I'm astounded, paddy! Don't you recognize a Rockwell Test that was conducted on the die when you see a coin like this? Of course, it is supposed to be conducted in front of a witness, and the die is supposed to be destroyed, but we all know that everyone at the Mint is a crook. Right? Chris
It's either a small planchet defect as mentioned, or simply a contact mark. You're looking, and finding, minor anomalies that are part of the minting process, and in most cases, are not considered errors.
I wouldn't be giving you a hard time, but you persist in posting thread after thread after thread about the Rockwell Test. (And, we all know what your intent was for this thread!) Why don't you just spend the money and submit all of your coins to one of the grading services for a final determination? If you are correct, I will apologize. Chris
that's what I thought too. After the conversation in the other thread with FredW it all makes sense. So I'm skipping threads about dents ...
Hello Avery, If you do not have a copy then look for a book titled the error coin encyclopedia by Arnold Margolis. Fred Weinberg and Arnold Margolis re-published the book a few years ago. Time flies when you’re having fun. Perhaps it was more than a few years ago. Let me know if questions arise. It is always fun to CoinTalk.
You started in an area which few people actually even know exists. Rockwell tests aren't exactly something that "beginners" even know about. So, you opened a door where "knowledge" is assumed. ... Just saying ... Matter of fact, as you know from the other thread I was confused about it too as it didn't make sense from the Coneca page until Fred elaborated more about his stance on it.
You can't say that you didn't deserve it! Good! By all means, send them in! I hope you will let us know when you find that you are wrong. Chris
Error coins fascinates me, I am a little extra zealous. I search for errors, errors, errors and when I here of a new one I try to research on it. The race is on.lol