Greenstang

Really like the detail in the crown on this one.

You have Machine Doubling along with might be some Die Deterioration Doubling.   
Doesn’t really matter as both are a worthless type of doubling.

There have been counterfeits since the beginning of coinage. Age has nothing to do with it.   
Yours is definitely one of them. There is no identity or detail to identify.

Any clue how to send it to NGK experts so that they can identify it. 
I am new to coin industry and as i can see you have a wide knowledge in it.

There have been counterfeits since the beginning of coinage. Age has nothing to do with it.   
Yours is definitely one of them. There is no identity or detail to identify.

You have Machine Doubling along with might be some Die Deterioration Doubling.   
Doesn’t really matter as both are a worthless type of doubling.

I would say a partial grease filled die. Not uncommon especially around the edges.

I take it by bumping this post that you are looking for more lowballs   
Here is another of my PO1's, a Canadian 1892  50 cent coin

As low as you can go.
1967 Canadian silver dollar certified by ICCS, 1 of 2 graded PO1

I wholeheartedly accept your explanation.  I am familiar with the raised dot topographical feature unique to the 1836 Canadian cent but the problem presented here is a TPGS has apparently validated your claim and formally acknowledged it.  It's tough to challenge an opinion rendered by an established TPG.
This instructively recalls a line attributed to President Lincoln:  "It is better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to speak and remove all doubt."
Mine may simply be a case of sour grapes or low-baller's envy.  I could argue my coin was a post-Ike 1979 Sacagawea dollar and could not possibly be confused with any other introductory coin, but the DATE seemed to be a key consideration to at least one U.S. TPGS.  I may have to research this further but if it appears I am incorrect in my assumption, I will have no choice but to honor the commitment I made to leave unprodded of my own accord, with no parting shot.

I am afraid I am going to have to pull rank on you not because member Mike's latest bump felt more like a thump, or because I've got a few more weeks than you on the Forum as a Rising Star, but because it's taken me months to solve this little enigma.  I do not believe your example qualifies as a "low-ball." According to seemingly unwritten definition, to qualify as a L/B, the date must be legible. I supplied a TPGS before and after photos of a coin I used Brillo ®️ on to within an inch of its life, and the verdict I received was terse but polite: "From whom did you obtain this blank planchet from?"  🤣
I stake what little remains of my entire reputation (tattered and torn) experience (barely perceptible) and credibility (non-existent) on my incredible assertion and if I am wrong, I shall apologize, resign my commission forthwith, and see my way out.  To paraphrase President Nixon at his last press conference [November 2, 1962]:  "You [w]on't have Charriere to kick around anymore.] 😉 
 
 

Not to worry, I made the same assumption when I first started collecting lowballs but was told by one of the top error and variety collectors here in Canada who has written many articles and who also contributed to Charlton’s catalogue that the date is only necessary if there are different years of the same design. If it is a one year design and you can make out the design, then that is enough, the date is not necessary as you know the date. 
Quoting this off of the PCGS website “the ideal low ball coin is one that has been worn to the point that the design is worn nearly flat but is still identifiable to type and date.” 
 

I will accept your humble apology then Henri but no need to see your way out, I still enjoy your posts.
This coin has been certified by ICCS, Canada’s leading grader. You are right in the fact that the date should be showing but only if you cannot tell the date of the coin by some other marker. The 1967 series of coins were a one off style. The dollar had the flying goose on the reverse and you can vaguely see the outline of the back of the goose on the reverse. The other certified PO1 that I mentioned is also the same, no date but you can make out the goose.
The 1936 lowball that I posted is the same situation, no date but you can tell it is a 1936 by the crown, in 1935 the crown did not go to the rim.

It is damage, there is no way that could happen during the striking of the coin at the mint.

It would cost you $55-60.00 to have it graded (not appraised) which would far exceed the value of the coin.

Certainly not a Die Clash. It has been struck through grease or grit.   
There are also circulation dings on it.

Certainly not a Die Clash. It has been struck through grease or grit.   
There are also circulation dings on it.

In that condition, it would cost more to grade than what it is worth aside
from the fact that it is holed which would make it a detail coin.
 
 

As an added bonus, this is the difference between the 2 1966 varieties   
    

For the benefit of Henri and others that might be interested in the 5 different 1965 dollar varieties      

It is machine doubling that the die has bounced twice.   
I have seen this on other occasions.

It is machine doubling that the die has bounced twice.   
I have seen this on other occasions.

Split plate doubling. Seems fairly common on mint marks.   
No added value, it is one of the worthless types of doubling.

I hope that it does not take 52 posts to convince you like it did on the other forum.   
Just send it in and prove everyone on both forums that we are all wrong.

Hard to tell from that pixilated photo, you are not even showing the complete clash 
but from what I can see I would say no, it is not a mule die clash.   
Also do not use screen shots.