1964 Jefferson Nickel Planchet Error

[cebell]

It's not a lot of information about hardness testing planchets for coins. I read an article on Rockwell Hardness Test Marks On Lincoln Cents


By Pete Apple

The correct degree of hardness is a critical factor in the minting of coins. If an unstruck planchet is too hard the image pressed on the coin will not be clear. If it’s too soft, the coin will wear too quickly. The U S Mint uses a Rockwell Hardness Test on all raw coin material...

Does this nickel look like it meets the criteria of that process?

[PNWMAKES]

Not a Rockwell test mark. I have used a Rockwell hardness test for years in the aerospace industry and this is not one. Looks like it got hit by something post mint. Notice the displaced metal on the reverse. clear sign of post mint damage. In my opinion only.

[MintErrors]

In my opinion, although it looks similar, it is not a Rockwell.
most of the time, the hardness tests are done on the sides of the die, rather than on the face.
The metal should be measurable anywhere on the die, and should an acceptable level.

On a planchet, it's a different story.
People are debunking the Rockwell test on planchets since most should be obliterated when the coin is struck.

That planchet is damaged, so why would a mint worker then toss it into a hopper to be struck ? Plus where they are potentially testing the hardness may not even be close to the hoppers, and best guess is, they just toss the planchet in the trash or recycle metal containers.

Look at this article and it may shed some light on the mystery.
I can see the possibility on the planchet side being debunked, but that has not received much publicity so many don't know about the evidence associated with it.

https://www.error-ref.com/rockwell-t...k-in-planchet/

[cebell]

Are you aware of any other examples for comparison...other than the pennies in the article? Has any coin that was minted on a Rockwell test Planchet ever been attributed? ( WIN_20230103_22_13_58_Pro.jpg Why or why not?) A Rockwell Test Mark should have a smooth, hemispherical cross section profile and assume the shape of a circle or an oval (if it is adjacent to a device). What you see as misplaced metal appears to be the absence of metal when the coin was struck...in my opinion.

I know the odds are low that a Rockwell Test Mark will make it through the minting process. I am also thinking that the odds are low – or even much lower – that a random contact mark on a coin

• would have the same hemispherical cross-sectional profile as a Rockwell Test Mark AND
• show the same depth as a Rockwell 15T test mark AND
• have the same diameter as a Rockwell 15T test mark (adjusted for the strike)
I know of no way to calculate the probability of all those things occurring as a result of random post-mint damage – but I think it would be astronomical...according to the article written by: Pete Apple

[cebell]

Planchets with Rockwell Test Marks are very rare to extremely rare. (Harper and Miller, Page 62.) “Dies and planchets tested in this fashion are supposed to be discarded, since they are blemished once the procedure is completed. If they are not discarded, then you have a desirable die error and planchet error, respectively.”

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! ("Pete Apple")

While this paper focuses on Rockwell Tests on planchets, it should be acknowledged that Rockwell Tests are also performed on dies and on master hubs. That would increase the likelihood of a test planchet having a coin pressed on it.

Errors are produced because something happened that shouldn't have!

[PNWMAKES]

No expert on the minting process but I am a Quality Engineer. With that being said I could not see the mint doing a hardness test after the coin has been minted. Why, because basic principles of QA. If you test the hardness after the coin has made it all the way through the minting process and you find out the coins do not meet the hardness specs then you now have to track and find all the faulty coins that have been minted. Which would be a nightmare considering how fast the mint spits out coins. You could potentially be scraping thousand if not tens of thousand coins. Therefore best practice would be to test incoming stock i.e. blank planchets or coil stock or what ever they use. That way if you find bad stock that does not meet quality standards you can then easily isolate that stock without it making it into the minting process. Just my two cents.

[cebell]

I agree with your deduction that the hardness test took place before the coin was minted. That would make it a die or planchet error.

[PNWMAKES]

I would think that if your coin was tested prior to being minted, than the displaced metal on the obverse would not be there do to the force and pressure of the die. I still think your coin is PMD. again just my opinion.

[cebell]

There is a slight bulge on the obverse... It's almost flat with the coin...it looks bigger in the photo... it is possible that when they tested this planchet that too much pressure was applied. Such a bulge would indicate the use of greater pressure than a Rockwell Test allows. Even if it were from a Rockwell Test such an “anvil effect” would indicate that too much pressure had been used and the resulting Rockwell Number would likely be inaccurate...(which is possible) The minting press would likely remove most traces of a bulge made before minting...There is no hump that can really be felt.

Again I ask this question...Are you aware of any other examples for comparison...other than the pennies in the article? Has any coin that was minted on a Rockwell test Planchet ever been attributed?

[MintErrors]

I personally have not seen a legit, attributed and authenticated Rockwell test on any coin.
Nor have any one come up to me at shows asking for one via voice or list. I have not seen, nor care to look for one of these, because to me, I am not interested in this type of error. It is not as popular or on demand for the majority of collectors that I have conversed with.

PNWMAKES has a pretty solid reputation here. He was willing to volunteer his work ethic to assist in this thread, and his expertise relating to the job. I too am an engineer, but it is not in the related to a field where Rockwell tests are done.

We are chatting about something that the odds are astronimical...astronomical....

So, in my opinion, since very few have been attributed, if you feel it is necessary for closure, it is up to you whether you send it in to a third party grading service and spend a chunk of change, hoping it returns as you wish.

[PNWMAKES]

I agree my MintErrors spend the money and send it in to a TPG service and hope for the best.

[cebell]

I want to thank you all for your opinions and comments concerning this topic, it has been insightful to me and hopefully others as well. I believe it was a good discussion...not meaning to throw shade on anyone's reputation. I am still open for any additional information on this subject that seems to be somewhat taboo.

I'm inclined to agree with Pete Apple...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! ("Pete Apple")

[Jbhbuoy]

I found this years ago and decided it was used for target practice with a BB gun. A .177 (4.5mm) BB fit inside of it almost perfectly, but there are different sized BBs. I'm not saying this is what occurred with your coin. Please post your findings with your coin when you reach a conclusion.

[cebell]

Thank you for the photos...that reverse photo in the center looks as if it was warped from the impact of a BB and the coin has fracturing around the hole. That protrusion is much more prominent on the obverse. Yes, that looks like a BB shoot to me also. I'm not ruling out PMD on my nickel. I appreciate your comment and I will post my findings when or if I reach a conclusion.

I would like to see photos of coins that have been attributed as Rockwell test planchets

[cebell]

I guess this is my conclusion...No coins have been attributed to Rockwell test planchets. I did find some more discussion on Coin Talk that included Pete Apple.

"Pete Apple" I have noted the following with regard to a test mark on a planchet: "We are accustomed to thinking that if an imperfection on a coin satisfies the diagnostics associated with a particular mint error, then we can assign it to that mint error. For example, a cud (marginal die break) is unlikely to be confused with any other defect. In other words if it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, then it is a duck! However, with a Rockwell Test Mark, this way of thinking may not be appropriate. It may be possible for an indentation to match the description of a Rockwell Test Mark without actually being a Rockwell Test Mark. The only way I know to be certain that a mark came from a Rockwell Test is to have actually witnessed the test which, of course, is not possible! The most we can say is that a particular indentation meets the expectations of a Rockwell Test Mark. (Cited from: https://www.cointalk.com/threads/can...l-test.341023/)