Possible Misplaced Mint Mark 1963 S Nickel

@ita, glad to have you out of lurker mode and contributing. That nickel looks pretty cool. I suspect that the number 9 just took a hit that shaped the bottom part roughly- S-like. I've tried to enlarge, crop, and enhance this region, but it is a bit pixelated. It would be super-cool if you could post a nice clear close-up. Thx!

It would take a pretty specific hit to make the s with a tail like it has. I am hopeful on this one looks too good. like spence said enlarged close up clear picture of the date please. thank you jimmyd still looks exactly like an s.

Yeah, I am already struggling with that 300 limit. I got out a magnifying glass to take this picture. It looks very different, but the raised area beneath the end point if the 9 still catches my attention. PMD?

The 'S' mintmark wasn't used from 1956-1967. The mint at San Francisco closed in 1955 and reopened in 1965. But the 1965-1967 coins didn't have any mintmarks. In 1968 there were 1968-S Cents in business strike and proof cents.

So it would be impossible to have a 'S' mintmark in 1963.

That's what I thought, too, muddyknuckles! This was great; I learned a lot! I have seen so many S mint marks recently that I didn't stop to ask if that was a year they were open. Now that you say it, it makes a lot of sense looking at what I have, too. Thank you, everyone!

I have a 1963 with 3 possible S MM on the Reverse. Anything is possible when Humas are involved.
That is very clearly an S Mint Mark mistakenly placed...just as the ones on my Coin.Just like Minr Workers ww all do various things we aren't supposed to...like not believing that new or unknown errors on coins still exist...its only when they pop up that we say aw Man I can't believe it! So..IsItAnything...get it checked, for You.

Just damage to the coin. Thanks for the closer view. That confirmed it to me better.