Here it is with a normal AM to compare (the "normal" is the shiny one...) I've found 2005's that were wide-ish, but not quite this wide. Unfortunately, the "wide" coin looks like garbage. Are there any other key characteristics that would indicate this is a reverse proof?
After snooping on the good ole internet, I found info about the position of the FG to the Memorial. What I found was for the 1998-2000. In a nutshell, it said the wide AM FG is closer than the close. Mine is the opposite. I measured .3mm for the wide and .2mm for the close (closest point between FG and memorial). What do you think? Minor die variation, major million dollar discovery, or something in between?
I personally think your coin is damaged. Compare the right leg of the M to the left. Looks like part of it was abraded off, making it look like a WAM.
So, you think a million dollars is an unreasonable expectation? This is coin had the living snot beat out of it, so I think that is a reasonable assessment. Regardless, here is a slightly closer shot of the area in question:
In order for a coin to be a wide AM variety, the spacing between the A and M needs to be the same between the M and E. the spacing on your coin is not the same. Therefore, your coin cannot be a wide AM variety, and is simply a damaged cent in my own opinion.
