Mockmill 100 vs Mockmill 200

The Mockmill 100 and 200 share published exterior dimensions, corundum-ceramic milling stones and an owner manual. Their motor ratings, published wheat milling rates and weights differ. Shared specifications do not establish identical internals or flour quality. Mockmill states the grinding mechanism on both product pages as “Corundum ceramic grinding stones”, publishes one set of dimensions for both at 380 x 220 x 190 mm, 15 in x 8.7 in x 7.5 in, and documents both in a single owner’s manual whose permitted-substance tables, cleaning rules, warranty terms and texture-adjustment procedure are written once and apply to each. A stone burr is a pair of grinding surfaces the grain passes between, as distinct from an impact chamber that shatters grain against rotating fins; that mechanism decision sits underneath this page rather than inside it, and is worked through at Impact vs stone burr grain mills. This page does not re-derive any of it.

Four rows move when the two published specification tables are set side by side. Power draw reads “Power Draw | 360 W” on the 100 and “Power Draw | 600 W” on the 200. Milling rate reads “Approx. 100 g/min | Approx. 3.5 oz/min (Soft Wheat)” against “Approx. 200 g/min | Approx. 7 oz/min (Soft Wheat)”. Milling speed reads “Approx. 1,100 RPM” against “Approx. 1,300 RPM”. Weight reads “6 kg | 13 lbs 3.5 oz” against “8.7 kg | 19 lbs 2.8 oz”. Mockmill compresses the whole difference into one sentence at the top of the 200's description: “Compared with the Mockmill 100 Grain Mill, the Mockmill 200's more powerful motor mills about twice as much flour per minute.”

Two of those four rows are published cleanly, per model, in more than one document: power draw and milling rate. The other two need handling, because the manual attributes rpm to the mains supply rather than to the model, and gives weights that neither product page agrees with. The row that decides the purchase, though, is one that does not move at all. Hopper capacity reads “1,100 g | 2 lbs 7 oz (Wheat)” on both machines, which caps what the extra motor can buy before any of the moving rows are argued about.

Mockmill rates the Mockmill 100 at 360 W. Its US listing states “Power Draw | 360 W”, the manufacturer’s international shop states “Power: | 360W” for the same model, and the shared manual prints the pair on one line as “Power / 360 W / 600 W” under a header naming the grain mill type as Mockmill 100 / Mockmill 200. It rates the Mockmill 200 at 600 W, stated as “Power Draw | 600 W” on its own listing. Three documents carry the 360 W figure and two carry the 600 W figure, and none of them disagree. Of the four rows that separate these mills, this is the best-evidenced.

Everything else on the electrical rows is identical. Both US listings state “Voltage | 110 V” and “Protection Class | 1", so both require the same grounded supply, and both state a cable length of approximately 150 cm, approximately 6 ft, so neither changes where the mill can stand relative to an outlet. The manufacturer’s international listing for the 100 states “Voltage: | 220V / 230V”; no equivalent international listing for the 200 was retrieved, so what follows compares the 110 V units.

What the wattage row does not state matters more than the number. 600 W is the power draw Mockmill rates the motor at, not a measured consumption and not a shaft output rating, and Mockmill publishes no motor type, no current draw in amps, no duty cycle, no thermal cutout and no maximum continuous run time for either machine. Beyond its wattage, the only description of the motor itself on either listing is the bullet “Sturdy industrial motor”, which is what the manufacturer states rather than a specification anyone can compare. A reader who wants to know whether the 600 W motor is loafing where the 360 W motor is working hard will not find that here: the difference in draw is documented, the difference in stress is not.

Milling rate is the row the whole step-up rests on, and it is published with a condition printed inside it. The 100 states “Milling Rate | Approx. 100 g/min | Approx. 3.5 oz/min (Soft Wheat)”; the 200 states “Milling Rate | Approx. 200 g/min | Approx. 7 oz/min (Soft Wheat)”. Mockmill’s comparison table repeats the same two figures as 100 g/min and 200 g/min against the two model names. The shared manual carries them on one line for both models, worded “Milling efficiency with wheat / Approx. 100 g / 200 g per minute / Approx. 3.5 oz / 7 oz per minute”.

The two documents agree on the numbers and differ on the qualifier. The product pages say soft wheat; the manual says wheat. Neither states the texture setting the figures were taken at, and neither publishes a rate for rye, corn, chickpeas, hulled barley, lentils or any of the tabulated spices, all of which the manual permits. A hard red wheat rate, the figure most home bakers would actually want, is not stated for either mill, and the doubling is only documented for the one grain both rows name.

Converted into time on Mockmill’s own two figures, the gap is modest for a small batch and grows in a straight line. Five hundred grams of wheat, enough flour for a two-loaf bake, takes about five minutes on the 100 and about two and a half on the 200. The per-model detail behind the 100's half of that arithmetic is set out at Mockmill 100 Stone Grain Mill. These are calculations on published rates, not measured times, and they assume each mill runs continuously at the rate its own listing states.

Hopper capacity is stated as “Hopper Capacity | 1,100 g | 2 lbs 7 oz (Wheat)” on the Mockmill 100 and on the Mockmill 200, the shared manual gives the same figure once for both models, and Mockmill’s comparison table rounds both rows to 2.4 lbs. The larger motor did not arrive with a larger hopper. The 200 does not mill a bigger batch in one loading; it empties the same loading in half the time.

Neither mill ships a flour container either. The contents row on both listings reads “Mockmill with hopper cover / Owner’s manual”, and the manual’s getting-started step for both is “Place a bowl beneath the chute.” The second capacity ceiling on each machine is therefore whatever bowl the owner puts underneath it, and no flour-container capacity is published for either model because no container is supplied with either.

The manual gives a strict order of operations and gives it to both models: “ALWAYS switch the Mockmill on prior to loading the hopper!” It also states “Don’t switch the Mockmill off while it is milling.” Those instructions sit at the front of the quick guide, where switching on is a numbered step ahead of loading, and they are not relaxed for the faster machine. What the manual does not state is whether a mill has to be stopped between successive hopper loads within one batch, so the handling time around a multi-hopper bake is unpublished for both.

The consequence is that the step-up compresses milling time without reducing handling. The number of hopper loads a given batch takes is a property of the hopper, and the hopper is the same size on both machines:

• 500 g of wheat: one part-filled hopper on both mills; approximately 5 minutes on the 100, approximately 2.5 minutes on the 200.
• 1,000 g (1 kg): one part-filled hopper on both; approximately 10 minutes on the 100, approximately 5 minutes on the 200.
• 1,100 g: one full hopper on both; approximately 11 minutes on the 100, approximately 5.5 minutes on the 200.
• 2,200 g: two hopper loads on both; approximately 22 minutes against approximately 11.
• 4,400 g: four hopper loads on both; approximately 44 minutes against approximately 22.
• Every row above is arithmetic on the published soft-wheat rates and the published hopper capacity, not a measured time, and the number of refills never differs between the two machines.

Dimensions do not change between the models. Both product pages state 380 x 220 x 190 mm, 15 in x 8.7 in x 7.5 in, and the shared manual publishes one dimension set covering both. A buyer who has measured a shelf or a run of counter for the 100 does not have to measure again for the 200, and the cable length of approximately 150 cm, approximately 6 ft, is identical, so the mill stands in the same place relative to the same outlet.

Weight does change, and the size of the change depends on which Mockmill document is read. The 100's listing states “Weight | 6 kg | 13 lbs 3.5 oz” and the 200's states “Weight | 8.7 kg | 19 lbs 2.8 oz”, a gap of 2.7 kg, about six pounds. The shared manual states the pair on one line as “6.6 kg / 8 kg” and “14 lbs 9 oz / 17 lbs 10 oz”, a gap of 1.4 kg, about three pounds. The manufacturer’s international listing for the 100 states “Weight: | 6,6 kg”, agreeing with the manual against the US listing.

Mockmill’s own published figures therefore put the 200 somewhere between 8 and 8.7 kg, and somewhere between roughly 1.4 and 2.7 kg heavier than the 100. Averaging those, or quietly preferring one, would report a precision the documentation does not support. For a mill that lives in a cupboard and comes out weekly, the honest planning figure is the range rather than a point, and the range is wide enough to matter to anyone lifting the machine to shoulder height.

The current edition of the shared manual adds an instruction about moving the mill that the older edition does not carry: lift it by the base or by cradling the hopper, and “Never use the Mockmill’s spout cover (its 'nose') as a handle, as it is not made to resist the unit’s weight and may well break off!” The warning is written once for both models, and it applies with more force to the heavier one.

One owner’s manual covers both mills, and it separates them in exactly two places. The first is a setup step. A heading reads “Removing the transport locking device (only Mockmill 200)”, the body describes two devices positioned opposite each other, and the requirement to remove them before the first use appears twice, in the quick guide and in the initial start-up section. The current edition marks the same step “ATTENTION: Only for Mockmill 200.”

That step is stated for the 200, not denied for the 100. The manual does not state that the Mockmill 100 has no transport locking device; it states that the removal procedure applies only to the 200, which is an absence of instruction rather than a stated absence of a part. Mockmill also does not state what happens if a 200 is run with the devices still fitted, so the only safe reading is the literal one: on the 200 this step exists, on the 100 no such step is published.

The second split is the milling-scale column. The manual’s permitted-substance tables run to 41 tabulated entries and print a separate lever-setting column for each model, and the two columns do not run in parallel. On the manual’s scale a higher number is the coarser setting: lever position 1 is described as the finest, and the manual states that “with lever position 10 you get coarser result”. Read against that, the divergences run in both directions rather than tracking the larger motor. Eight of the tabulated substances, with the 100's prescribed setting first and the 200's second:

• Oats: 3 on the 100, 4 to 5 on the 200
• Soya beans: 1 to 2 on the 100, 5 on the 200
• Chickpeas: 4 to 5 on the 100, 3 to 4 on the 200
• Milo, grain sorghum: 0 to 1 on the 100, 2 to 2.5 on the 200
• Kamut: 1 on the 100, 0 to 1 on the 200
• Pinto beans: 2 on the 100, 1 to 2 on the 200
• Cinnamon flowers: 0 to 1 on the 100, 2 on the 200
• Chia seeds: 6 to 7 on the 100, 7 on the 200

Milling speed is the one moving row that may not describe a model difference at all. The US listings assign “Milling Speed | Approx. 1,100 RPM” to the 100 and “Milling Speed | Approx. 1,300 RPM” to the 200, and both of those pages state “Voltage | 110 V”. Read on their own, the two rows say the 200 turns its stones faster on the same mains supply.

The shared manual does not present rpm as a model property. Its technical block heads the row “Voltage & Milling Speed” and reads “230 V (50 Hz) Approx. 1 100 rpm / 110 V (60 Hz) Approx. 1 300 rpm”, using a space as the thousands separator, and it applies that block to the 100 and the 200 alike. On that reading rpm follows the socket rather than the model, any Mockmill on US mains turns at about 1,300 rpm, and the 100's own product page is the document out of step.

A third statement makes the row harder still. The manufacturer’s international listing for the Mockmill 100 states “Rotation (50 Hz): | ca. 1.300 U / Min” alongside “Voltage: | 220V / 230V”, putting about 1,300 rpm on the 100 at 50 Hz. The manufacturer’s own manual pairs 50 Hz with about 1,100 rpm. Four documents publish three incompatible positions on one number, and Mockmill reconciles none of them.

Nothing in the throughput claim depends on settling this. Power draw and milling rate are printed separately for each model, in more than one document, at 360 W against 600 W and approximately 100 g/min against approximately 200 g/min. What cannot be established from these sources is how much of the doubled output comes from stone speed and how much from torque under load. A buyer choosing the 200 specifically for a faster stone cannot confirm that motive, and should treat the rpm row as the least reliable line in the table.

The published texture range is the same for both models. Both listings state “Milling Grades | Variable from very fine to coarse”, the manual’s technical table words the same row “Variable from very fine to very coarse” for both, and both mills adjust steplessly by moving one lever across a numbered scale rather than stepping between fixed detents. The manual describes the same pre-set on both machines: the finest position is lever position 1, set so that a quiet sound of the stones touching is audible at position 1 when the mill idles without grain. It documents the same procedure on both for loosening the lever, running it to 10 and re-indexing it back to 1 so the whole range shifts coarser, and the same procedure for reversing that. No document states that the 200 mills finer, or coarser, than the 100 at the same lever position.

The substance rules are one set of rules. The permitted table is written once for both machines, both require cleaned grain because unclean grain may contain small stones that damage the milling stones, both require dry grain, and both carry the same request to refrain from milling nuts or oily foods such as sesame, flax or poppy seeds, with coffee beans explained as leaving an oil film on the stones. The same warranty clause covers both: milling substances other than those listed “may damage your mill and void the warranty”, the hedge being Mockmill’s own. The same unresolved tension appears for both, since chia seeds and lupin seeds sit on the permitted table while the same document asks owners to avoid oily seeds, and Mockmill does not reconcile that for either model.

The published warranty terms are shared. Both listings carry “6-year warranty for non-commercial use” and “Made in Germany”. The manual gives one warranty for both: 6 years from the date of purchase, home use, against material and manufacturing defects, with damage to fragile parts such as the hopper or the flour chute excluded when caused by improper use, and a request that owners register the device online so that the warranty is valid. Cleaning is one procedure for both: never submerge the mill in water or any other liquid, wipe the casing with a slightly damp cloth, and never clean the millstones with water or a wet cloth. Box contents, casing material, protection class and cable length read the same on the two listings.

The published texture range, general cleaning instructions and warranty terms are shared. That does not establish identical flour or identical ownership: the manual gives some different ingredient settings and a transport-lock step for the 200. Published milling rate is the clearest quantified difference.

Weight is the conflict that matters most on this page, because it distorts the delta the page exists to describe. The manual’s two-value weight line disagrees with both product pages, and in opposite directions: it is heavier than the 100's listing, 6.6 kg against 6 kg, and lighter than the 200's, 8 kg against 8.7 kg. The manufacturer’s international shop sides with the manual on the 100, stating “Weight: | 6,6 kg”. Whichever pairing a reader takes, the two mills are not the weights anyone would arrive at by trusting one document and assuming the others match it.

Casing material is the second conflict, and both models carry it equally. Both listings state “Casing | Terluran® GP-35", Mockmill’s comparison table lists Terluran® GP-35 as the housing for both, and the current edition of the manual states “Casing / Terluran®”. The 2019 edition of the same manual, which is the file linked from the live US listings, states “Casing / Arboblend ®made from renewable raw materials”. On 12 September 2026 the manufacturer’s international shop carried both descriptions on one page, a bullet reading “Innovative casing made from renewable materials” sitting directly above its own spec row reading “Housing: | Terluran® GP-35"; by 22 October 2026 that bullet read “Innovative robust casing”. No retraction or revision note has been published for the 2019 manual.

The two models’ paper trails are not the same edition of the same document, which is a conflict in its own right and one a cross-model comparison runs into immediately. The current Operating Instructions for the Mockmill 100 and 200 sit on the manufacturer’s own shop; the 2019 edition sits on mockmill.us and is the file the US product pages link as the owner’s manual. The editions differ in more than the casing row. The current one adds a note against buckwheat reading “Only hulled and not pre-toasted” that the older one does not carry, adds the lifting instruction quoted above, and prints a different manufacturer address: the current edition gives Wolfgang Mock GmbH, Marie-Curie-Str. 5, 64823 Gross-Umstadt, Germany, while the 2019 edition gives Habitzheimer Strasse 14, 64853 Otzberg, together with a US entity, Wolfgang Mock, Inc., 300 Delaware Ave, Suite 210, Wilmington, DE 19801. A warranty claim is addressed differently depending on which PDF the owner downloaded.

Warranty scope is inconsistent across regions rather than across models. Every source agrees on 6 years for home or non-commercial use. Only the manufacturer’s international listing for the 100 mentions a commercial term, in a row reading “Warranty: | 2-year warranty for commercial use, 6 years”, which sits oddly beside the manual’s statement that the mill “is not designed for commercial use”. Neither US listing states any commercial warranty, and no such row was retrieved for the 200 at all, so the reader cannot tell whether the commercial term is a 100-only offer or simply unstated for the 200.

Two smaller items complete the list. The published wording of the coarse end of the texture range differs between documents: the listings say “Variable from very fine to coarse” and the manual’s table says “Variable from very fine to very coarse”, with no numbers attached to either wording. And one apparent conflict is not one. Mockmill’s comparison table gives both mills a hopper capacity of 2.4 lbs where the listings and the manual state 1,100 g, 2 lbs 7 oz. Two pounds seven ounces is 2.4375 lbs, so the table is rounding the same figure rather than publishing a different one. It is listed here because a reader checking three Mockmill pages will meet the discrepancy and deserves to know which of these are real.

Everything the documentation supports as a consequence of choosing the 200 over the 100 fits in one paragraph. Mockmill rates it at 600 W instead of 360 W, on the same 110 V protection class 1 supply. It mills approximately 200 g of soft wheat a minute instead of approximately 100. It weighs somewhere between 1.4 and 2.7 kg more, depending on the document. It requires two transport locking devices to be removed before the first use. And the manual prescribes it different lever settings on a set of tabulated substances, eight of which are listed above. Nothing else in these documents changes, apart from an rpm row that the shared manual ties to the mains supply rather than to the model.

That makes the threshold a time threshold rather than a capability threshold. Someone milling one hopper load a week saves about five and a half minutes a week on Mockmill’s own published rates. Someone milling four hopper loads a week saves about twenty-two minutes and still handles four loadings, because the hopper holds 1,100 g on both. The step-up pays back in proportion to how often the mill runs, and not at all in what the mill can do, so the buyer it suits is the one who mills often rather than the one who mills large.

The duty statement does not widen with the output. The manual applies the same sentence to both machines: the Mockmill “is intended for home use and quantities appropriate to normal family requirements” and “is not designed for commercial use in which large quantities of grain are to be ground.” Both carry the same 6-year non-commercial warranty. A doubled milling rate invites a small-scale commercial reading, and the manufacturer’s own documents decline it while stating no daily quantity ceiling, no maximum batch and no continuous-run limit for either mill. The 200's own model-specific evidence, including that duty question, is set out at Mockmill 200 Stone Grain Mill.

The reasons a buyer might hope justify the larger unit are, for the most part, not published for either machine. No flour temperature, noise rating, particle-size figure, nutrient-retention figure or stone lifespan appears on any of these sources for the 100 or the 200, so cooler flour, quieter running, finer flour and longer-lived stones are not documented differences and cannot be treated as reasons to move up. At the published wheat rates, the 200 takes half the milling time in a simple calculation; actual batch time remains unmeasured here. The 100 has the lower published weight. Both models require an initial grain run with the flour discarded; the 200 also requires transport-lock removal.

Nothing here rests on operating either mill. No unit was run, weighed, timed or measured. Every figure above is what Mockmill publishes, and where two Mockmill documents publish different figures, both are given rather than averaged.

The mechanical questions that would decide a close call are unpublished for both machines. Mockmill states no milling-stone diameter for either, so the stones are described identically in material and arrangement, an upper stone, the stator, lifting off to expose a lower rotor attached to the motor shaft, without any document establishing that the two models’ stones are the same size. It states no motor type, amperage, duty cycle or thermal protection, so whether the 600 W motor works less hard at a given load than the 360 W motor cannot be answered. It publishes no decibel figure on any listing, comparison table or manual edition retrieved, so the two mills cannot be ranked for noise. And it publishes no count of discrete texture settings: the manual names positions 1 and 10 as the endpoints of the scale while its own substance tables prescribe settings of 0 to 1, implying a position below the scale’s stated start.

Two limits apply to the evidence base itself. The rpm attribution is unresolved, so the milling-speed row can be neither counted as a model difference nor dismissed as a mains-frequency effect. And regional coverage is uneven: the manufacturer’s international shop publishes a 220/230 V listing for the Mockmill 100, including a bullet reading “is delivered gluten-free” that the US listing does not carry, while no equivalent international listing for the 200 was retrieved. The comparison above holds for the 110 V units, and no source states whether anything beyond motor and plug differs between regional variants of the same model number.

Finally, no source retrieved describes any conversion or upgrade path between the two models. The manual documents one grinding assembly and one set of procedures covering both mills, and separately documents two different power ratings. It does not state that a 100 can be made into a 200, and the absence of such a statement is not a statement that it is impossible. A reader who needs that answered should ask Wolfgang Mock GmbH, using the contact details on the back page of whichever edition of the manual came with the mill.