| Author |
 Replies: 10 / Views: 13,435 |
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
721 Posts |
OK, did someone remove this intentionally (and for what possible reason)? Any ideas?   |
|
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
1358 Posts |
Maybe it was a D or an S they were going to put on a '38..
|
|
Pillar of the Community
 United States
721 Posts |
Yeah, I thought of that, but for what minimal profit? I can't believe someone would do that.
|
|
Bedrock of the Community
United States
12437 Posts |
Are you sure there was ever a mintmark in the first place? I suspect it is just a case of coincidentally placed damage as I can see no reason for removing the mintmark from a 1948 nickel, other than to add it to another coin. However, there is no Jefferson nickel of that era that would be worth the effort of attempting to add a mintmark. |
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
1358 Posts |
^^ True..
Maybe they were even trying to fake a 1912-S nickel or something, though..
|
|
Rest in Peace
United States
1943 Posts |
This looks to me like a Philadelphia nickel with no mintmark. The damage is above where the mintmark would be.
|
|
Rest in Peace
United States
3039 Posts |
Can't you see they were testing a 1/16 inch drill bit ?
|
|
Valued Member
United States
106 Posts |
I was doing research on the 1948 nickel with the same mark because I found one but this one is in the middle, what was the conclusion on what the marking is from?  |
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
2189 Posts |
WOW! I just realized this thread is 4 years old. The 1948 you just posted snatch was shot with a BB gun
|
|
Valued Member
United States
106 Posts |
This post was the first listing on Google. Someone hit it with something round, I don't think a bb, it would of been a bigger dent. It's was funny to see something similar to this I had to comment
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
1192 Posts |
I see that damage often on nickels always though bbs
|
| |
Replies: 10 / Views: 13,435 |
|
Posted 01/18/2012 5:57 pm
