To do that statement there should be known that this size during the coinage does not change.
So the question: does it?
Suppose now, that it was proved that it does not change. [Further is just an imagination, and have no meaning without the solving the main question]
Then the size of the hole may have meaning and should be given in proper way, that is in this case each year must have the description of the size. For example in the comment there may be written that usually the size is ...mm
and then the peculiarities may be described in the years distribution.[end of imagination]
My verification for some of them
4.8 mm 1935
5.0 mm 1917, 1922, 1929, 1931-1933
5.5 mm 1919-1921, 1923, 1924, 1928
failed in obvious way.
Does it mean, that the size of the hole should be deleted from the description?
It seems only the French side got updated for that coin. Feel free to remove them and to mention there are numerous hole varieties (size, position or missing) in the comments section.
Administrateur du catalogue, référent de nombreuses nations antiques et de la Lorraine.
Catalogue administrator, numerous Antique nations and Lorraine referee.
the holes are in my opinion NOT worth measuring, although I do it systematically, since they are with extremely different diameters(after the /), much more than coin's diameter (before the /). Here are the holed 5 centimes from my collection, since I haven't measured all my 10 centimes yet:
