Mockmill 200 Stone Grain Mill

Mockmill states the difference in the opening line of the 200's own description: “Compared with the Mockmill 100 Grain Mill, the Mockmill 200's more powerful motor mills about twice as much flour per minute.” That sentence, and the four spec rows behind it, are the whole of what the manufacturer publishes as the gap between the two machines.

Set the two published specification tables side by side and only four rows move. Power draw reads “Power Draw | 360 W” on the 100 against “Power Draw | 600 W” on the 200. Milling speed reads “Approx. 1,100 RPM” against “Approx. 1,300 RPM”. 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)”. Weight reads “6 kg | 13 lbs 3.5 oz” against “8.7 kg | 19 lbs 2.8 oz”.

Four rows moving is not the same as every other row being identical, and this page does not claim that it is. What the two product pages positively confirm as shared is a specific and short list: the corundum ceramic grinding stones, the 1,100 g hopper, the 380 x 220 x 190 mm dimensions and the Terluran GP-35 casing. Rows outside that list are treated here as published for the 200 and not compared, rather than assumed to match.

Two of the four moving rows need handling rather than repeating: the manual describes rpm as a property of the mains supply rather than of the model, and it gives the 200 a weight its product page contradicts. The other two, power draw and milling rate, are stated cleanly and per model. The full row-by-row alignment is set out at Mockmill 100 vs Mockmill 200.

The Mockmill 200 draws 600 W. Its product page states “Power Draw | 600 W” alongside “Voltage | 110 V” and “Protection Class | 1", with cable length given as approximately 150 cm, approximately 6 ft.

The owner’s manual covers both models in one document and prints power as a single line reading “360 W / 600 W”, under a header that reads “Grain mill type: Mockmill 100 / Mockmill 200". The manual never attaches either wattage to either model on that line; the pairing follows from the order in the header. That convention matters beyond this row, because the manual uses the same two-value shorthand for weight and for milling efficiency, and in the weight case the resulting figures disagree with both product pages.

600 W is a stated power draw, not a shaft output rating. Mockmill does not state motor type, current draw in amps, or a thermal cutout. The product page gives 110 V with no frequency; the manual pairs 110 V with 60 Hz and still gives no amperage. Neither document states a duty cycle or a maximum continuous run time, so the throughput figure below carries no published statement of how long the mill may sustain it. The 200 requires the same protection class 1 grounded supply as the 100.

The published throughput is conditional, and the condition is printed inside the row: “Milling Rate | Approx. 200 g/min | Approx. 7 oz/min (Soft Wheat)”. Soft wheat is one grain. The figure is not published for rye, corn, chickpeas, hulled barley or any of the spices the manual permits, and Mockmill does not state which texture setting the measurement was taken at.

The owner’s manual words the same pair of figures differently. Its technical block reads “Milling efficiency with wheat / Approx. 100 g / 200 g per minute / Approx. 3.5 oz / 7 oz per minute”, covering both models on one line and saying “with wheat” rather than soft wheat. The two documents agree on the number and differ on the qualifier, which is worth knowing before treating 200 g/min as a rate for hard red wheat.

The practical consequence is a hopper-emptying time rather than a headline speed. The 200 holds the same 1,100 g of wheat as the 100, so at the published rates a full hopper clears in roughly five and a half minutes on the 200 and roughly eleven on the 100. That is arithmetic on Mockmill’s own two figures, not a measured time. Because hopper capacity did not grow with the motor, the 200 does not reduce the number of refills for a large batch; it halves the time each hopper takes. The 100's side of that arithmetic is at Mockmill 100 Stone Grain Mill.

Mockmill’s US product pages assign approximately 1,100 RPM to the Mockmill 100 and approximately 1,300 RPM to the Mockmill 200, and both pages state 110 V. Read on their own, those two rows say the 200's motor turns the stones faster.

The owner’s manual does not present rpm as a model property at all. 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. On that table rpm is a function of the supply the mill is plugged into, and the same two figures cover the 100 and the 200 alike. Taken literally, it says any Mockmill 100 or 200 on 110 V at 60 Hz turns at about 1,300 rpm, which contradicts the 100's own US product page.

Two readings survive the evidence and Mockmill does not say which is correct. Either the 200 genuinely spins faster and the manual’s table is a 230 V against 110 V generalization that was never re-cut per model, or both models turn at about 1,300 rpm on US mains and the 100's page carries the European 50 Hz figure. A buyer choosing the 200 specifically for higher stone speed cannot confirm that motive from these documents.

The throughput claim does not depend on resolving it. The 600 W draw and the approximately 200 g/min rate are printed separately for the 200 and at half those values for the 100. The doubled output is documented; how much of it is rpm and how much is torque under load is not.

The 200 changes four specification rows, which is why this page is deliberately short rather than a second write-up of the same machine. Because the grinding assembly is the same part, this page does not re-derive it. The manual describes removing “the top stone (stator)” to expose the bottom stone, the rotor, which it states “is attached to the motor shaft” — one description, one procedure, both models. The lever-and-scale texture control, including the manual’s procedure for loosening the lever and re-referencing the whole range coarser, is likewise a single shared mechanism.

The same applies to the substance rules. The permitted-substance tables, the instruction to use only cleaned and dry grain, the request that owners refrain from milling nuts and oily foods, the explanation of why coffee beans leave an oil film, and the cleaning rules, including never submerging the mill and never cleaning the millstones with water or a wet cloth, are written once for both machines. Those are set out at Mockmill 100 Stone Grain Mill and apply here unchanged. One substance-related thing is genuinely 200-specific, and it is covered below: the manual’s ingredient tables carry a separate lever-setting column for each model. Whether a stone mill or an impact mill suits the reader at all sits underneath both models rather than between them, and is worked through at Impact vs stone burr grain mills.

Two kinds of sharing run through the list below, and they are not equally strong. The first four rows are confirmed identical on the two product pages, because both tables were read. The rest are published for the 200 and repeated once, for both machines, in the shared 100/200 manual — a weaker form of sameness, and one row where the published record stops short of an identity is marked as such rather than rounded up to one:

• Milling mechanism: “Corundum ceramic grinding stones” on both product pages. These are stone burrs, a pair of grinding surfaces the grain passes between, not an impact chamber that shatters grain against rotating fins.
• Hopper capacity: “1,100 g | 2 lbs 7 oz (Wheat)” on both product pages. The larger motor did not come with a larger hopper.
• Dimensions: 380 x 220 x 190 mm, 15 in x 8.7 in x 7.5 in, on both product pages and in the shared manual, which prints one dimension set for the pair rather than a line per model.
• Casing: “Terluran GP-35" on both product pages and on Mockmill’s compare table, with the manual disagreeing for both models alike.
• Texture adjustment: the 200's product page states “Milling Grades | Variable from very fine to coarse” and “Stepless adjustment of the settings from very fine to coarse”. No milling-grades row for the 100 is part of the evidence behind this page, so this is not a row aligned across the two product pages here. What the documentation does make shared is the hardware: the 100/200 manual gives one adjustment lever, one numbered scale and one re-referencing procedure for both machines.
• Flour container: none is supplied with the 200 — its contents row lists “Mockmill with hopper cover / Owner’s manual” and nothing else — and the manual’s instruction, written once for both machines, is “Place a bowl beneath the chute.”
• Box contents: the 200's product page states “Contents | Mockmill with hopper cover / Owner’s manual”, and the shared manual carries one contents line for the pair.
• Warranty: the 200's product page states “6-year warranty for non-commercial use”, and the shared manual writes a single warranty section, six years from date of purchase for home use, covering both machines.
• Country of manufacture: “Made in Germany” on the 200's product page, with a “MADE IN GERMANY” block in the manual that covers both models.

The owner’s manual carries a heading that names the model explicitly: “Removing the transport locking device (only Mockmill 200)”. This is the one setup step the 200 requires that the 100 does not, and the only place in the shared manual where a procedure is restricted to a single model.

The body of that section 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. A buyer who has previously set up a Mockmill 100, or who is following instructions written for it, has no reason to expect the step.

Mockmill does not state why the heavier model needs the devices, and does not state what happens if the 200 is run with them still fitted. It states that they are fitted, that there are two, and that they come out before first use.

The permitted-substance tables in the shared manual print separate lever-setting columns for the Mockmill 100 and the Mockmill 200. Of the 41 substances listed, 33 carry the same prescribed setting for both machines and eight differ. This is the only place in Mockmill’s documentation where the two models are given different operating instructions for the same task.

On the manual’s scale a higher number is the coarser setting: it describes lever position 1 as the finest and states that “with lever position 10 you get coarser result”. Read against that, the eight differences run in both directions. The 200 is prescribed a coarser setting for oats, soya beans, milo and cinnamon flowers, and a finer one for chickpeas, kamut and pinto beans. Mockmill states no reason for either direction. The eight rows, with the 200's setting first and the 100's second:

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

A doubled throughput figure invites a commercial reading, and the same manual forecloses it: “The Mockmill is intended for home use and quantities appropriate to normal family requirements. It is not designed for commercial use in which large quantities of grain are to be ground.” That sentence is written for both models and is not relaxed for the 200.

The warranty is worded to match. The product page bullet reads “6-year warranty for non-commercial use”. The manual states that “The Mockmill is guaranteed by Wolfgang Mock GmbH for home use against material and manufacturing defects for a period of 6 years from the date of purchase”, excludes damage to fragile parts such as the hopper or the flour chute caused by improper use, and asks owners to “register your device online under Service / Help on mockmill.com to ensure that your warranty is valid” — a request phrased so that it bears on validity. A separate clause covers what goes into the hopper: “Milling substances other than those listed or on our website may damage your mill and void the warranty.” The hedge is Mockmill’s own.

So the extra output is not a change of duty. Mockmill states no daily or weekly quantity ceiling, no maximum batch and no continuous-run limit anywhere in these documents; it states an intent and a negative, and leaves the boundary undefined. A claim under the 6-year term goes to the manufacturer of record, Wolfgang Mock GmbH, Habitzheimer Strasse 14, 64853 Otzberg, Germany, with the US entity given in the manual as Wolfgang Mock, Inc., 300 Delaware Ave, Suite 210, Wilmington, DE 19801.

Weight is the most consequential conflict, because it changes the size of the delta this page exists to describe. The product page states “Weight | 8.7 kg | 19 lbs 2.8 oz”. The owner’s manual, on its two-value line for both models, states “6.6 kg / 8 kg” and “14 lbs 9 oz / 17 lbs 10 oz”, putting the 200 at 8 kg. The manual also disagrees with the 100's product page, which states 6 kg against the manual’s 6.6 kg, so the manual’s weight line is out of step with the published figures for both machines rather than just this one.

That propagates into the comparison. On the two product pages the 200 is 2.7 kg heavier than the 100, about six pounds. On the manual’s line it is 1.4 kg heavier, about three pounds. The honest reading for a buyer who has to lift the mill into a cupboard is a range: Mockmill’s own published figures put the 200 between 8 and 8.7 kg, and between roughly 1.4 and 2.7 kg heavier than the 100. Averaging the two, or quietly preferring the smaller number, would report a precision the documentation does not support.

Casing material is the second conflict. The product page states “Casing | Terluran GP-35" and Mockmill’s compare table lists Terluran GP-35 in its housing column for the 200. The manual states “Casing / Arboblend, made from renewable raw materials”. Those are different materials, and Mockmill does not reconcile them. One observation narrows the question without settling it: the manual PDF is served from a 2019 upload path on mockmill.us, so it is the older document. That is consistent with the manual describing a superseded casing, but no retraction or revision note has been published and the manual remains the file linked from the current product page.

Milling speed is the third, set out in full above: the product pages treat approximately 1,300 RPM as a property of the 200, while the shared manual treats it as a property of a 110 V, 60 Hz supply and applies it to both models. Milling-grade wording is the fourth and smallest, and it sits inside the 200's own paperwork rather than between models. The product page states “Milling Grades | Variable from very fine to coarse”; the manual’s technical table words the same row “Variable from very fine to very coarse”. No numbers change, but the published description of the coarse end of the range is not the same sentence in the two documents, and a reader quoting one of them is not quoting the other.

One apparent conflict is not one. Mockmill’s compare table lists the 200's hopper capacity as 2.4 lbs where the product page and the manual both state 1,100 g, 2 lbs 7 oz. Two pounds seven ounces is 2.4375 lbs, so the compare 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 the four are real.

Nothing here rests on physical possession of a Mockmill 200. Every figure comes from Mockmill’s product pages for the 200 and the 100, its compare table, and the shared 100/200 owner’s manual, read on 2026-09-05. No unit was run, weighed, timed or measured.

Four things the published evidence leaves open: whether the 200 reaches approximately 200 g/min on any grain other than soft wheat, or at any texture setting other than the unstated one behind the figure; whether approximately 1,300 rpm is a property of the model or of a 60 Hz supply; where inside the 8 to 8.7 kg published band the mill actually weighs; and which casing material a unit shipping today is made from.

The comparison with the 100 is also narrower than it may look. Four rows were read on both product pages as differing, and four more — stones, hopper capacity, dimensions and casing — as matching. Every other row on this page is published for the 200, and this page does not assert that the 100's page prints it identically. Milling grades are the clearest case: the wording quoted here, “Variable from very fine to coarse”, is the 200's row, and no equivalent row for the 100 was read into the evidence behind this page.

Several figures are not published at all in these sources. Mockmill states no decibel or noise rating for the 200 on the product page, the compare table or the manual, and a site-scoped search of mockmill.us returned none, so any dB number attributed to this mill is unsourced. No milling-stone diameter is stated for the 200, and no current draw in amps. No flour container capacity exists to publish, because no container is supplied. Beyond the retail SKU 5099 printed on the product page, no separate manufacturer model or article number is stated; the manual tells owners to find a serial number on the back of the mill but publishes no number range. Flour temperature, nutrient retention, particle size in microns, service life and repair rates are outside what a specification sheet can support, and Mockmill publishes none of them for this model.