Real Rockwell Hardness Test Marks on Coin

Francismary

From the comments in a subject titled "Can you tell real Rockwell Test" discussed in January 2019, it was evident that the Numismatics Society does not know what to expect, in case where a penchant with a Rockwell Test indentation, instead of being discarded, but is mixed into penchant batches, and subsequently put through the minting process, in the resulting coin.   When a penchant is struck by dies, the planchet metal flows into the shape of die design.  Because of the plastic deformation and metal-flow, it is expected that the pre-existing Rockwell indentation, which is spherical, not only will be changed in its shape, depth, and size, but also affect the design features on the coin.  These changes will vary depending on the Rockwell test location on the coin design.  The indentation could disappear, if metal fills it completely.  Many factors affecting the final outcome on the coin makes it hard to positively identify the Rockwell test mark on a coin.  However, it is expected that the mark will be extremely difficult, if not impossible, to simulate manually on an existing coin, for the plastic deformation occurring during the die strike, a natural phenomenon, cannot be easily duplicated manually on a minted coin.

A photo taken from a 1944 wheat penny is shown below.   Could you see the altered T and R, somewhat faint and bigger than the normal size, inside the surface of the indentation?  It appears also that the indented area got bigger than the original one existed before die striking.   Can those be simulated manually on an existing coin?  I think not.  Therefore, it can be concluded that it is a real Rockwell Hardness Test Mark produced by use of defective penchant, and not by post-mint damage.  

** I'm new here. Please tell me how to add a photo.

Francismary

From the comments in a subject titled "Can you tell real Rockwell Test" discussed in January 2019, it was evident that the Numismatics Society does not know what to expect, in case where a penchant with a Rockwell Test indentation, instead of being discarded, but is mixed into penchant batches, and subsequently put through the minting process, in the resulting coin.   When a penchant is struck by dies, the planchet metal flows into the shape of die design.  Because of the plastic deformation and metal-flow, it is expected that the pre-existing Rockwell indentation, which is spherical, not only will be changed in its shape, depth, and size, but also affect the design features on the coin.  These changes will vary depending on the Rockwell test location on the coin design.  The indentation could disappear, if metal fills it completely.  Many factors affecting the final outcome on the coin makes it hard to positively identify the Rockwell test mark on a coin.  However, it is expected that the mark will be extremely difficult, if not impossible, to simulate manually on an existing coin, for the plastic deformation occurring during the die strike, a natural phenomenon, cannot be easily duplicated manually on a minted coin.

A photo taken from a 1944 wheat penny is shown below.   Could you see the altered T and R, somewhat faint and bigger than the normal size, inside the surface of the indentation?  It appears also that the indented area got bigger than the original one existed before die striking.   Can those be simulated manually on an existing coin?  I think not.  Therefore, it can be concluded that it is a real Rockwell Hardness Test Mark produced by use of defective penchant, and not by post-mint damage.  

Francismary

I would like to learn how to post it properly. Also how to change the terrible looking image om the left.
Thank you!

Francismary

From the comments in a subject titled "Can you tell real Rockwell Test" discussed in January 2019, it was evident that the Numismatics Society does not know what to expect, in case where a penchant with a Rockwell Test indentation, instead of being discarded, but is mixed into penchant batches, and subsequently put through the minting process, in the resulting coin.   When a penchant is struck by dies, the planchet metal flows into the shape of die design.  Because of the plastic deformation and metal-flow, it is expected that the pre-existing Rockwell indentation, which is spherical, not only will be changed in its shape, depth, and size, but also affect the design features on the coin.  These changes will vary depending on the Rockwell test location on the coin design.  The indentation could disappear, if metal fills it completely.  Many factors affecting the final outcome on the coin makes it hard to positively identify the Rockwell test mark on a coin.  However, it is expected that the mark will be extremely difficult, if not impossible, to simulate manually on an existing coin, for the plastic deformation occurring during the die strike, a natural phenomenon, cannot be easily duplicated manually on a minted coin.

A photo taken from a 1944 wheat penny is shown below.   Could you see the altered T and R, somewhat faint and bigger than the normal size, inside the surface of the indentation?  It appears also that the indented area got bigger than the original one existed before die striking.   Can those be simulated manually on an existing coin?  I think not.  Therefore, it can be concluded that it is a real Rockwell Hardness Test Mark produced by use of defective penchant, and not by post-mint damage.  

Please excuse me for so many mistakes. I reloaded the description for better view of the text.

silviosi

The pic in the post do not show Rockwell test. For the pre 1956 it is a little bit ambigue to say was the Roll or the Planchet aleatoric test. After 1956 only the rolls was tested and this before to be started the blanking process. Those tests never was on coins after 1956.

The photo show two very close rounds depressions. The test never was perform so close and also allways was before the milling of the blanks, and this because the Mint has to know the parameters of the annealing.

Your photo show PMD and not Rockwell test.

PS. The marks for round Rockwell test are far more smaller.

Hope help you. Silvio

Francismary

Thank you for your comments. What is PMD? Is it post mint damage? Please review my comments since I addressed that it is not damage introduced to a minted coin. The damage was in the penchant before it was struck.

morgandollar1878

@Francismary said:
Thank you for your comments. What is PMD? Is it post mint damage? Please review my comments since I addressed that it is not damage introduced to a minted coin. The damage was in the penchant before it was struck.

If it was not done after the minting of the coin it would not have caused the T in Trust to be curved. The R in trust has been smashed and would not be the case if it happened before it was minted.

LanLord

Maybe BB gun target practice?

Francismary

From the comments in a subject titled "Can you tell real Rockwell Test" discussed in January 2019, it was evident that the Numismatics Society does not know what to expect, in case where a penchant with a Rockwell Test indentation, instead of being discarded, but is mixed into penchant batches, and subsequently put through the minting process, in the resulting coin.   When a penchant is struck by dies, the planchet metal flows into the shape of die design.  Because of the plastic deformation and metal-flow, it is expected that the pre-existing Rockwell indentation, which is spherical, not only will be changed in its shape, depth, and size, but also affect the design features on the coin.  These changes will vary depending on the Rockwell test location on the coin design.  The indentation could disappear, if metal fills it completely.  Many factors affecting the final outcome on the coin makes it hard to positively identify the Rockwell test mark on a coin.  However, it is expected that the mark will be extremely difficult, if not impossible, to simulate manually on an existing coin, for the plastic deformation occurring during the die strike, a natural phenomenon, cannot be easily duplicated manually on a minted coin.

A photo taken from a 1944 wheat penny is shown below. Could you see the altered T and R, somewhat faint and bigger than the normal size, inside the surface of the indentation? It appears also that the indented area got bigger than the original one existed before die striking. Can those be simulated manually on an existing coin? I think not. Therefore, it can be concluded that it is a real Rockwell Hardness Test Mark produced by use of defective penchant, and not by post-mint damage.

re-posted for better reading.

JBK

1. The rim dent extends beyond the normal edge of the coin, so it had to have happened after striking as your coin would not have fit in the collar otherwise.

2. If the dents were there before striking them they would have been flattened out by the striking.

As @LanLord suggests, it was most likely used for BB gun target practice.

silviosi

Look I think you do not know what tests the Mint done. On cents copper alloy used in pre-1982 cents is 45 on the Rockwell B Scale. the BB it is 1/16 inch, and after strike will be as the following photo

Other test are done in Lab on 15T scale for different diameter coins. No Rockwell test after the strike will show round. The steel coins was test on scale C, but was only one year.

I have a bunch of tests photos, but it is not worth for me to post.

Your photo show me a Post Mint Damage indifferent of any oppinion. An oppinion can not change the Labs tests and the science.

If need calculus for, or more detail on this contact me with your request.

Francismary

If it were done post mint, then how could those altered t and R in the photo be placed there?

Francismary

I have seen the photo from Pete Apple's CONECA article. But what is shown there is not the only one, for depending on indentation location on the coin design, the mark will have different shape and size.

JBK

I give up. 🙄

Francismary

Francismary

The above looks similar to the one in Pete Apple's article.

Francismary

What about this one? Can it be placed also after Mi
nt?

silviosi

Ask Mike Diamond about this coin and come back with the answer.

Read also: Steiner, Phillip and Zimpfer, Michael (1975) Modern Mint Mistakes (5th edition)

jonathanb

@Francismary said:
If it were done post mint, then how could those altered t and R in the photo be placed there?

The T and R were "placed there" by the original strike. They were altered when the coin was damaged outside of the mint. The distortion to the T and R is 100% proof that the damage happened after the strike.

JBK

@Francismary said:
What about this one? Can it be placed also after Mi
nt?

Why don't you post full photos of both sides of the coin? It is obvious that there is extensive post mint damage.

gumby1234

Not this again. UGH

1951TP

ignore.

jesbroken

Google a rockwell hardness test, then select images. You should see the resultant indentations and the instruments used to create them.
Jim

Francismary

I will show you other photos too. Before that, since you are convinced that they are post mint damage, why do you not explain how these damages could be placed on the coin? Do you think a skillful person can artificially create these with all those detailed features? Or random strike by accidents?

FredWeinberg

“If ‘if’s’ And ‘but’s’ were candy and nuts,
What a wonderful world it would be”

PMD Obviously…….

Francismary

Jonathanb said "The T and R were "placed there" by the original strike. They were altered when the coin was damaged outside of the mint. The distortion to the T and R is 100% proof that the damage happened after the strike."

Could you explain how they could be altered that particular way by accident or artificially? How do you explain, the size or R is about 1.5 times bigger than the original R? How could the size get bigger? And how the original T could be altered that way? I see there is a mental block which prevents one from thinking scientifically with a sound mind. The size of each mark is only about 1/16 to 1/8 inches. What tool could one use to place those fine details in small area?

JBK

You obviously don't understand the minting process. We do, however.

When a struck coin is hit, punched, etc. there is metal movement and distortion. The hit from the (likely) BB stretched the metal, thus expanding/distorting the R.

Ask yourself this: if the dent was there before the striking of the coin, then how did the R get into the bottom of it? The die needed to press against the surface of the coin to impart the R design.

One of your photos of the reverse shows bulges, which are signs of damage to the obverse. Full photos of both sides would show corresponding damage from the hits to both sides.

You stated: "I see there is a mental block which prevents one from thinking scientifically with a sound mind."

That is certainly true, but the mental block is on your side. There is nothing at all scientific about your assertions.

But perhaps you already knew that when you came here to play?

divecchia

I love @silviosi signature line.

Never argue with an idiot. First, they will drag you down to their level. Then, they will beat you with experience.

My thought's exactly. Donato

Francismary

@JBK posts asks "how did the R get into the bottom of it? The die needed to press against the surface of the coin to impart the R design." Now I ask, "how those features can be placed there on a post mint coin? To your question, I would ask "how to you know that die did not impress those features during the impact?" It is much more likely that die did impress those R than someone placed that. Who will spent the time and efforts to do that?

JBK

@Francismary said:
@JBK posts asks "how did the R get into the bottom of it? The die needed to press against the surface of the coin to impart the R design." Now I ask, "how those features can be placed there on a post mint coin? To your question, I would ask "how to you know that die did not impress those features during the impact?" It is much more likely that die did impress those R than someone placed that. Who will spent the time and efforts to do that?

You aren't paying attention. The distorted R wasn't "placed" anywhere. It was struck up when the die came in contact with the planchet, and then it was distorted when an object hit it. If the dent was original and somehow remained during striking then the die would not have come into contact there and there would be no R.

You still haven't shown the entire coin. It will become obvious that the coin was used for target practice.

You are making the common mistake that new collectors make by requiring people to prove to you that it's not an error. However, it is up to you to prove that it is an error. There are more ways to damage a coin than anyone can imagine. You need to explain how your coin could happen during the minting process, which is impossible.

Why don't you just spend the money to have PCGS grade it and examine what you think is an error?

Francismary

The photo shown by @silviosi was authenticated by late "Lonesome" John Devine according to a section 'Rockwell Test Mark in Planchet', in Pre-Strike Damage (now I know the proper designation for it), Part V; Planchet errors, in ERROR-REF-COM. Now I understand that there is a debate going on whether it is a real Rockwell test mark or just a PMD. From this, I guess that there is not a single one found yet. And I'll try to prove that what I have shown is a Real One.

There are numerous error coins produced by US Mint due to various human errors. It is obvious that people accept these human errors, but are reluctant to admit that they could make a huge mistake such as minting a damaged penchant. For procedure says, 'discard any penchant used for Rockwell Hardness Test.' Do you think that this procedure has been always perfectly followed? There is always a chance that someone forgets the procedure and puts the damaged penchant in a penchant batch waiting to be minted. And the coin I have shown was minted in 1944, in the midst of WW2. Why blindly reject the possibility of such an error?

JBK

What in the world is a "penchant"?

gonzer

Would someone, please, post an image of a genuine Rockwell test piece so's we can put this baby to bed.

RobertScotLover

Where is that dam popcorn emoji when you need it.
Once again another low post count member that comes here to show their select limited photos of what they are trying to prove, they obviously only care about valuation being high or rarity being high, they believe they know everything when they don't and argue with ALL the more knowledgeable members and well as the noted experts. Every day it seems this happens here. And while we all want to support new collectors, they mostly seem not interested in learning , just rinse and repeat

silviosi

gonzer wrote:
Would someone, please, post an image of a genuine Rockwell test piece so's we can put this baby to bed.

I allready put and an certified one by our host here same photo and if I remember well was and 1945:

NewEnglandRarities

At this point, not sure why my response is necessary, but CLEARLY damage and not what you are describing.

Francismary

Everyone, who made a comments here, thinks it is PMD. But no one has provided how those damage could be produced on a minted coin. Why is that?

JBK

Most likely a BB gun. It's been said several times. You just ignore what you don't want to hear.

And you still haven't posted full pictures. "Why is that?"

Francismary

The photo shown by @silviosi was from a 1971-S Lincoln cent. I believe that one is a genuine and real Rockwell test mark. I give due respect to the late Mr. Devine for his keen scientific insight, recognizing that the damage in the coin could not be made manually on a minted coin.

PeakRarities

Congrats on your find, be sure to visit back here after it’s been certified by pcgs! Would you like to buy my Rockwell test cent? It’s a legitimate error coin, I definitely did not just make this in my garage.

Price is $2700

jonathanb

But how do we know that you did it in your garage rather than your basement?

2windy2fish

DD’s clearly has garage patina and is completely lacking basement patina….

silviosi

Sure was not basement or garadge hehehe jonathanb, I like your humor.

Maybe the OP will see the point of the BB test B on Dan coin.

Francismary

@JBK Post says : Most likely a BB gun. It's been said several times. You just ignore what you don't want to hear. And you still haven't posted full pictures. "Why is that?"

I do not ignore you. Since you think BB gun did it, why do you not explain how BB gun damage would produce those damage shown in my photos? Then I will show you the others. I would not show them to satisfy someone's curiosity to be ridiculed.

Francismary

@DeplorableDan post: Thanks for putting up that photo. People can see what man-made damage looks like.

JBK

@Francismary said:
@JBK Post says : Most likely a BB gun. It's been said several times. You just ignore what you don't want to hear. And you still haven't posted full pictures. "Why is that?"

I do not ignore you. Since you think BB gun did it, why do you not explain how BB gun damage would produce those damage shown in my photos? Then I will show you the others. I would not show them to satisfy someone's curiosity to be ridiculed.

It's already been explained.

You chose to ignore inconvenient information.

LanLord

This is starting to feel like a troll thread.
Might be best to stop feeding it.

morgandollar1878

@LanLord said:
This is starting to feel like a troll thread.
Might be best to stop feeding it.

Yeah, it started feeling like that about 3 posts into it.

Francismary

@JBK Post: It's already been explained. You chose to ignore inconvenient information.

What did you explain? You keep repeating the same thing; it is PMD without responding to my question, which is how those damages could be manually placed in a minted coin?

silviosi

LanLord Posts: wrote January 12, 2024 6:52PM
This is starting to feel like a troll thread.
Might be best to stop feeding it.

I totally agree with this statment. This post make me remember an very old expression:

The Mule which do not want to move on, even if you kill you do not win, except the meal meat.

Maybe our hosts will close the treat. As others forums will do.

jesbroken

Just send it in to PCGS and get it slabbed and make all of us to look foolish. You go!
Jim