Also a small army of Rockwell Tests grouped in the field 1959D.

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

Wrong.

Reason #1 - the alleged test marks vary in diameter and depth. This much variability would cause the sample to be rejected

Reason #2 - Testing standards require a min distance between test locations. Your army of marks are too close together.

And don't forget, there was a recent thread that posted correspondence with the mint where they confirmed they DO NOT do hardness tests on the die face (thanks Pete A.)

Now please stop this nonsense. All you're doing is confusing collectors who are trying learn about errors and the minting process

 

No

 

I totally agree with this statement!

 

Coins aren’t important enough to take that much of you. It’s kind of hard just by chance to have the same exact replication on this coins reverse as a Brinell Test. I don’t believe just by chance it’s there, so in further examination I wanted to give a sufficient secondary choice.

 

"...sufficient secondary choice"??? How can you say say this in with a straight face? If you would have done a little research on the test and read the previous threads with posts from leading error experts, materials science professionals, and people who have performed this test in industry explaining why they believe this can't occur, you would understand why.

Next time, just use "Bigfoot chewed on it" or "Aliens used it to jumper their dilithium crystals" as explanations. Those have as much validity as your sufficient secondary choice.

Regardless of the field of study, if you want to propose a new theory, it needs to be based on facts to allow for a discussion. You have chosen not to do thorough research, nor have you provided facts that stand up to basic scrutiny to support your assertions.

Once again, there are people in CT that want to learn and deserve accurate information, not confused ramblings.

 

I knew he'd get around to this
subject eventually.

 

So, looking at my latest post, the softness of a plaster state this 1959D must have been in if a mark can be dragged across the surface so easily, when there is an installed wheat die.... is it a test to see if softness translated to a reduced hub would effect when squeezed into the die? It’s a question of the Master Hub’s hardness able to reciprocate the desired effect on a newly planned installation? How? I guess you could see how well the very minimal relief allowance that a hardness test offers to see if it’s still there in strength..... if it is... it’s acceptable. Still!! through all that image transference and still give an acute detail report on the coin.... I WOULD SAY THAT IS WORTH IT.

 

I just wasted precious seconds reading this post that makes no sense at all!

Darn!

 

You ask too much. He is just here to mess with us. Probably a past member with a bone to pick. Gives us someone to laugh at.

 

If I might try to interpret.~ If the plaster model used on the reduction lathe was soft rather than cured, would it have an effect on the master die being produced and thus having to use the "hardness test" on the face of the die to see if it would work on a new master die set up.

No! and no idiot in the mint process would use a soft plaster model. Now if you asked if they tested the plaster model with your favorite Rockwell hardness tester? No !t is too rigid and would crack the plaster. Is there any reason to suspect this was done anyway NO! Would any coin show this actually happened anyway ? No ~ Magnification Pareidolia all the way. If I misinterpreted, sorry, but I tried. Occams Razor applies here, Not Rube Goldberg explanations ""having a fantastically complicated improvised appearance", or "deviously complex and impractical."

IMO, Jim

 

I have figured out why this forum is call Errors. It is a serious error to open any thread in it.