Message:

<p>[QUOTE=&quot;Clawcoins, post: 4209491, member: 77814&quot;]Q: What type of device are you using to measure the width, height and depth of the anomaly and the mint mark ?</p><p><br /></p><p>I ask because electronically measured, they are not the same size.</p><p>If we replicate (I did two models, one on the left and one on the right) of the Mint Mark we get this.</p><p>[ATTACH=full]1079057[/ATTACH]</p><p><br /></p><p>So, the anomaly is *not* the exact same size and shape of the mint mark.</p><p>It is similar.&nbsp; When it was inspected I had to increase the false error identification in order to expand the area.&nbsp; If you notice, there&#039;s a notch on the front of the &quot;D&quot;, and other oddities inside of it not reminiscent of a mint mark.</p><p><br /></p><p>If we compare the image</p><p>[ATTACH=full]1079058[/ATTACH]</p><p>if you compare it to ANOTHER 1983 WORN nickel ... you would get</p><p>[ATTACH=full]1079059[/ATTACH]</p><p>if you look closely, it actually has THREE &quot;D&quot; shaped stuff in that same area as identified below.</p><p>[ATTACH=full]1079061[/ATTACH]</p><p><br /></p><p>what i really think you have is remnants of various wear and damage.</p><p>either that or this other nickel has 3 D&#039;s on it.</p><p><br /></p><p>here&#039;s the design in more uncirculated condition</p><p>[ATTACH=full]1079062[/ATTACH][/QUOTE]</p><p><br /></p>

Your name or email address:

Do you already have an account?

• No, create an account now.
• Yes, my password is:
• Forgot your password?

Stay logged in