Any ideas? Doesn't look like PMD to me, but I've never seen something like this. Enlighten me. Thanks.
I think it's a bona-fide mint error, not circulation damage. A "hit" sufficient to relocate the "9" should have left a gouge or a scratch or an indent or something, some evidence, and I don't see any. Is there any damage to the reverse at that precise spot?
Regardless, there really is no event during the die making or striking process that would produce the anomaly you see here. Therefore the appearance can't really be explained as a mint error. From what I see, the last digit definitely took a hit. Here's a picture I took a while ago that shows similar post-mint damage.
the 9 definately has taken a hit like the other member said. there is no possible way this could have happened at the mint.
There's a significant flattening of the rim directly to the left of the "O" in "OF," and that corresponds well to the location of the damaged "9" in the date on the obverse. I'm satisfied it's not a mint error.
How could something hit it with that much force and not leave a mark on the obverse (other than the displaced "9")? I'll be the first to admit that I don't fully understand the minting process, so when someone more knowledgeable says that there is no way that the Mint did this, that carries a lot of weight. When you agree (and are also more knowledgeable, and asked for more photos), more reason to believe it is PMD. But again, simple physics: shouldn't there be *something* on the front? Couldn't it have been a Mint error where the die was damaged?
There's another test you can make; if the "tail" of the displaced 9 is firmly attached to the "field" of the coin, then I may change my mind again. If it's loose, as the result of a whack that physically moved the tail to the right, then we're back to PMD. You can see a tiny shadow (?) of where the tail originally was; fortunately, there's another normal 9 in the date to compare it with.
This is one that comes up all the time in forums, and it probably baffles everyone the first time they encounter one and try to wrap their head around it, but it's damage. Likely from a rolling machine finger. Those fingers skim the surface of the coin, and they often hit the last digit in the date, and/or the I in LIBERTY. A lot of time they do get close enough to the surface to scrape it, but it's so shallow that the surface scrape to the field is quickly worn away with a little circulation. Once you pull enough of these out of BU rolls and see the evidence when it is fresh, you'll no longer doubt that this type of damage is caused by a hit.
I agree with the coin counter explanation. Copper coin alloy is much more workable than most would believe until they have tried it. It doesn't have to be loose, and experienced die worker or jewelers could change a date that only experienced individuals could notice, add such as V.D.B. on the back of a cent, etc. Imagine drilling a tiny hole in the edge of a cent, and inserting a tool and raising a mint mark , and then plugging the hole and very few noticing. Not saying this was changed by someone, just that it is a soft metal.
