Dimensions am I missing something?

[Bogart]

Confused by dimensions quoted for 2022 gold coins. Maple leaf 30mm x 2.8mm and Kangeroo 32.6mm x 2.8mm. Both quoted as 1oz how is this if the Kangeroo has a diameter 2.6mm bigger than the Maple leaf and both same purity?

[daca]

https://www.providentmetals.com/2022-canadian-maple-leaf-1-oz-gold-coin.html

Thickness 2.8 mm

Purity9999

https://www.providentmetals.com/2022-australian-kangaroo-1-oz-gold-coin.html

Thickness 2.95 mm

Purity9999

Edited September 28, 2022 by daca

[LawrenceChard]

52 minutes ago, Bogart said:

Confused by dimensions quoted for 2022 gold coins. Maple leaf 30mm x 2.8mm and Kangeroo 32.6mm x 2.8mm. Both quoted as 1oz how is this if the Kangeroo has a diameter 2.6mm bigger than the Maple leaf and both same purity?

 

37 minutes ago, daca said:

https://www.providentmetals.com/2022-canadian-maple-leaf-1-oz-gold-coin.html

Thickness 2.8 mm

Purity9999

https://www.providentmetals.com/2022-australian-kangaroo-1-oz-gold-coin.html

Thickness 2.95 mm

Purity9999

Area x Depth = Volume

If area is in squarer millimetres, and depth is in millimetres.

And Area =  π x R squared, or π x D squared / 4

Where R is radius, or D - diameter.

Although thickness is always difficult to measure exactly for coins (easy for flat disc).

More maths lessons needed @Darr3nG!

😎

[Bogart]

49 minutes ago, daca said:

https://www.providentmetals.com/2022-canadian-maple-leaf-1-oz-gold-coin.html

Thickness 2.8 mm

Purity9999

https://www.providentmetals.com/2022-australian-kangaroo-1-oz-gold-coin.html

Thickness 2.95 mm

Purity9999

Well am still lost here by you saying the Kangaroo is actually 2.95mm thick that makes its volume even more of a discrepancy on the Maple leaf.

[TeaTime]

Maybe one is struck harder than the other (joke).....

[Bogart]

7 minutes ago, LawrenceChard said:

 

Area x Depth = Volume

If area is in squarer millimetres, and depth is in millimetres.

And Area =  π x R squared, or π x D squared / 4

Where R is radius, or D - diameter.

Although thickness is always difficult to measure exactly for coins (easy for flat disc).

More maths lessons needed @Darr3nG!

😎

Right Maple Leaf 30mm x 2.8mm by my reckoning is 1979 cubic mm and the Kangaroo  32.6mm x 2.95mm 2462 cubic mm  So going purely on volume the Kangeroo is nearly 25% bigger volume.

 

Though I have seen quotes of the Kangeroo being 2.8mm thick.

[LawrenceChard]

4 minutes ago, Bogart said:

Right Maple Leaf 30mm x 2.8mm by my reckoning is 1979 cubic mm and the Kangaroo  32.6mm x 2.95mm 2462 cubic mm  So going purely on volume the Kangeroo is nearly 25% bigger volume.

Though I have seen quotes of the Kangeroo being 2.8mm thick.

Depends where you measure it, and how!

For example:

😎

[Bogart]

I am surprised that so many sites have incorrect dimensions.  Followed another members suggestion on here checking on gold.de and they state for example the Kangaroo having a thickness of2.65mm not 2.8mm or 2.95mm which I have seen.

[MonkeysUncle]

3 hours ago, LawrenceChard said:

 

Area x Depth = Volume

If area is in squarer millimetres, and depth is in millimetres.

And Area =  π x R squared, or π x D squared / 4

Where R is radius, or D - diameter.

Although thickness is always difficult to measure exactly for coins (easy for flat disc).

More maths lessons needed @Darr3nG!

😎

Where's Pythagoras when you need him?

[MonkeysUncle]

2 hours ago, Bogart said:

I am surprised that so many sites have incorrect dimensions.  Followed another members suggestion on here checking on gold.de and they state for example the Kangaroo having a thickness of2.65mm not 2.8mm or 2.95mm which I have seen.

Maybe they bought a fake coin off of ebay and measured that.

Or a crappy ruler.

Or maybe they had a visually and numerically challenged numpty do the measuring? Or a tag team of Stevie Wonder and Kwasi Kwarteng...

[LawrenceChard]

2 hours ago, Bogart said:

I am surprised that so many sites have incorrect dimensions.  Followed another members suggestion on here checking on gold.de and they state for example the Kangaroo having a thickness of2.65mm not 2.8mm or 2.95mm which I have seen.

As I said, it depends where and how you measure them.

Dif you look at the earlier TSF post which I linked above?

There are at least 3 places you could measure the thickness, so at least 3 different correct answers.

Then you would need to take some kind of average, but this would not be as simple as a simple arithmetic mean average, it would ned to be some kind of weighted average, which would make it impossible to do accurately.

😎

[Bogart]

Its the figure I saw for the Kangeroo that threw me. Thicknesses of 2.8rmm and 2.95mm whereas the correct figure is 2.65 which brings the maths much more into line.