1900 IHC Oddity / Expertise, If You Please?

Kevin to @Zurie,

I'm waxing curious, not being pigheaded. I know just enough about the mint's processes to embarrass myself.

I see a profound difference between the mis-shaping of the date numerals and the mis-shaping of the letters. The former appear mountain-like and the latter appear plateaued. The exception is the numeral one which is also plateaued.

Know-nothing to expert,

Am I right to suspect that the mint in 1900 kept a supply of dies that were 99% ready to deploy, needing only to have the last three digits of the date affixed. It would have been wise to do so. It seems to me that a such-like "plan-ahead" die made in 2000 having only the two could - barring a decision to change the design -- stand ready for duty for nine centuries - less one year as long as it stayed at the same mint

I'm flummoxed. How could either a post-mint damaging force - or why would a post mint culprit - attend to this mountain/plateau detail?

Kevin

Yes. I see what you see. How much does that tell you?

Kevin

This is deliberate damage, done for whatever reason to a common, circulated, low-value cent. I can imagine a steel or brass cylinder with diameter slightly less than the original coin. The vandal put the coin on a compliant surface, maybe a rubber pad over an anvil. They covered the obverse with a piece of rubber, centered the cylinder, and started hammering.

If I were really interested I might attempt to duplicate the effect on another common IHC. I'm ready to accept a " PMD" conclusion, but maybe someone else would take on the challenge of reproducing the appearance of the OP's coin.

Plus, it takes a LOT of Energy to move the metal up past the stands of the letters-nevermind with no damage to the tops otherwise, or the stands themselves. Physics... simply: if you're going to pound on a coin with a piece of pipe and a hammer, you will expand it unless it's in a fixed, unmoveable collar-but displaced metal must go "somewhere". It will not discriminate and only selectively move around the devices-it would be "all or nothing". That's not he case here (and by-the-way: if you're using a piece of pipe to try to replicate the "damage", it cannot be hollow; it must be solid and slightly concave at the center, which would make it a "piece of Bar"-not pipe)

A late stage die cap would distort the devices, but not increase the size of them, certainly not to the extent that you see on this coin.

In my opinion there are no errors that look remotely similar to this coin, and the devices present mechanical manipulation post strike.

I've never read anything published by J.K. Rowling (but I did take the kid to see one of the movies...)
Maybe it's better trying to explain what it isn't:
It isn't a Late Stage Capped Die error (looks nothing like one)
It isn't the product of a some mindless pounding with a piece of Pipe (or Rod) and a Hammer
If anyone can explain how areas of the obverse denticles, and the L on the ribbon (Longacre didn't place it there because he ran out of room elsewhere for it), which were struck through *something*, as Post Mintage Damage: I'm all ears

I believe ANACS or other TPGs would just inquire to other experts. I would put out a word to Rick Snow, Chris Pilliod, Ken Potter, Mike Ellis or Bill Fivaz. I think one of them may give the best answer to what the heck is going on with this coin.