1937 Buffalo Nickel with Misplaced and Horizontal MM or; ME/PMD Artifact?

[fallguy]

I came across this 37 Nickel with an anomaly located on the reverse, below the “C” of CENT and adjacent to the rim (1rst Pic). At first glance, the rim appeared to be pushed to the interior and I just assumed it was the result of PMD. However, a closer inspection failed to show any indication of a blow that would have caused such an effect. In addition, not only was the affected section of the “rim” still evident (just collapsed inward), but there was also a separate piece of the coin; rounded, arc shaped, and in relief to its immediate interior. Hopefully, these aspects are discernible in the 2nd shot.

Given that I had been looking at these nickels for most of the morning, the rounded section looked very familiar. As such, I captured the “D” mint mark off of a regular 37D and; after enhancing its color and inserting a faint line around its perimeter for contrast and comparison, I placed it as an overlay on the coin in question. Following that, I increased the opaqueness of the overlay in 10% increments and the output of those actions (at 20, 40 and 60 percent opacity) are displayed in the last 3 shots. As you might see, there certainly appears to be a one-to-one correspondence between a known 1937-D Buffalo Nickel mint mark and the artifact found on the subject coin.

While no single analytic approach can be used to confirm a hypothesis (to wit, this coin was struck on a die that carried a misplaced, horizontal “D” mint mark; punched as such for some unknown reason), at face value this analysis would appear to indicate that this hypothesis is certainly possible. Now all that I need is for more experienced minds than mine to “punch” some holes of their own in my Straw Man, and/or opine as to what the next steps might be needed to reach a consensus as to just what is, or what is not, the artifact on this Buffalo Nickel. Many thanks in advance and Semper Fidelis, fallguy.

[diamond]

It's a ding. The edge and rim were pushed up and in by a sharp impact.

[Ray Parkhurst]

It's a ding. The edge and rim were pushed up and in by a sharp impact.

I don't see any evidence of impact in the photos. Am I looking at it incorrectly? It just looks like a small die chip.

[fallguy]

Hopefully some additional info.

Mike thanks for your succinct answer, and damage it may be. It is certainly the same thing that first came to my mind. However, that position seems to fall short in explaining the existence of the smooth, geometric object found on this coin. One of the problems may be that the included scans don’t convey the same detail that is obtained under my AmScope. Given this, I have produced a crude markup of one of the shots that will hopefully shed a little more light as to what is actually on this coin.

• The black arrow denotes a small depression on the edge of the coin. I will note that the shot distorts is relationship to the artifacts in question; its dimensions are much smaller, and distance much further, than they appear and IMHO unrelated.

• The brownish line marks the valley of a small “V” indent in the edge/rim, with the tip ending midway of the width of the rim. It may be a factor, but its limited size in no way accounts for the amount of mass interior to the rim.

• Interior to the blue arced line is a depression of interest. The top of the blue line is actually higher than I intended, as the top of this upside down “U” shaped depression is only about halfway on the rim; the “open” bottom actually extends over the limit of the rim onto the edge. While I believe it to be significant, I’m unsure as exactly how; primarily because the volume of its displacement does not appear to be large enough to account for the amount of the rim that we see interior to the normal inside edge of the rim and certainly not the additional material observed.

• And speaking of the rim, the grayish hash marks depict the area of the rim that appears to have been displaced inward (from whatever cause), but is distinctly separate from the real point of interest, which is outlined in yellow.

• It is this area that really has me scratching my head. The area enclosed by the yellow line appears to be distinct (however there is no indication that it is a “foreign” embedded object); its geometric shape and size (length and width) are remarkably similar to the curved portion of the “D” mint mark on a 1937 Buffalo nickel; it has a distinct top edge (denoted by the dashed red line); which slopes down flush (green arrows) to the field below.

Please don’t get me wrong; I am not arguing that this is the result of some inexplicably erroneous mint mark punch, because I honestly don’t know what event, or events, produced it. Damage it may be, but I would like some plausible explanation/discussion on how “damage” could produce such an outcome. Post mint, a force acting on a coin can distort it, move features about, or even remove material from it. What it can’t do is to create a whole new feature unless it is embedding an object, or has formed it from the existing material! Bottom line is, on any finite mass, if you make a mountain, you will also end up with a valley. In the instant case, the mountains in plain sight . . . so where’s the valley?

[wavysteps]

Just to add to this post.

There are many dings, scrapes, dents, gouges that mimic the appearance of a wayward mintmark. This is one of those instances where the anomaly appears to be a horizontal D, which it is not.

Post mint damage.

[rascal]

this could be from a small die chip and since it is touching the coins rim it would be called a cud.

[wavysteps]

I am not to sure if I would want to call this anomaly a cud without first seeing it in hand.

[rascal]

I am not to sure if I would want to call this anomaly a cud without first seeing it in hand.

hey I didn't call it a cud , I said it could be

and you are right this one would have to be examined in hand to know what it is.