I am not sure what kind of error this may be. I am imagining that it must be an error because the coin is reasonably worn but the indented numbers where the error is located are in much better shape. This would mean that this coin was circulated after the error had been punched into the coin and not after or even during. It looks like a piece of the die broke during the strike? Possible? Anyone with any information, I would certainly appreciate it! Thanks a lot!
I am inclined to agree with you in that it happened at the mint. It appears to have been some kind of struck through error.
I am a little skeptical here, since the date is clear as a bell. If that part of the die broke off, the date would be gone as well. I can not explain what happened, but the fact that the date is there but the surrounding area is gone makes me suspicious. The field behind the date is lower than the rest of the coin, so the die would have had to have been sticking out farther there, not broken off. Not sure what to say.
I also believe that it looks original, although I don't recall ever seeing anything exactly like it. Do the specs match those of a US nickel? This might be a good candidate for authentication/certification.
JBK - Think about it - a small, thin piece of material breaks from the machinery ( not the die ) and lands on top of the planchet. When the hammer die strikes the planchet - this is the result - a struck through error. It obviously happened at the mint or the date digits would not be inside the strike through area.
It might just be something I am missing, but this scenario does not make sense to me, since the date is within the "struck through" area. If there was some foreign material on the coin, the date would be struck on the material, and once it fell away, the area where the date was would all be indented. How could the date be there but the area all around it be indented due to a piece of debris on the coin? The debris that "dented" the area around the date would have "dented" the date area itself as well. In order for the date to be struck up, the die had to be applying pressue directly to the date area, which means the die had to come into contact with the planchet. Even if it were a thin piece of sheet metal as the strike-through, for example, and some of the design was imparted to the underyling planchet, I still don't think this coin passes the test, since the date is sharp and distinct. For example, when you have a laminated panchet, sometimes you can see the details, but they are fuzzy and all indistinct relative to each other. This coin otherwise looks like a struck through to me, I must admit, but I just am not able to visualize the process whereby some foreign material blocked the field in the date are without blocking the date itself.
You could be right - but what I am envisioning is the date being struck up right through the foriegn material, like a thin piece of metal. Of course the other folks could be right too - it could be a planchet defect. But if so - I don't think it is a lamination error. It's too well defined for that. Guess we'll never know for sure unless the coin is submitted
