I would guess that is because your coin depicts mechanical doubling. (You can see it slightly in the date as well.)
It may be PMD, it may be mechanical doubling. You would know better than I since I don't have the coin in-hand. What I can say is that the anomaly around the mintmark is not the result of an RPM. It is not unheard of for mechanical doubling to be isolated to the mintmark, and one of the key things to look at is the doubling itself. If you "take away" the doubled area, the mintmark appears smaller than it should be. That should tell you right off the bat that it is not an RPM.
Maybe you just didn't read my last response. In it, I outlined reasons besides the 9 as to why you may not find your coin on coppercoins.com. Instead of being passive-aggressive in your response, why not take the time to read what I said? I said that the mintmark could also be an example of isolated mechanical doubling.
OK. I Like you Simon and I am not looking to cause trouble. When you said "It may be PMD" that sounded like you were referring to the MM. I do not agree with the concept " If you "take away" the doubled area, the mintmark appears smaller than it should be"... that huge MM is what caught my eye.
An RPM, by definition, is a repunched mintmark. That means that there is 1 normal-sized mintmark, and remnants of a 2nd. Therefore, if you took away the remnants, you are still left with 1 normal-sized mintmark. On your coin, if you took away the doubled area of the mintmark, from what I can see, the result would be a mintmark that has an incorrect shape and would be smaller than normal. That is why I say your coin has MD. Mechanical doubling is eye-catching and can make an MM appear bigger (after all, it does flatten out part of the design). But the fact remains that with a coin with mechanical doubling, if you take away the doubled area, the design will appear smaller than normal.
