This one is a bizarre one. I believe the anomalies are clash marks here, but they do not entirely line up with clash overlays of the buffalo nickel— most notably the marks under the bison’s stomach. I do also see a more normal clash mark running below PLUR of PLURIBUS on the reverse (this corresponds to the chin from the obverse). I may see a clash mark below the chin on the obverse as well. BUT REALLY, what is happening under the bison? Never seen those marks even on highly clashed nickels.
An explanation as to why I thought it may be a rotated (or misaligned?) die clash: I'm not sure the distinction as I am not entirely familiar with clash terminology. I was looking at this clash overlay from MADDieClashes.com: The area below the bison corresponds to the forehead of the portrait, there is no hair here to create the marks seen below the bison. However, I noticed this hair (see arrow) had a similar shape to the marks I had seen, just rotated 90 degrees or so: Thoughts?
I'm not totally sold on this conclusion. I see where and what it should look like below the Bison's stomach and don't see a match. the shape is different and is it supposed to be raised or recessed?
I'm not sold either but it's a working hypothesis. A clash mark would be raised, which the mark on my coin is. I experimented to see if I could replicate the shape by rotating the overlays. Came up with this. It does not match the clash marks under the chin and on PLUR, which seem to correspond to a typical die clash / TDC. So is it a multiclash event? Not sure if this is even possible, but the area under the bison looks decently similar in my opinion:
To me it looks like a cut or gouge that has been worn smooth. The raised areas are where the metal was displaced and the low areas are were that displaced metal came from.
Doesn't the scientific method try and prove something isn't a thing and its only accepted when the other options are proven not to be?
Not quite at this stage. I've just presented a working hypothesis hoping that others more well-versed in die clashes would chime in, but my idea needs to be vetted of course. While the shape of my alignment seems to correspond to the shape of the anomaly on my coin, there are serious questions that might discount this idea and point to it being coincidental. First is the implausibility of a multiclash event occurring (to my limited knowledge of clashes). Second (and perhaps most convincing that my overlay is not correct) would be the lack of a curved clash mark appearing behind the bison, which would have occurred from the rim. Tilting could theoretically prevent that, but like I said: I am not a clash expert. I'm just brainstorming while I wait for the experts
Is there a nickel from that year with the proper die rotation? Even in the 1930s the presses were able to pump out hundreds of millions of coins a year. At the speed they moved there would be pretty much zero chance of a one off error. There would be other coins with the clash out there if that’s the case. Those dies also would have produced many coins prior to the clash occurring meaning there would also be many with just the rotation. That would be the first question I would answer.
Your rotated overlay has the obverse facing the wrong way. It should be a reversed image. I have seen a dozen clashes on the reverse of a Barber dime, so multiple is possible. Rotated die clashes also possible. Clash and then rotate and clash again but offset that far, not sure if I've ever seen that happen.
Gouges, multiple, inclusive of both front legs and (OMG THE POOR THING!) Penis. Ouch. No anomaly, no clashes, no attempts to hide stuff. Just normal PM damage.
Now that I look again, I believe @charley is correct. There's a gouge across the front hoof that has the same appearance as the depressions where the "die clash" is.
I realized this late last night and forgot to come back and mention it. I think this is the simplest, most reasonable explanation. I think the resemblance to the overlay shape is merely coincidental given the overlay's insufficiencies.
While I initially thought the marks looked like an original part of the die, they do seem to strangely be worn-down pmd gouges. I partly thought this could be a clash since there were other typical die clash marks on the coin. Here are some photos of the actual clashing this coin has:
