Please kindly identify 1 centime Belgium #34? [opgelost]

Dear All,
Please help me with the identification of below two coins:




Here is the Numista link for this coin:
https://en.numista.com/catalogue/pieces3195.html

They have both coin alignment and are reeded.
So the only question is they have thin or thick flan? Can anybody explain for this coin what means thin and what is thick flan?
They both have the same thickness (1.2-1.3 mm) but according to the collector I got this coin from 1887 it is #34.2. Is he right?
Hope anybody can help me
Thanks
Radek

almost all the coins of Belgium have coin alignment. Some medal alignments are made.
I have 1750 different coins of Belgium, and I am still searching for a medal alignment...

The thickness of 1.2-1.3 is the normal flan thickness (KM# 34.1)
https://www.ngccoin.com/price-guide/world/belgium-centime-km-34.1-1882-1907-cuid-1041980-duid-1282454
The thin flan is 1.09-1.1 (KM# 34.2)
https://www.ngccoin.com/price-guide/world/belgium-centime-km-34.2-1887-1902-cuid-1042344-duid-1282456
Please measure the thickness on the rim of the coin, not the overall thickness
What is puzzling on the NGC site: the thin flan is heavier than the normal flan....

On CBNU.be, a Belgian forum, we had this topic too : http://www.cbnu.be/index.php?topic=3076.0
Difference in thickness is probably just caused by a weaker strike.

Kind regards,
Tony

Citeer: "tony.c"​On CBNU.be, a Belgian forum, we had this topic too : http://www.cbnu.be/index.php?topic=3076.0
​Difference in thickness is probably just caused by a weaker strike.
​
​Kind regards,
​Tony

​These thinner flans are found in the Morin catalog of Belgian coins.

Citeer: "PetrusAscanus"​

Citeer: "tony.c"​On CBNU.be, a Belgian forum, we had this topic too : http://www.cbnu.be/index.php?topic=3076.0
​​Difference in thickness is probably just caused by a weaker strike.
​​
​​Kind regards,
​​Tony

​​These thinner flans are found in the Morin catalog of Belgian coins.

​CBNU is just checking all variants in Morin, and has it's own catalog. I agree that some of the "variants" should be considered die cracks or other faults, but some are new variants that are not in Morin.
But on topic : It would only be logic that a thinner flan also has a lower weight. Since weight is the same for both thin and thick flan (I have both in my collection, and checked sizes and weight myself ), there is no reason to make a difference. Also the way to measure it : higher or lower rim, not the overall size of the coin. The rim is the first part to wear off, so measuring thickness there is not the most adequate way. I'll try to check thickness this weekend (overall measurement) with a micrometer, and I will post my findings here (accurate to 0.01mm).
Kind regards,
Tony

Thanks friends for your explanations.
I think we should come up to conclusion and place on numista catalogue a thickness range of 34.1 and 34.2 coin.
But its different according to PetrusAscanus: 1.09-1.1 / 1.2-1.3 and 1.25 / 1.4 acc. to Tony.C / Morin catalogue.
I await measurements results from Tony.C. Maybe then we will know more about it.
Have a nice day.
Radek

Okay, here we go : I took home a micrometer, for those that don't know what it is : it's a calibrated instrument used in metal working, that is accurate to 0,01mm (that's how precise I have to work sometimes )

"thick flan" : (left one in picture)
> condition : XF - UNC-  :
diameter  : 16,71mm
overall thickness : 1,32mm
rim : 1,35 - 1,45mm
weight : 2,08g

"thin flan " : (middle one in picture)
> condition : F+ - VF
diameter : 16,75mm
overall thickness : 1,25mm
rim : 1,20 - 1,23mm
weight : 2,05g

overdate 1902/1901 : (right one in picture)
> condition : VF+ - XF :
diameter : 16,62mm
overall thickness : 1,25mm
rim : 1,24 -1,31mm
weight : 2,01g


My conclusion : extremely small differences, so no need to make a separation thin or thick flan.

Kind regards !
Tony

Thanks for your measurement results. Now its easier for all collectors to classify 1 centime Belgian coins #34.
Me myself am sure now that 1887 year is 34.2 and 1902 is 34.1
Thanks again and good luck with collecting
Radek

Here are my measurements made with a caliper, stainless hardened, 0.01mm precision, from BURG-WÄCHTER KG in Germany

 

It's really only the 1882 km33 coins, which can be defined for thin and thick. Most other thicknesses are not clearly thin, nor thick. My conclusion is that only the 1882 should have the thick/thin attributes and all other km33 and km34 should have no qualification on their thicknesses since they vary too much?

I have analyzed a bit more and came to my definitions of thick and thin!

 

 

 

I'm still only real satisfied with the 1882 coins, since it's obvious and can be seen in weight as well!

Sjoelund

I have analyzed a bit more and came to my definitions of thick and thin!

 

 

 

I'm still only real satisfied with the 1882 coins, since it's obvious and can be seen in weight as well!

Hey Ole,

I don't want to be the difficult one, but if you measured everything with a standard digital caliper, then I have to say that everthing is more or less within the fault range of 0.1mm, unless you calibrated the caliper before every measurement? 

It's +/-0.01 mm (most precision calipers are around that) states a few posts above, otherwise the Z in X.YZ shouldn't be displayed.

Sjoelund

I have analyzed a bit more and came to my definitions of thick and thin!

 

I'm still only real satisfied with the 1882 coins, since it's obvious and can be seen in weight as well!

I'm reminded of the work you did on 1 euro cent coins where you measured the thickness of 340 coins from 22 countries.  With a stated target thickness of 1.67 mm your max measured thickness was 1.76mm and your minimum measured thickness was 1.55 mm.  There's obviously some process variations even with modern manufacturing techniques which makes it very hard to draw any conclusions based solely of thickness of a couple of coins.