Message:

<p>[QUOTE=&quot;KBBPLL, post: 8285706, member: 104064&quot;]I think we just have to accept that there&#039;s actually 21% less volume in a US quarter than the raw rim and diameter calculation gives us, due to the fact that a significant percentage of the coin is narrower than the rim dimension used for the thickness. I think the mint&#039;s contention that a blank is wider, <i>but the same thickness</i>, as a finished coin is just wrong. Watch the animation in this video starting at about :18.</p><p><br /></p><p>[MEDIA=youtube]TCI16hXpRQk[/MEDIA]</p><p><br /></p><p>The upset mill squeezes a coin blank into a narrowing space while raising a rim edge. It clearly shows the blank getting thicker, and while it&#039;s only an animation, I think that it&#039;s an accurate depiction, because that squeezing force applied to the metal isn&#039;t just transferring metal to the raised rim lip, it&#039;s also making the blank thicker. </p><p><br /></p><p>Empirically, we know that the quarter weighs what they say it weighs, and it&#039;s pretty easy to measure the diameter accurately to confirm that too, so to me we accept that the average thickness is 21% less than the stated measurement.[/QUOTE]</p><p><br /></p>

Your name or email address:

Do you already have an account?

• No, create an account now.
• Yes, my password is:
• Forgot your password?

Stay logged in