1939-P Wheat Cent - Strange Date, Possible Error?

Agree, just an odd circulation hit.

Well, well. I have to answer. I do not to contradict all the forum, and majority of you with such enormous knowledge, but in this case I will point why I state what I state. My state is base on the first the distance of the 1 to the 9.DO not fit.

Secnod I took the picture (forgot to ask the permission) and on transparency overlaps to a normal coin. The results it is that this 1 no fit exact with the curve of the first 9.
Third: the end of the 1 bottom fit with the end of the first 9.
Forth: I do not see any kind of marks of the moved or dispatch material.

YOUR OPINION PLEASE.
RW
The last it is to respond to MRWAHTITIS.: I saw before sets of 1930 to 1969 fake coins put in the market. Sure the 1939 it is not an valuable coin but someone some where do those fake sets. Was discovered and then stop. I never have a back from authority with the result or the origin. I took retirement at last 1st July from this consulting, so from now I will stand only with what I know.

Sorry if I batter you or disturb.

All my best,
silvio

Or maybe when the date was punch was a wrong NO date and then the Die worker re-polish and release without say made a mistake. Happened before this date and after.

Silviosi, If this was a punched wrong die, how could they not produce thousands of them before they discovered the error. This is the first one found in 80 years? Not too possible. I think a lot of PMD is explained by Hocum's razor.

Occam's razor, is most commonly used but Ockham's razor or Ocham's razor have all been viewed as correct, the man who it was named after, was Ockham, though. silviosi, I would have to agree with this theory, in this particular case though, even though it looks nice and natural (as natural as it could, given it's not normal), as it is. Time and wear, as Coinfrog stated, have taken away the evidence.

If this were not an error, there would be a million of these out there. Are are not. It is just a case of a moved digit. Moving alters the location and size of the devices. Not a die error. Just a damaged coin. We see a lot of these on the last digit. These were altered by a Gumball Machine on that area of the designs. They are similar to a parallel line, but not exactly parallel:

The devices on the die are incuse, so it is impossible to move these on the die. The dies are copied from a chain of command. Thus it would be impossible for this to be a die issue:

It would be like claiming that because your car has the wrong fender (wrong company) on it, that it is a factory error. When it is is obvious this could not happen. In the past there were times when there used to be individual devices punched into the dies. But that is a early 20th century thing. (1908 era) Things are not done that way since then.

CoopHome: Why can't the devices being rotated on the coin be a die issue on the new coins? chain of command

Thank you. Makesents, I was close, Hocums, Occams, sounds the same too me.

Just messing with you Cujohn, I misspell more than not. I thought your point was spot on though.