I don't own this coin or have an image of the reverse. The coin was posted on a different forum. The marks on her face and at the base of her neck look much like clash marks but they don't match the reverse in an overlay.
My knee jerk reaction was a clash, but there's a lot more going on here. I have some early shield nickels that have unusual anomalies that I cannot identify. I read a piece somewhere that detailed the troubles that the US mint was having utilizing this new nickel alloy. I finally chalked up my shield nickel anomalies to a US mint learning curve.
Ringworm? Seriously, my first reaction was hairs or metal shavings on the die but since the marks appear to be raised, that explanation wouldn't fly would it? Assuming the marks are an artifact from an outside contaminant, for the marks to be raised on the coin, the marks would have to be incuse on the working die. So, if we rule out the possibility of the marks being deliberately carved into the working die, then Occams Razer says the simplest explanation points to the marks (or the causative agent) being present on the Hub that made the working die. Since the Hub has a positive image, a hair or shaving could be present on the image and then be transferred to a working die as an incuse mark on the working die. Subsequent coins struck from that working die would show a raised thread-like mark such as what we see with this coin. If this explanation is correct, then we would expect to see other coins of 1868 struck from the same working obverse die. What do you think? Poke holes and suggest alternative theories.
I thoroughly enjoyed Publius2 response, for sure a very knowledgeable numismatist. Reflecting on the post, nice coin.
If the marks don't match the obverse, could it be clashed with something else? I recall you having an indian cent clashed with a $5 gold? Or some such mishmash?
I thought about that myself.... But how could that happen with a unique sized denomination like a three cent nickel?
