Honduras: 1 centavo km 77, split between km77.1 and 77.2 [solved]

https://en.numista.com/catalogue/pieces2961.html

The km77.1 weighs 2.0 grams and a thickness of 1.65 mm

The km77.2 weighs 1.5 grams and a thickness of 1.20 mm

The rest of the aspects are the same.

I would like to see the km77 separated into the respective sub numbers because of the physical differences in weight and thickness, since it's not possible to have two measurements in the same article.

I completely agree. This was in fact on my to do list. I just made a new page here. The owners now need to be moved.

Admin, please move 1935, 1939, and 1949 owners from here to here.

Personally I find such a splits unnecessary especially when the weight lies within the search of +/- 0.5 g range.

At least don't call them large and small (I would think that means diameter), either call them heavy/light or thick/thin.

Quote: "Some_Nerd"​I completely agree. This was in fact on my to do list. I just made a new page here. The owners now need to be moved.
​
​Admin, please move 1935, 1939, and 1949 owners from here to here.

​Move is done.

Quote: "Idolenz"​
​At least don't call them large and small (I would think that means diameter), either call them heavy/light or thick/thin.

​Use the measurements and NOT subjective expressions.....

here is how it is:



Here is, what it should be:



The two promised images to be used for now, all I have:



Thanks
Ole

Quote: "Idolenz"​Personally I find such a splits unnecessary especially when the weight lies within the search of +/- 0.5 g range.
​
​At least don't call them large and small (I would think that means diameter), either call them heavy/light or thick/thin.

I would agree for a coin that weighed 20+ grams. ​In this case however, a 0.5g difference translates into a ~25% difference in mass.

Quote: "Sjoelund"​here is how it is:
​
​
​
​Here is, what it should be:
​
​
​
​The two promised images to be used for now, all I have:
​
​
​
​Thanks
​Ole

​Thank you. However, because of the new contributions feature, I'm going to hold off until there is a photo of a less worn coin.

Quote: "Some_Nerd"​

Quote: "Idolenz"​Personally I find such a splits unnecessary especially when the weight lies within the search of +/- 0.5 g range.
​​
​​At least don't call them large and small (I would think that means diameter), either call them heavy/light or thick/thin.

​I would agree for a coin that weighed 20+ grams. ​In this case however, a 0.5g difference translates into a ~25% difference in mass.

​And you're right here: pages can be split if there are intentional changes of weight/diameter/thickness, which are beyond the error margin usually acceptable for the minting process.

2% variation would be an acceptable margin, but 25% here is well over it.


I submitted the requests to remove the now obsolete comments for each line.

Thanks a lot

Quote: "Some_Nerd"​

Quote: "Sjoelund"​here is how it is:
​​
​​
​​
​​Here is, what it should be:
​​
​​
​​
​​The two promised images to be used for now, all I have:
​​
​​
​​
​​Thanks
​​Ole

​​Thank you. However, because of the new contributions feature, I'm going to hold off until there is a photo of a less worn coin.

​Better an image of a worn coin, than no image at all?

Quote: "Sjoelund"​

Quote: "Some_Nerd"​
​

Quote: "Sjoelund"​here is how it is:
​​​
​​​
​​​
​​​Here is, what it should be:
​​​
​​​
​​​
​​​The two promised images to be used for now, all I have:
​​​
​​​
​​​
​​​Thanks
​​​Ole

​​​Thank you. However, because of the new contributions feature, I'm going to hold off until there is a photo of a less worn coin.

​​Better an image of a worn coin, than no image at all?

​Hello Some_Nerd,
Any picture is better than no picture (provided copyright is respected), even if the coin is worn. It will still be possible to improve the picture in the future.