| Author |
 Replies: 20,283 / Views: 955,978 |
|
|
|
Bedrock of the Community
Canada
24885 Posts |
1797 UK 2 Pence 'Cartwheel'  3.37 |
|
Pillar of the Community
Australia
9704 Posts |
|
|
Moderator
 United States
193832 Posts |
|
|
Pillar of the Community
 United States
5249 Posts |
That ruble coin is insane.
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
6814 Posts |
|
|
Pillar of the Community
Russian Federation
5186 Posts |
I apologize, I didn't set an end time, and was wondering if any late entries would show up. But it had now been three days without entries.
I think the following figures are correct...
bd251 #1: 3.48 points
Dorado: 3.37 points
bd251 #2: 2.444 points
jbuck: 1.694 points
triggersmob: 0.82 points
I'd have expected a cartwheel twopenny to beat a 5 kopek, but I forgot about the variance in 5 kopeks!
I'm not sure if the 42.1 gram weight for bd251's second entry is correct (and not a typo); it seems too low for the context. But their first entry beats everything else anyway.
(I apologize to jbuck if I wasn't actually allowed to let the first entry count if it was superseded by a new entry that turned out to be worse; by the wording of the new contest restrictions, it sounds like I probably wasn't, but I'm not sure if this interpretation was intended.
As far as I'm concerned, bd251 wins, but if only the last entry counts, then Dorado would have won? The perils of confusing calculations. We should probably get a ruling from jbuck on this.)
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
1871 Posts |
Quote:
I'm not sure if the 42.1 gram weight for bd251's second entry is correct (and not a typo); it seems too low for the context. But their first entry beats everything else anyway. I can't seem to manage a post without an error  . The weight is 62.1/4.15^2= 3.61 chunkiness score |
|
Pillar of the Community
Russian Federation
5186 Posts |
Quote:
The weight is 62.1/4.15^2= 3.61 chunkiness score Thanks! That would make more sense. So you win regardless and we don't have to ask jbuck about it. |
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
1871 Posts |
 Brazil 20 reis 1774 Points County: 3 - Brazil 2 - Portugal or country that has a boarder with Brazil 1 - Country in South America or straight line over water from Brazil. I would prefer that you use the Google maps distance function to determine the straight line on the globe, but I will also accept straight line on a flat projection. Year: 3 - 1774 2 - 1748-1773 or 1775-1800 1 - Any '74 year. This can be any calendar system. Actual year on coin must be '74 Size: 3 - 34-35.99mm 2 - 32-33.99 or 36-37.99mm 1 - 30-31.99 or 38-39.99mm Other points (1 each): - Denomination is 20 - Denomination in Roman numerals - Composition is copper or bronze (not aluminum bronze) - Image of a crown - Image of flowers You may submit a second, higher scoring coin. The round will end on Wednesday at noon forum time. Hopefully I didn't make any mistakes in this post  |
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
6514 Posts |
Lol. I don't see any mistakes.   Check out my counterstamped Lincoln Cent collection: http://goccf.com/t/303507 |
|
Bedrock of the Community
United States
12477 Posts |
I'll throw this one out there to start: 1943 Portugal 20 centavos   I believe this is 5 points. In Memory of Crazyb0 12-26-1951 to 7-27-2020
In Memory of Tootallious 3-31-1964 to 4-15-2020
In Memory of T-BOP 10-12-1949 to 1-19-2024
|
|
Pillar of the Community
Australia
9704 Posts |
|
|
Pillar of the Community
4628 Posts |
Way out date wise, but this will scoop a few points. Brazil 1927 (Yes over 150 years later)   400 Reis 3 points Brazil 2 points 32mm in size 1 point Cupro nickel (= 75% copper) 5 or 6 points. |
|
Pillar of the Community
Australia
9704 Posts |
Nice one PrinceTane. I hade the same year 200 reis.
I was wondering if I could push my luck for a point for having 20 on the coin (20)0. :)
|
|
Moderator
United States
193832 Posts |
Quote:
I apologize to jbuck if I wasn't actually allowed to let the first entry count if it was superseded by a new entry that turned out to be worse; by the wording of the new contest restrictions, it sounds like I probably wasn't, but I'm not sure if this interpretation was intended... For the record, I do not think we should penalize anyone for posting a second entry that ended up being "worse" than their first if it was an honest mistake, whether a misunderstanding of the parameters, a calculation error, etc. With rounds like these that require calculations, mistakes will be made and that is okay. In these cases, I believe it is best to defer to the round host since we all should agree that they know best what matches their requirements!  |
| |
Replies: 20,283 / Views: 955,978 |
First Page
Previous Page
Posted 05/05/2022 08:08 am
