:
"There is a notable lack of consensus in the Numismatic Community over whether there are actually any legitimate Rockwell Test Marks on coins. Absolute certainty requires that the test itself be witnessed and the planchet followed through the complete minting process!"
Most of the photos in the article have been used to support the OP's damaged Cent, so he's probably read it. And of course, ignored this quote.
Dead Cat Waltz Exonumia
"Coin collecting for outcasts..."
I'm not sure that quote changes anything. 'LACK OF CONSENSUS IN THE NUMISMATIC COMMUNITY" suggests there is legitimate belief in the existence of such coins even without "absolute certainty".
@jmlanzaf
Did you read the bold text or are you the devil's advocate???
Even the OP is in the "numismatic community."
Dead Cat Waltz Exonumia
"Coin collecting for outcasts..."
There is also a legitimate belief among certain people without "absolute certainty" that someone's sitting on another roll of 1933 Saints and that Bigfoot is real.
Like I stated earlier, unless someone actually witnesses the test or has ironclad provenance from someone who did, there's ZERO way to prove a Rockwell test piece is what it is claimed to be.
RIP Mom- 1932-2012
Not sure about Bigfoot…
Absolute certainty isn't the test. 1913 Liberty nickel, shenanigans? Mint product? Not a Mint product? There isn't absolute certainty about its origins.
So, lack of consensus and lack of absolute certainty is evidence of nothing. It's just establishing parameters.
I don't think the OP has anything. But that's not the same as trying to use that quote as evidence. It proves nothing. It's not even trying to price anything.
On the coin, yes. On the die, no.
But my only point is that the quote provided is evidence of nothing.
The quote isn't the evidence of anything @jmlanzaf
It's just reality. If you want to be sure that your Rockwell tested Cent was Rockwell tested at the Mint, you would need to follow it through the process when it leaves. Otherwise your Rockwell tested Cent could have been Rockwell tested by anyone with the machine at any time.
Get it?
Dead Cat Waltz Exonumia
"Coin collecting for outcasts..."
Dude, I'M THE FIRST ONE THAT SAID IT. Go back and look at the top of the thread.
@jmlanzaf
You also said:
"I don't think the OP has anything. But that's not the same as trying to use that quote as evidence. It proves nothing."
Arguing both points again?
Dead Cat Waltz Exonumia
"Coin collecting for outcasts..."
No. 2 different points. You made the implication that the OP (who had disappeared) was intentionally ignoring the quote you posted. I simply suggested there was no probative value to that quote and that the existence of a lack of consensus means that others believe in their existence besides the OP. Honestly, I'm not sure why that is such a big deal.
Edited to add: that statement is also only true of one of the 3 possible Rockwell test marks.
Not a big deal at all. A man can believe whatever he wants, despite all evidence to the contrary. I wasn't implying he ignored MY quote, but rather that section of the article that stated the obvious.
Since the test can be performed ANYTIME, the only way to know if the Rockwell test was performed at the Mint would be to observe the entire process.
And personally, I look at them as damaged regardless of when this test is conducted.
PMD
Dead Cat Waltz Exonumia
"Coin collecting for outcasts..."
Well. It's not PMD if it happened prior to striking
Not technically, but the mark is the same...and therein lies the point.
Dead Cat Waltz Exonumia
"Coin collecting for outcasts..."
I stand by the point I have already made... The OP image has a conical shape which is not inline with any of the imaged cents nor inline with how the test would be performed. The conical shape of the OP coin is proof it was made with a drill bit or something of that ilk... Thus most of this whole thing is moot. The coin in the original post is clearly PMD.
It wouldn't be. You could definitively tell a planchet Rockwell test or a die test without following the coin through the process. I don't think you are understanding the different types.
A planchet test would show metal flow from the strike and could be identified.
Enlighten me...how would you differentiate between a mark left by a test on the planchet in the area of open fields of a cent at the Mint and one done in the open fields of a struck cent in someone's basement?
Why would they not be identical?
Dead Cat Waltz Exonumia
"Coin collecting for outcasts..."
Because striking the planchet causes the metal to flow. The hole would no longer be the same shape. It likely depends on where exactly it is relative to design elements as to exactly how the shape warped.
You couldn't tell a test on a struck coin at the mint from a struck coin in a basement.
If you read the rest of the CONECA document, it did describe it.
From the CONECA document:
"This was authenticated as a Rockwell Test Mark by “Lonesome” John Devine. The author states that this example is convincing.
“The floor of the cup-shaped depression is completely smooth, as would be expected of a dimple produced by a pin tipped by a small steel ball. Although there is no metal flow in the design bordering the crater, there is also no trace of a pressure ridge, indicating that the defect was present before the strike. The pit is oval, rather than circular, but this can be attributed to distortion produced by the strike. There is always the chance that such a defect could be the result of a struck-in or rolled-in piece of debris that fell out after the strike. But the smooth texture of the pit and its central location provide a strong argument in favor of a Rockwell test mark.” (Diamond, Pages 17 – 18)
“Lonesome” John Devine, who died in 2013, was a highly respected error coin pioneer. He was a founding member of the Combined Organizations of Numismatic Error Collectors of America (CONECA) and the first inductee into the CONECA Hall of Fame. He created the Error Coin Museum, which was the umbrella under which the Collectors of Numismatic Errors (CONE) and the Numismatic Error Collectors of America (NECA) were able to merge into CONECA in 1983. (Fern and Potter, July 30, 2013)
This description provides a working definition of how a Rockwell Test Mark in planchet is to be recognized. I would add the notation that the depression would appear more hemispherical if it were not located adjacent to devices which contribute to its elongation. Otherwise, there is minimal distortion of the mark by the strike, as can be seen by observing the shape of the mark on the East/West axis."
@MasonG, @DCW, @jmlanzaf
Here is one from 1944 wheat penny. T and R were distorted. And R is somewhat faint and is about 1.5 times larger in size. These are, I believe, impossible to simulate on a struck coin. Therefore it is a real example of Pre-Strike Damage, Rockwell test mark.