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?
Exactly one of my thoughts, if it was then we would have a number of articles out on the internet explaining the anomaly. @Publius2 As for the working die theory, we would have many examples and it would be talked about among the experts and be a sought-after variety.
A little to add, we have seen curly like impressions before. The "Superbird" Washington Quarter. The Sin the cheek of a Roosevelt dime. There could be even a few more. I do believe both of those happened during the striking process, and not on the original die.
You may be thinking about the 1857 FE with clash marks from the 1857 $20 gold die. It's listed in the CPG. I sold one on GC a while back for over 3K.
It's rare but any coin size die can be clashed with any other coin size die. In 1857 a cent die was clashed with the quarter, half and the $20 gold dies. You can even find the 1857 quarter with clash marks from the FE cent. All of these are listed in the CPG.
Good question. Below is my speculative thinking on this - by no means do I claim this is correct much less a full and universal explanation. Below is an example of a half dime with reverse shield clash marks below and within Liberty's ear. How did those get there on the obverse die when the ear (and the shield) is supposedly lower than the field of the die? Note that the location of the clash is not as deep into the die as the ear lobe and ear rim. Recall that the die is radiused so that the area around the central image is slightly higher than the rim. This is true for both obverse and reverse dies. When the two dies are clashed, the first part (and sometimes the only part) to make contact is the central part of both dies. Now, it takes a tremendous amount of force for two hardened dies to impress themselves permanently onto each other and the first point of contact is that central area which tends to concentrate the force. Finally, the parts of the incused die where we see clashes are mostly not as deep into the die as we tend to think. The shield clashes on the illustrated coin are not on top of the ear or the hair curl which are quite deep into the die but rather in a shallower area. That's also why we see clashes in the background fields of the reverse shield. Put it all together and I think that's why we sometimes see clashes in locations that seem at first to defy logic. Maybe, just what I've thought about this topic but never put down in writing. Like my daddy told me "If you think you know something on a topic, try writing it down."
Here is the original listing on GC with original images both sides. Tons of what appears to be Longacre doubling in the legend too, but that seems to be common. https://www.greatcollections.com/Coin/2203847/1868-Nickel-Three-Cent-Piece-PCGS-MS-66#gallery-3 I like the idea of a strike-through from the working hub to the die, although I've never heard of such a thing. Here are some other examples from the GC archive that appear to show similar squiggles in the bust, but not identical to the subject coin. "Search Assist" says 100-200k was the average die life (no source given) so with mintage of 3,252,000 that would be around 15-30 dies. If the strike-through theory is correct, every coin made by that die would have it, since it was on the die to begin with. Maybe with more sleuthing we'll find another one? Two from the same die! (at temple and below chin). Supports the hubbing strike-through theory although you could argue these are odd die cracks - I don't recall seeing them this "squiggly". https://www.greatcollections.com/Coin/1450497/1868-Nickel-Three-Cent-Piece-PCGS-MS-67#gallery-3 https://www.greatcollections.com/Coin/1772634/1868-Nickel-Three-Cent-Piece-NGC-MS-62#gallery-3 https://www.greatcollections.com/Coin/2107645/1868-Nickel-Three-Cent-Piece-NGC-AU-55#gallery-3 https://www.greatcollections.com/Coin/1900327/1868-Nickel-Three-Cent-Piece-NGC-AU-53#gallery-3
Great research @KBBPLL! I'm intrigued that we see the same type of artifact but not in the same locations.
Took me a while to hit on the right search criteria but I recalled the dime being discussed here or on NGC. It's actually known as the "5 on cheek" (not S) which is probably why it took me so long to find something. PCGS has certified 42 of them. Sure looks like the same cause. The "superbird" quarter is here https://www.pcgs.com/coinfacts/coin/1952-25c-superbird-fs-901/144443. It says it is an actual mint mark punched into the die by a mint employee, but I'm not so sure. https://www.greatcollections.com/Coin/2223162/1966-Roosevelt-Dime-SMS-FS-401-NGC-MS-68 and another one https://www.greatcollections.com/Coin/1508081/1966-Roosevelt-Dime-FS-401-5-on-Cheek-SMS-PCGS-SP-67 NGC (https://www.ngccoin.com/variety-plus/united-states/dimes/roosevelt-dimes-1946-date/75153/?page=1) says "Likely a lint impression from the die cleaning process, this piece is similar in origin to the 1952 'Superbird' Washington quarter", but there's dozens of them and that wouldn't happen with a typical strike-through from die cleaning. It has also been called "a lint mark on the die", which is a bit nebulous. Was the lint on the working hub? (https://www.cointalk.com/threads/i-...-what-do-you-think.342808/page-3#post-3915534) So the question is whether these are all from the same root cause.
That must've been a horrible die setter working at the mint in 1857, mixing up all those die pairs, and then clashing every one of them.
