I've read what the Perth Mint has declared on their website for weight, diameter and thickness http://www.perthmintbullion.com/au/Our-Bullion-Products/Silver-Bullion-Coins.aspx but have you ever checked your coin thickness? For example - I have measured a Tiger 10oz and the thickness reads 5.5mm ish :/ but the PM site reckons it should be around 10.3 What's up here :/ Am I not reading or measuring this properly?
Is that with Tiger skin or without? :lol: It is probably an error , maximum thickness 6.60 mm on the brochure for the lunar. koala, kooks maximum thickness 8.70 mm for the 10 oz
See this thread for a related discussion: http://forums.silverstackers.com/topic-53260-perth-coin-s-real-dimensions.html
I know but for a so called official declaration on their website to refer to for measurements it would certainly bring some disputes on - wouldn't it? :/ shouldn't this be flagged with them to change it
A real thickness of 5.5mm, with a published number of 10.3mm is pretty ridiculous. The solution to fixing this is so simple, yet they would rather be stubborn and make excuses. This is pretty clear from the other thread. Someone can make hundreds counterfeit 10oz coin to have a 10.3mm thickness to pass off as the real thing since this is what's published on their website, and I'm betting Perth still couldn't give a damn to change it to the correct dimensions.
Just thought I would mention this to SS'er community for food for thought. This may sound wrong and to be perfectly honest I wasn't 100% sure either but recently whilst trying to purchase a 10oz Kook I brought along my nifty callipers and electronic weighing scale (the brand of each are reliable) and I also did my due diligence research beforehand with my very own Perth mint 10oz kook coins. Now I know my coins were 75mm in diameter and this particular coin passed that test (callipers) BUT this coins weight didn't show what I felt to be true....weighing in at 313.65 so I didn't buy it. My existing purchased direct from the PM 10oz coins are about 312.5 and PM website states 311.347 Plus the capsule wasn't fitting correctly? Was I right? who knows but I guess I feel this should be mentioned on SS'ers so I suppose everyone should be aware of "particular" information before buying. Now as I said at the top I'm still not 100% certain and neither was the seller. Maybe someone can answer this and if my pass on the coin proves to be wrong due to these checks I performed there is still a 98 10oz kook out there to be picked up.
Sometimes coins can vary in weight slightly, if you have a look at 1oz coins Silver eagles are a little heavier than 1oz and each coin may vary slightly of the same series. Whether your decision was right? You have to do what your comfortable with.
If it's thinner then its diametre should be bigger, at least if the weight is ok. So that's one way to verify
I think the thickness measurement has to be wrong, 6.6-5.5=1.1 which is 17% 'less'. This coin comes in a capsule, doubt tolerance on diameter is that high. And then a weight deviation of 1/300 or 0.33%? How was the thickness measured? A ruler?
I didn't measure the thickness first time I used the digital scales and callipers but I think it's worth it now.
Btw, how exactly is thickness defined? Is that the thickness that matters for amount coins in tubes (so the biggest thickness, outer relief) or is that an average, or maybe the edge/rim?
These are rounds from a dealer I just got in. One coin tube with one type of round, you would think had an extra coin in it, but all counted at 20. I have like 11 different types of rounds and this one, is the only one that looks this way. I thought it was odd.
