Q: What type of device are you using to measure the width, height and depth of the anomaly and the mint mark ? I ask because electronically measured, they are not the same size. If we replicate (I did two models, one on the left and one on the right) of the Mint Mark we get this. So, the anomaly is *not* the exact same size and shape of the mint mark. It is similar. When it was inspected I had to increase the false error identification in order to expand the area. If you notice, there's a notch on the front of the "D", and other oddities inside of it not reminiscent of a mint mark. If we compare the image if you compare it to ANOTHER 1983 WORN nickel ... you would get if you look closely, it actually has THREE "D" shaped stuff in that same area as identified below. what i really think you have is remnants of various wear and damage. either that or this other nickel has 3 D's on it. here's the design in more uncirculated condition
I wouldn't expect that they would be.its a newbie guess. But with extremely prominent serifs there is only one way to know for certain. That's taking it in to get verified. Some people say yes it is others say no.
Really it isn't the end of story. I'm almost certain it's been 3rd party verified or my find wouldn't be on the Google search engine under misplaced mint mark sir.
The downfalls of google. Your coin is damaged and a great example of pareidolia. Many of our coins are on google search. I could post a fake double struck cent and it would show up in google search. But hey, If you want to waste your money sending in a damaged unverifiable coin to a TPG. a reference site by all means please do. Just when it comes back as we said be humble and post the results as a learning experience.
We're on the internet, but maybe we are the 'bots putting everybody's photo on. Right this minute there are 47 members on and 42 robots gathering info....almost one for each of us. Jim