Chile 10 Pesos varieties

Quote: glorkarI would never notice something like this.  To me, if I have to squint my eyes or tilt my head to go "well that DOES look a little different" then it's just not worth it.

Quote: tony.cSo I agree with the possibility for the following variants : "P" with and without baseline

Quote: "Palinka83"​One of them is from 2013 the other from 2014.
​Numista lists the later one as minted at the "Koninklijke Nederlandse Munt (Royal Dutch Mint)". To me the mint marks on both look the same though.
​Therefor my question, is there anything on the 2014 coin actually indicating it being minted in the Netherlands?

Quote: "Essor Prof"Of course it's possible the 2014 is struck partially in the Netherlands and partially in Chili, but the ones struck in the Netherlands shouldn't have the Santiago mintmark.

I have found two different styles of the denomination “PESOS”.

In one variety, the letters are thicker, with a smaller inner contour (smaller openings inside the letters).

In the other variety, the letters are thinner, with a larger inner contour (wider openings inside the letters).

ZacUK  There is a member of Numista called 'cobra' who has his own site that has many varieties pictured ...

http://monnaiesetvarietes.zxq.net/FICHES/Chili/CHILI%2010%20pesos%20228.pdf

Unfortunately, Cobra is no longer amongst us.

Here is one from the 2010 coin, please remember that it's only if you find two different design inside ONE single year that it's called a variant, between years they are called type variants, which might or might not result in new km sub numbers.

Thank you for your response, Sjoelund, and for the example you provided based on a 2010 coin. However, the coin shown by me was struck in 2011. I am not insisting on the catalogization of this specimen, nor am I raising the issue of assigning any KM sub-numbers. You are correct in noting that such differences may fall under the category of type variants. Nevertheless, in this case the discussion concerns not terminology itself, but the underlying causes of the observed differences.

From a numismatic standpoint, several explanations may reasonably be considered:

1. Circulation wear. However, the character of the lettering changes and the overall relief of the coin do not fully correspond to typical wear resulting from circulation.
2. Polishing or modification of the working die, which is theoretically possible, but at present cannot be established with certainty.
3. Striking from a worn die, which generally results in a softening of the relief, thickening of design elements, and changes in the shape of the internal letter openings.
4. The use of different dies, which appears entirely plausible given a reported mintage of approximately 290,000,000 pieces.

In this context, I would note that the use of the term “variant” represents a rather simplified and limited approach to the classification of this coin. As demonstrated above, at least four distinct technological or die-related scenarios may account for the observed differences, and each of them is equally plausible. Reducing the discussion to a single generalized “variant” does not adequately reflect the full range of factors influencing the final appearance of the coin.

Furthermore, as an illustrative example, it is appropriate to refer specifically to the 2002 issue, the photograph of which was kindly provided on the forum by Alexander Prokofiev, where comparable die-related characteristics can be observed.

In conclusion, I would like to emphasize that this coin does not claim any particular numismatic value. Its relevance is strictly collectible and research-oriented, and it is of interest primarily to collectors of Chilean coinage and to those studying minting technology and die usage.

ZacUK  There is a member of Numista called 'cobra' who has his own site that has many varieties pictured ...

http://monnaiesetvarietes.zxq.net/FICHES/Chili/CHILI%2010%20pesos%20228.pdf

Doesn't exist any more

On the 2010 it's definitely a new die, since “THENOT” has disappeared……