Size verification is required. Turkey 1 kurus 1963-1974 [solved]

The article en.numista.com/catalogue/pieces1154.html has statements:
in Features section
Thickness 0.78 mm

in Comments section

1963-68 thickness=0,78
1968-74 thicknes=0,76


Despite of spelling mistake in comments and absurd statement (lack of units of measurement and decimal point makes these statement absurd) both statements require verification for simple reason.
Coin in my possession of 1971 in XF condition with nicely preserved edge has thickness 0.90±0.05 mm and mass 1.04±0.01 g.

Can other collectors supply their data about the thickness of the coin here to make the correct conclusion?

So what is your goal?

It seems that the corrections in the article are made.

Now it states:
1963-68 thickness = 0.78 mm
1968-74 thickness = 0.76 mm
1971 has been reported as being slightly thicker, at 0.85 mm.

Obviously, not many collectors can differ the coins by this difference. Regular tools have accuracy 0.05 mm, which does not allow a collector to catch 0.02 mm difference. More over, due to wear of coins the rim becomes smaller. It means that there is no chance to catch proposed difference between the issues 1963-1968 and 1968-1974 even if such difference exists.

My preposition is to remove all 3 lines in the article.

I think removing the lines would be unnecessary because the information does no harm by being there.

Regular tools may have lower accuracy than advanced ones; however, the does not quite matter. Those exact measurements could have come from someone with advanced tools, or even the mint itself. Regardless, those are the known measurements. And while wear could contribute, that does not quite matter here. Those are the measurements the coins were supposed to have before they left the mint--whatever happens after the coin leaves the mint is irrelevant.

And of course, someone may find that information interesting. If they do not, they can ignore it.

1.The technical information was given correctly in the first post
Coin in my possession of 1971 in XF condition with nicely preserved edge has thickness 0.90±0.05 mm

The line was is based on the information is
1971 has been reported as being slightly thicker, at 0.85 mm.

It is completely inappropriate, cheating and full of tricks.

It is not slightly! It is a quarter of the 'supposed by the first lines' larger!!! Which means a quarter of the mass larger! But the mass suits the mint information. Which means that the original statement in the first two lines is obvious fake.

Then, the source gives accuracy
±0.05 mm
. How an interpreter dared to 'slightly' correct the data into 'his own' favor? How stead of
0.90±0.05 mm
the number 0.85 mm appeared? It means that someone instead of checking the data on the coins wishes to project ones own imagination on the real world.


2. There is no source of information for the first two lines. There is contradiction of them with reality, it means, that they may not be present in the way, how they are and all three lines should be removed. If someone wishes to present 'interesting' information, it should be based on real data and in this case of the exact sources openly given.

1. Hm... I think I read your uncertainty incorrectly. My apologies for that. I thought there was an extra zero, meaning the uncertainty was not so important. If you do not mind me asking: what did you use to measure your thickness? I just assumed you had a caliper, but that is not the correct uncertainty of a caliper.

Slightly is a subjective word. For example: I would call 0.0002 grams slightly heavier than 0.0001 grams. By your logic, the first extremely larger. But we are talking frctions of a grams here. Similarly, we are talking about fractions of millimetres. The wording is fine. To the human eye, the difference is small.

2. Many pages to not list their sources.

To not loose more words:



Scale: TFT-100, readabilty 0.01 gr
Calipher: Electronic Digital in steel, readabilty 0.01 mm

I can get- averages because I collect by year and NOT just one coin per type!

Ole

Excellent! Just what we needed.

I replaced the information previously in the comments section with the above documentation, and I modified the technical data to show the averages (although I did not have to modify the diameter--factoring in significant figures, that was the exact same).

Thank you very much!

My pleasure to have treated that with you and NOT with the guy from the island, who is so damn negative

Ole