10c 100 years of Canada. KM67 or KM67a?

The diameter is more like 67a and the weight is closer to 67. I'm a bit stuck :)

Please see the referenced coins below:

KM#67

KM#67a

Welcome to numista,

please supply the numista links to the two mentioned coins?

Sjoelund

Welcome to numista,

 

please supply the numista links to the two mentioned coins?

Added to the post. Thanks for suggestion!

I suggest you read the entire coin pages. You most probably have KM# 67.  BTW, the diameter and weight are listed as identical for those two coins. 

fjjohnson

I suggest you read the entire coin pages. You most probably have KM# 67.  BTW, the diameter and weight are listed as identical for those two coins. 

Not that clear regarding the “debate” :) 

I see 2.18 gr on another resource.

Thanks for gyour guiding

Yes, it was 2.18 on the coin page until a little while ago. Someone changed it to match SCWC.

Let's try this:  If you multiply 5.05 (the weight of one  25c coin) times two, you get 10.1 = 50c. Divide by 5, you get 2.02.  I think this figure looks MUCH better than the one listed (which can't be identical to the 80% silver coin).  TC

So, even though Canada has made 13 circulating silver 10 cent coins in her history that are ~2.32 grams (silver content 4 at .925, 6 at .800 and 3 at .500) you want to change it to 2.02 grams because it looks better?  

They have also made 273 silver non-circulating 10 cent coins. None are less than 2.3 grams.

A better explanation is that the thickness is adjusted to give the same weight.  (Not the thickness that is usually measured across the rim but the thickness of the field. The rim thickness can still be the same). 

The density of .800 silver is 10.31 g/cc.  The density of .500 silver is 9.62 g/cc. So to maintain the same weight the planchet would only have to be 7% thicker (~ 0.09 mm).

Firstly, I don't  wan't  to change anything. Some of the info shown in Numista defies logic.  And should be changed for this  reason. 

Secondly, the .925 sterling coins and the 273 non-circulating coins are - respectfully - irrelevant to this discussion.

If we use the Numista data shown for the .500 fine and .800 fine quarters - both show identical  thickness. It appears that changing planchet thickness was unappealing to the R.C.M.  And I'm quite sure that the cost of mechanical requirements to modify relief  was also unappealing. They were looking to reduce costs. Modifying thickness and/or diameter would have been costly to the vending industry as well.  It was much easier (less costly) for them to modify their weight detecting capabilities.

So, again, based on Numista data for the quarters, showing identical diameters also, the only variable that could allow for continued cost effectiveness would be a reduction in silver content - 80 % to 50% silver.  This reduction in silver content (all dimensions remaining unchanged) would - naturally - result in a weight reduction .

I see no reason to believe that any other methodology was used to reduce the cost of the 10 cent coinage. And, as is the case with most world mints, maintaining consistent weight standards for different precious metal denominations was a priority.  For example 5 U.S. .900 fine dimes weigh exactly the same as 2 U.S. .900 fine quarters. 

So - unless some Numista member has a large assortment of Canadian .500 fine 10 cent coins and .800 fine 10 cent coins, and appropriate lab equipment, and can refute my assertion, I propose that the weight of the .500 fine Canada 10 cent coins show 2.02g.  And yes, it also looks much better than what is currently shown.   TC

As Scooby Doo says, “Rots of ruck” getting that changed because it “looks better.”

If you are quoting me from the last line, that indicates you at least read the stuff above.  Thanks.   TC

tcmusic11

If you are quoting me from the last line, that indicates you at least read the stuff above.  Thanks.   TC

Of course I read your entire post. It wouldn't make sense to reply if I didn't. Are the other 2 .500 silver relevant to this discussion?

I'm cracking up ……..   🙃