Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: Rockwell test mark

Expand Messages
  • Mike Diamond
    Another question, Jon. Do the circles that you find on the 1921 Morgans always take the form of a low, flat elevation? A Rockwell test mark should take the
    Message 1 of 18 , Jun 1, 2006
    • 0 Attachment
      Another question, Jon.

      Do the circles that you find on the 1921 Morgans always take the form
      of a low, flat elevation? A Rockwell test mark should take the form
      of a half-dome (if it's impressed with a ball-shaped steel tip), or a
      cone (if it's impressed with a cone-shaped diamond tip).

      A low, flat circle would indicate some other source.

      --- In errorcoininformationexchange@yahoogroups.com, Jon Sullivan
      <errcoins@...> wrote:
      >
      > I personally learned about them in the VAM book, 4th edition:
      Morgan
      > and Peace Dollars, by authors Van Allen and George Mallis. I am
      not
      > aware of any "dot" morgans prior to 1921, but I'd have to check
      their
      > guide to know for sure. I have personally cherrypicked several
      > different ones, and I think I only have one in my collection
      still.
      > Whatever they are, I think they are certainly there for a reason,
      > because they are too perfectly round, and do not appear to me to
      be
      > some random damage to the dies.
      >
      > Nope, sorry, I don't do much with VAMs right now. You could
      probably
      > find one with some searching. They are "out there", and findable
      in
      > my experience.
      >
      > Thanks,
      > Jon
      >
      >
      > On May 31, 2006, at 10:52 AM, Mike Diamond wrote:
      >
      > > Again, Steve, since the Rockwell tester was not invented until
      1919,
      > > it's doubtful that these small raised blemishes are actually
      Rockwell
      > > test marks. If such marks are found in any dollars dating to
      1904 or
      > > earlier, that would conclusively establish that the blemishes
      have
      > > some
      > > other source.
      > >
      > > --- In errorcoininformationexchange@yahoogroups.com, "Error Coins"
      > > <errorcoins@> wrote:
      > >
      > > >
      > > > 2. The Rockwell markings you mentioned on ECIE. Anything for
      sale?
      > > >
      > > > Thanks for your time.
      > > >
      > > >
      > > > Later.....
      > > > Steve
      > > >
      > >
      > >
      > >
      > >
      > >
      > >
      > > SPONSORED LINKS
      > > Coin collecting software Coin collecting Coin collecting
      supplies
      > > Gold coin collecting Coin and currency supply Coin
      collecting book
      > >
      > > YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS
      > >
      > > Visit your group "errorcoininformationexchange" on the web.
      > >
      > > To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
      > > errorcoininformationexchange-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
      > >
      > > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of
      Service.
      > >
      > >
      >
    • Mike Diamond
      Could you do me another favor, Jon? Could you scan or transcribe the section of the Van Allen book that deals with these raised circles and either post it here
      Message 2 of 18 , Jun 1, 2006
      • 0 Attachment
        Could you do me another favor, Jon?

        Could you scan or transcribe the section of the Van Allen book that
        deals with these raised circles and either post it here or send it to
        me in an e-mail attachment? Thanks.

        --- In errorcoininformationexchange@yahoogroups.com, "Mike Diamond"
        <mdia1@...> wrote:
        >
        > Another question, Jon.
        >
        > Do the circles that you find on the 1921 Morgans always take the
        form
        > of a low, flat elevation? A Rockwell test mark should take the
        form
        > of a half-dome (if it's impressed with a ball-shaped steel tip), or
        a
        > cone (if it's impressed with a cone-shaped diamond tip).
        >
        > A low, flat circle would indicate some other source.
        >
        > --- In errorcoininformationexchange@yahoogroups.com, Jon Sullivan
        > <errcoins@> wrote:
        > >
        > > I personally learned about them in the VAM book, 4th edition:
        > Morgan
        > > and Peace Dollars, by authors Van Allen and George Mallis. I am
        > not
        > > aware of any "dot" morgans prior to 1921, but I'd have to check
        > their
        > > guide to know for sure. I have personally cherrypicked several
        > > different ones, and I think I only have one in my collection
        > still.
        > > Whatever they are, I think they are certainly there for a
        reason,
        > > because they are too perfectly round, and do not appear to me to
        > be
        > > some random damage to the dies.
        > >
        > > Nope, sorry, I don't do much with VAMs right now. You could
        > probably
        > > find one with some searching. They are "out there", and findable
        > in
        > > my experience.
        > >
        > > Thanks,
        > > Jon
        > >
        > >
        > > On May 31, 2006, at 10:52 AM, Mike Diamond wrote:
        > >
        > > > Again, Steve, since the Rockwell tester was not invented until
        > 1919,
        > > > it's doubtful that these small raised blemishes are actually
        > Rockwell
        > > > test marks. If such marks are found in any dollars dating to
        > 1904 or
        > > > earlier, that would conclusively establish that the blemishes
        > have
        > > > some
        > > > other source.
        > > >
        > > > --- In errorcoininformationexchange@yahoogroups.com, "Error
        Coins"
        > > > <errorcoins@> wrote:
        > > >
        > > > >
        > > > > 2. The Rockwell markings you mentioned on ECIE. Anything for
        > sale?
        > > > >
        > > > > Thanks for your time.
        > > > >
        > > > >
        > > > > Later.....
        > > > > Steve
        > > > >
        > > >
        > > >
        > > >
        > > >
        > > >
        > > >
        > > > SPONSORED LINKS
        > > > Coin collecting software Coin collecting Coin collecting
        > supplies
        > > > Gold coin collecting Coin and currency supply Coin
        > collecting book
        > > >
        > > > YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS
        > > >
        > > > Visit your group "errorcoininformationexchange" on the web.
        > > >
        > > > To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
        > > > errorcoininformationexchange-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
        > > >
        > > > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of
        > Service.
        > > >
        > > >
        > >
        >
      • Jeff
        Spending time in the, dust files , I ve come across an interesting observation of Eight Sac Dollars I ve kept carded since 2000 when they came out. Every one
        Message 3 of 18 , Jun 24, 2006
        • 0 Attachment
          Spending time in the, "dust files", I've come across an interesting
          observation of Eight Sac Dollars I've kept carded since 2000 when they
          came out. Every one of these "eight" are mechanical/strike doubled to
          some extent. (I am putting together a shipment for Mike D. and his
          research project/article and didn't want to overlook these Dollar
          Denom's with these forms of doubling).

          Here is something that I am hoping might relate to the Rockwell test mark.

          In the majority of these Mechanical or Strike doubled Sac Dollars I've
          kept, (after searched thousands of these Sac dollars for these other
          forms of doubling), there is a mark, an actual indent, in the lower
          lip of Sacagawea.

          I am going to post a set of four Pic's in the default albumn and see
          what you think.

          Sometimes the mark (indented pock) is tiny, but there. Sometimes it
          is easily visible and a bit bigger. I cannot detect a pressure ridge
          and the indentations are all very smooth. They are not a perfect
          circle.

          If the 71 S cent wasn't in the default folder to begin with so I could
          see it, I'd have never got myself started back on this cold trail of
          curiosity:)


          --- In errorcoininformationexchange@yahoogroups.com, "Mike Diamond"
          <mdia1@...> wrote:
          >
          > I've posted a picture in the Default album of a Rockwell test mark on
          > the reverse of a 1971-S cent. Notice the very smooth surface of the
          > indentation and the complete absence of a pressure ridge.
          >
          > Test marks can be on the die or the planchet. Both need to be
          > checked for proper hardness.
          >
          > --- In errorcoininformationexchange@yahoogroups.com, "mrlindy2000"
          > <adkinstone@> wrote:
          > >
          > > I returnned a rockwell test strike once I won high bid on. I
          > thought
          > > these test marks were supposed to be on the die and not the coin. I
          > > thought it would be a raised BB looking detail on the coin and not
          > a
          > > depression on the coin. Still this coin's tiny center indent wasn't
          > > perfectly circular so I decided to skip this error type altogether.
          > >
          > > Thats intersting your's is on a planchet. How would you know it was
          > > a "rockwell" mark and not instead just a planchet shot with a BB.
          > > When I was a kid I punished some Ike dollars with my crossman 760
          > BB
          > > gun. Each coin was wounded, but still spendable ;^)
          > >
          > > Lindy
          >
        • Jeff
          (uploaded to default folder) First 4 pictures are of four differnt Sac dollars showing this mark. The fifth picture is a close up of coin #3 taken sidelong,
          Message 4 of 18 , Jun 24, 2006
          • 0 Attachment
            (uploaded to default folder)

            First 4 pictures are of four differnt Sac dollars showing this mark.

            The fifth picture is a close up of coin #3 taken sidelong, down into
            the indent with the best light I could manufacture.

            I dont see a pressure ridge, they are all very smooth both at the lip
            of the indent and inside the indent.

            Also, the Sac Dollars I have with this paticular indent do not always
            share the same die pair. This indent is not confined to just one
            striking die. As far as I've been able to tell, this only shows up on
            these dollars that have a form of doubling present. (At least this is
            my accumulated observation).

            This has had me on again, off again, trying to figure out what is
            going on.

            The Rockwell test Mark is only to determine hardness?

            Would the test be conducted more often in the first year that a coin
            design is struck? Certainly there were a good variety of happenings
            in 2000 with the Sac dollar, the rinse, the experimentals....

            Perhaps more to the story?


            > I am going to post a set of four Pic's in the default albumn and see
            > what you think.
            >
            > Sometimes the mark (indented pock) is tiny, but there. Sometimes it
            > is easily visible and a bit bigger. I cannot detect a pressure ridge
            > and the indentations are all very smooth. They are not a perfect
            > circle.
            >
            > If the 71 S cent wasn't in the default folder to begin with so I could
            > see it, I'd have never got myself started back on this cold trail of
            > curiosity:)
            >
            >
            > --- In errorcoininformationexchange@yahoogroups.com, "Mike Diamond"
            > <mdia1@> wrote:
            > >
            > > I've posted a picture in the Default album of a Rockwell test mark on
            > > the reverse of a 1971-S cent. Notice the very smooth surface of the
            > > indentation and the complete absence of a pressure ridge.
            > >
            > > Test marks can be on the die or the planchet. Both need to be
            > > checked for proper hardness.
          • Mike Diamond
            This appears to be post-strike damage, but of a special sort. It looks like a mild manifestation of ejection impact doubling . This occurs when a finished
            Message 5 of 18 , Jun 24, 2006
            • 0 Attachment
              This appears to be post-strike damage, but of a special sort. It
              looks like a mild manifestation of "ejection impact doubling". This
              occurs when a finished coin is thrust back into the die face by the
              ejection mechanism. This leaves pits and dents (and sometimes
              recognizable design) on the surface of the coin. Recognizable design
              elements are widely scattered and often widely separated from their
              normal counterparts.

              The lip is a frequent location for this to occur.

              --- In errorcoininformationexchange@yahoogroups.com, "Jeff"
              <jylitalo@...> wrote:
              >
              > (uploaded to default folder)
              >
              > First 4 pictures are of four differnt Sac dollars showing this mark.
              >
              > The fifth picture is a close up of coin #3 taken sidelong, down into
              > the indent with the best light I could manufacture.
              >
              > I dont see a pressure ridge, they are all very smooth both at the
              lip
              > of the indent and inside the indent.
              >
              > Also, the Sac Dollars I have with this paticular indent do not
              always
              > share the same die pair. This indent is not confined to just one
              > striking die. As far as I've been able to tell, this only shows up
              on
              > these dollars that have a form of doubling present. (At least this
              is
              > my accumulated observation).
              >
              > This has had me on again, off again, trying to figure out what is
              > going on.
              >
              > The Rockwell test Mark is only to determine hardness?
              >
              > Would the test be conducted more often in the first year that a coin
              > design is struck? Certainly there were a good variety of happenings
              > in 2000 with the Sac dollar, the rinse, the experimentals....
              >
              > Perhaps more to the story?
              >
              >
              > > I am going to post a set of four Pic's in the default albumn and
              see
              > > what you think.
              > >
              > > Sometimes the mark (indented pock) is tiny, but there. Sometimes
              it
              > > is easily visible and a bit bigger. I cannot detect a pressure
              ridge
              > > and the indentations are all very smooth. They are not a perfect
              > > circle.
              > >
              > > If the 71 S cent wasn't in the default folder to begin with so I
              could
              > > see it, I'd have never got myself started back on this cold trail
              of
              > > curiosity:)
              > >
              > >
              > > --- In errorcoininformationexchange@yahoogroups.com, "Mike
              Diamond"
              > > <mdia1@> wrote:
              > > >
              > > > I've posted a picture in the Default album of a Rockwell test
              mark on
              > > > the reverse of a 1971-S cent. Notice the very smooth surface
              of the
              > > > indentation and the complete absence of a pressure ridge.
              > > >
              > > > Test marks can be on the die or the planchet. Both need to be
              > > > checked for proper hardness.
              >
            • Jeff
              Ejection Damage. Wow. Of the coins I ve ever searched and found differnt forms of doubling, this the first time I ve ever seen such a consistency with this
              Message 6 of 18 , Jun 24, 2006
              • 0 Attachment
                Ejection Damage.

                Wow.

                Of the coins I've ever searched and found differnt forms of doubling,
                this the first time I've ever seen such a consistency with this
                additional mark.

                This is really interesting and its the first time I've ever seen such
                marks on the lip.

                Is it worth speculating what part of the die face after the finished
                coin in thrust back by ejection mechanism is causing this damage?

                I am trying to visualize it, what part of the die face would leave
                this mark?

                --- In errorcoininformationexchange@yahoogroups.com, "Mike Diamond"
                <mdia1@...> wrote:
                >
                > This appears to be post-strike damage, but of a special sort. It
                > looks like a mild manifestation of "ejection impact doubling". This
                > occurs when a finished coin is thrust back into the die face by the
                > ejection mechanism. This leaves pits and dents (and sometimes
                > recognizable design) on the surface of the coin. Recognizable design
                > elements are widely scattered and often widely separated from their
                > normal counterparts.
                >
                > The lip is a frequent location for this to occur.
              • Mike Diamond
                I m not sure exactly what part of the die face this dimple corresponds to. All I know is that similar marks do appear in conjunction with recognizable design
                Message 7 of 18 , Jun 24, 2006
                • 0 Attachment
                  I'm not sure exactly what part of the die face this dimple
                  corresponds to. All I know is that similar marks do appear in
                  conjunction with recognizable design elements, the most prominent of
                  which is the right eye (her left eye). The position of the extra eye
                  (actually the iris and pupil) varies from the brow region to well
                  down on the nose and as far left as the left cheek. Sometimes the
                  eye is rotated relative to its nomral counterpart. I wrote an
                  article for Errorscope about this phenomenon about a year and half
                  ago. It was first discovered by our own Mike Clements.

                  --- In errorcoininformationexchange@yahoogroups.com, "Jeff"
                  <jylitalo@...> wrote:
                  >
                  > Ejection Damage.
                  >
                  > Wow.
                  >
                  > Of the coins I've ever searched and found differnt forms of
                  doubling,
                  > this the first time I've ever seen such a consistency with this
                  > additional mark.
                  >
                  > This is really interesting and its the first time I've ever seen
                  such
                  > marks on the lip.
                  >
                  > Is it worth speculating what part of the die face after the finished
                  > coin in thrust back by ejection mechanism is causing this damage?
                  >
                  > I am trying to visualize it, what part of the die face would leave
                  > this mark?
                Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.