2012 5 Cents, Weirdest Error On A Modern Coin I Have Encountered

Maybe these photos will provide enough visuals for opinions, I understand to some this could look like Post Mint Damage so I figured some clearer photos and an explanation to what I think is going on might get the ball rolling.

From what I am seeing is yes, there is damage here, but this damage looks to me like it is damage to the Die that struck the coin, at the mint. If you look at the following photos, above the G you will see raised Die Scratches, you will also see that the top of the G is also the same height as the rest of the device, normally when a coin takes a hit and a device is "pushed" there would be some sort of indicator in the fields and the devices height in the area would be raised, which it is not.

I have found a few coins that had obvious damage to the devices which altered the look of it and almost always, shows a sign of post mint damage, but PMD does not create raised die scratches.

In the last photo you will also see a very faint shadow of where the rest of the G is suppose to be like it is missing that part of the G along with its metal all together.

So all in all, it is a Mint Made Error in my opinion but I am open to hear everyone else's thoughts.

Thank you for the reply numidan, the only thing that prevents me from being confident it is post mint damage on the top of the G is the die scratches and the lack of extra metal that should be formed on the top of the G if it were to have taken a hit and that were the case, and iti were post mint damage those die scratches would not be raised, they would be incused into the coin like a gouge but that is not the case at all.

The overall condition of this coin as you can see is good, no signs of actual damage, and the fields would show some sort of damage big or small if it took a hit that could flatten that device.

Take the 1881 H large cent for example, on some the O in victoria has a part of the device missing due to Die Damage, not Post Mint Damage, obviously taking into consideration that the 1881 H may have had a different minting process back than I think this coin is a result of the same thing, I normally like to find and document my finds in pairs to confirm for myself before posting but again, I find it extremely odd to have missing metal from the device all together along with die scratches.

I have a fairly good track record of finding my finds in pairs, so I feel there is a 60/40 chance I may stumble upon another.

For example take a small flat head screwdriver and smack one of the devices gently and guaranteed you will see all sorts of damage all over the device and fields of the coin, but if you do the same to the die you wont, but you will find die scratches and missing metal.

For experimental purposes, in a bit here I will deliberately and gently, deform a G device to show my explanation as to why post mint damage is not the cause.

Okiecoiner, thank you for pointing that out! That is exactly what I was referring to, I sometimes get the Hub and Die mixed up but I was talking about Hub damage, the hub (raised devices) makes the Die (incused devices) and the damage I am referring to was damage to the Raised G device on the Hub not on the die, honest mistake that I'm glad you pointed out.

Again I also agree if this is the case than there would be more like this but since I only have one example as of right now I am stuck between Hub Damage and possible PMD.

Its the lack of actual damage that has me confused, I have a Mint State circulated LMC that has a lowercase "y" instead of an uppercase "Y" in "LIBERTY" that with the naked eye looks like Hub Damage to the device But upon closer inspection has moved metal and you can see it took an obvious hit, but on this nickel you see no signs of an actual hit, but you do see die scratches and missing metal.

Okiecoiner, totally understandable, I was just pointing out that you helped me realize I was referring to this nickel as a die error when I meant to refer to it as a hub error, I know you did not refer to this nickel as a result from a hub error and you were referencing the 1881H and not this coin.