Don't know if this has been asked before but why should some institute issue two exactly the same coins but one in 500 and one in 925 silver with exactly the same measurements?
If they are the exact same size then they likely do not weigh the same, however the difference might be difficult to measure especially if it’s a smaller coin.
Canada has this exact situation with our 1967 dime, which is quite small.
But with your example, you should be able to measure the difference with a reasonable precise scale.
They could also be slightly less voluminous but this might also be impossible to measure if the rim height is the same and only the fields are a bit deeper if they use metal specific dies.
The proof coin has higher fineness than UNC version. Both of the listings have a picture of a proof piece, but the other one should actually be (brilliant?) uncirculated. Maybe that's to facilitate the price difference, the UNC version was probably sold for less by the issuer.
I rarely trust the weight/dimension on numista listings, as they are added by the person who created the listing.
SO TRUE!!!! You must never forget that some users use a $5 Amazon pocket scale and a ruler to measure, while others use a $100 laboratory precision scale and a digital caliper!
The information on Numista is VERY often so so wrong. For instance the very popular 28,28 grams silver coin with 38,61mm diameter. This is the most common silver coin in almost every 3rd world country and it's almost an industry standard next to the silver ounce. But yet people tend to f*** that up on Numista because they have poor eyesight and shaky hands.
I believe we will find … (and illustrative photos attached):
KM43 was issued UNC and not in proof. Some specimens in very high grade have been offered by some auction houses as proofs, but this does not make them so (NGC has up to MS69 in their census and no proofs). https://www.acsearch.info/search.html?id=6229322 The original correct photo in Numista was replaced by a clearer (but probably incorrect) photo a few years ago.
Probably the fineness was just an “upgrade” for the product that also had the more luxurious finish (along the lines of rsirian's comment).
Yes, a layman might not know how to differentiate between BU and cameo proof, but reasonably experienced collectors would (and neither XRF nor an accurate scale are required 😉).
I believe we will find … (and illustrative photos attached):
KM43 was issued UNC and not in proof. Some specimens in very high grade have been offered by some auction houses as proofs, but this does not make them so (NGC has up to MS69 in their census and no proofs). https://www.acsearch.info/search.html?id=6229322 The original correct photo in Numista was replaced by a clearer (but probably incorrect) photo a few years ago.
Probably the fineness was just an “upgrade” for the product that also had the more luxurious finish (along the lines of rsirian's comment).
Yes, a layman might not know how to differentiate between BU and cameo proof, but reasonably experienced collectors would (and neither XRF nor an accurate scale are required 😉).
This is the most correct and complete answer. The British Royal Mint used to make some Commonwealth proof coins in better silver than the more or less uncirculated ones. I'm not sure about the terminology here, the non-proof coin might have been made as “brilliant uncirculated”, which is not the regular circulating quality, but also not proof. The difference is easily visible on actual physical coins. The photo thing is a sad gimmick, it is way too common in situations when the UNC coin is scarcer than the proof.
Maurice • 25 roupies Jubilé d'argent d'Elizabeth II
