Can anyone tell me if its possible for the D to wear away so much that its hardly visible? I have a 1918 nickel, and the eight looks so flat on top, that it has my heart pumping. HaHa. But I cannot see a D mark. Thanks
Forget about the flat top of the 8 for a moment - if it is an over-date you should see part of the vertical portion of the 7 as well. I'm glad your heart is pumping in order to keep you alive, but I'm betting you don't have an over-date if you can't see a D mint-mark.
Thanks for your help in answering the question. I didnt think a picture was needed to get an answer, so I didnt post one. At least I didnt get the ''That subject has been answered in a previous post.''. I guess it isnt possible that the mint mark could wear away. And yes the vertical on the eight looks more slanted than round. Like someone would try to correct a seven to an eight. Thanks again.
If the coin had a mintmark and it was worn enough that you couldn't tell it had a mintmark it would almost certainly be worn enough that you couldn't see the overdate either. (Although there is a diagnostic die crack that remains visible even on dateless coins.) Although there is currently no known overdate on the 1918 Philadelphia nickel, that doesn't mean that it doesn't exist. And I will disagree slightly with Mark and say that an overdate that showed the top of a 7 would not have to show any of the upright. Yes the 18/7-D does show it but that doesn't mean that a second overdated die would have to. For example the 42/1 dime shows the 1 very strongly. The digit is there and complete. But on the 42/1-D the 1 shows only as a nub at the top and bottom of the 2. And the different 1914/3 nickels also show varying strengths of the underdigit.
