I'm a chemist, and if I just give a result I can get sued in court. It's called showing your work. I like to see before and after. Just throwing out a number looks like you're throwing out a number. If I saw the weight on a balance (a calibrated balance) of a new AGE and the circulated one I could figure it out with my calculator. I am not in the habit of believing everything I see on the internet, thank God.
Of course. And I'm sure in your lab notebooks you record not just reagent weights, but also scale details and calibration records, because it's your professional obligation, right? And if you're publishing, you'd better faithfully report not only measurements but uncertainties/tolerances. By this standard, you are of course free to ignore Doug's claim. In fact, if you found yourself as a referee on a paper where he published it, I'd expect you to recommend rejecting the paper. But even if Doug had included details about the scale he used, his calibration procedure, the coin's initial weight, and the coin's final weight, he could still have made it all up. The (ahem) gold standard of scientific investigation is that the result should be repeatable. So if you have doubts about Doug's claim, get some coins, weigh them, and start carrying them around!
Remember when I said this - Well I went looking, found this - https://www.cointalk.com/threads/wear.292704/ It's a discussion very similar to what's in this thread. And there are many, many other threads where the discussion of weight loss due to wear is the subject. Anybody that wants to read them, all they need to is type "weight tolerance" in the Search box on the Index page. You'll find page after page of threads.
I believe the Mint itself might be the best resource on this matter. This is from the 1902 Mint Director's annual report. They had been studying this exact issue, collecting old worn coinage from circulation and weighing them to see how much loss there was. What you see is coins that were a bit old and worn tended to loose about 4-6% of their weight (sometimes more, sometimes less).
I've read all those reports. But there's one critical piece of information that needs to be realized and understood. That being that coins were not removed from circulation until and unless they were so worn they could no longer be readily recognized. That's a lot of wear. And if you look at the dates in the list you show, they range from 1830 to 1876. So those coins had been in circulation from 26 to 72 years - before they were collected. That's a lot of wear - before they lost that 4-6% of their weight. My point is, the mint reports corroborate what I've always said - coins do not lose appreciable weight to speak of from wear until they get to the VG stage or lower. And that's without taking tolerances into account. If you take tolerances into account that 4-6% drops considerably.