Mint Error or Possible Variation: Gibraltar 10p 2007

Just found what appears to be a mint error, a changed or worn die, or maybe even a variation on the obverse side of the 2007 circulated 10 pence coin from Gibraltar.  The reverse is identical.  

Note specifically on the second coin the lack of detail in the hair, with a large empty area in the middle below the crown, and the shorter mouth.  There is also a lack of detail around the eyes.  The camera has also clearly had trouble picking up the detail on the second coin, even though the distance and settings were identical.

Clearly, this is not post mint damage, as there is little or similar wear on both coins and the surrounding detail more or less matches.  The are also bits of detail completely missing from the hair which couldn't be down to wear as the surrounding detail would be severely worn, as well as on the eye/nose/mouth as the cheek would be more worn.  Also note that the detail of the hair on the forehead, the necklace and on the dress which is more or less identical.

Does anyone else have something similar for this coin?

I would call it “wear and tear".

Probably not wear and tear

Maybe wear and tear if you got a chisel into the lower sections and completely avoided the raised detail.

In my opinion this is not a variant, it's “waer and tear" piece, alternativly can be worn die. Anyway, these coins from Tower Mint had usually not very high relief, so easily to loose some details when coins circulate.

Unbelievable !!!

I've now looked into this in a bit more detail and simple physics should tell anyone that this isn't wear and tear on the coin itself.  It's most likely to be a worn die, the higher parts of the die getting worn off first, hence the low parts of the coin having less and less detail over time as the die continues to be used in spite of the damage.   You can clearly see this on the examples I've provided by looking at the smooth patch on the monarch's head.  

This seems to be a feature with smaller states, probably due to the cost of retooling an old die or introducing new ones.  However, there are indeed coins where the metal is so soft that the detail on the coin itself ‘changes’ over time (see previous forum topic on the ‘Morocco - 50 Santimat / 1 Dirham - Rim and detail differences’:  https://en.numista.com/forum/topic131916.html#p1063341 ), but this isn't one of those because of the metal used.

I'm not looking to get this coin listed as anything other than a possible die error, so let's all stop spouting this nonsense about wear and tear on coins and start calling this what it actually is, a mint failure or die error.  Sorry for the rant, but this nonsense really does need to stop as it's quite demoralising, especially for new collectors.

Why did you ever ask, when you already had made your mind up?

From my perspective, as a Gibraltar coins referee, the most important fact is that this is definitly not a coin variant. 

I don't care mint or post mint damages. 

LDC63

 

Sorry for the rant, but this nonsense really does need to stop as it's quite demoralising, especially for new collectors.

I just want to warn you. If you, as a new collector, call what experienced collectors say is nonsense, you walk a dangerous path. Go on like this and you'll get a bad name with the chance your further questions will be ignored.

You don't have to agree with what they say, but you have to do that in a polite and respectable way.

 To me looks like a weak strike. 

I also have that Gibraltar 10p and my looks the same  

coinman7

I also have that Gibraltar 10p and my looks the same  

That further validates a worn die theory. Thanks!

My coin, AU grade

It seems that it's just a matter of time before someone is able to show us examples of this coin with and without this mint error in pristine condition. Looks like the best example of one with the error is currently with Ollie 🤨