This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Three-dollar piece article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Numismatics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of numismatics and currencies on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.NumismaticsWikipedia:WikiProject NumismaticsTemplate:WikiProject Numismaticsnumismatic articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
The following images, used in this article, have been nominated for deletion:
File:1854 three-dollar piece rev.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion for the following reason: All Wikipedia files with unknown copyright status
File:1854 three-dollar piece obv.jpg has been nominated for speedy deletion for the following reason: All Wikipedia files with unknown copyright status
What should I do?
Don't panic; you should have time to contest the deletion (although please review deletion guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page.
adjusted the silver content of some coins - Don't think this is quite pertinent to the lede
This was due to the large discoveries of gold, especially in California, and silver was heavily exported. - These seem to be two different ideas
The large quantity of gold made silver more expensive with respect to gold. Simple inflation of the money supply.
Clearer, but exported?
It was exported as bullion, as part of a cycle whereby the resulting gold would be used to buy more silver coins ... you get the idea. This sort of thing happened whenever the US had bimetallism. But I agree, too much detail, they can get it from the article in the hatnote. (as I wrote it :) )
Despite the views of the future president - Not keen on this, as noone knew he would be President in those days so it probably wasn't a factor
He also used a broader planchet for the gold dollar, first struck in 1849, and placed on it a modification of the Indian princess design he put on the obverse of the three-dollar piece. - not really getting the significance of this, or the date (you say he used the wreath later on the gold dollar)
There was a parallel between the gold dollar and the gold three-dollar, with similar designs, and they were later abolished at the same time, it seems worth a mention.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:05, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Numismatist Walter Hagans deems the wreathed reverse "as uniquely American as is the Indian maiden on the obverse. - Feels like there should be a conjunction
(which still houses that facility) - Necessary for the article, or as a footnote?
the coins sold for a small premium when banks had some - Did the mint not sell any?
Few. It was the Susan B. of its day. No one wanted them because they did not fit the other denominations (the three-cent piece didn't get used much, it was really displaced by a combination of the Civil War and the introduction of the five-cent nickel in 1866. So there was no other "multiple of three" coin for it to work with, really. And three bucks was probably a day's labor for people ... the gold dollar was much more widely collected, with the three-dollar a bit of an ugly stepsister (although I think it's rather nice looking, personally).
We have mintages, but the Mint did not keep track of sales. At least, not in surviving records. A lot of Mint records were destroyed in the 1970s as outdated at the order of Mint Director Stella Hackel Sims, those who care (like me) call it the "Hackel debacle". She did not follow government procedures for preservation of documents.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:54, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I could put a list of mintages, but with about 40 different by date and mint mark, I fear it would be too long.
As collecting by mint mark, as well as date. - sentence fragment, no clue what this means
somewhat the worse for wear - Erm... understated much? perhaps use a more technical coin collecting term ("poor"?)
I'll see if I can find a term which sounds more technical. I'd expect to find a coin like that in a dealer's junk box, frankly. However, it nicely illustrates what people were dealing with in the 1850s, I'm using it in Flying Eagle cent as well.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:05, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It's fine. I'll change it to "still standing", which is the relevant issue, and take a second look at my sources to see why that happened. Thanks.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:37, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Wehwalt, I'll be glad to take this one. Comments to follow in the next 1-3 days. Looking forward to reading your stuff again--thanks in advance for your work on it! -- Khazar2 (talk) 00:21, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
A terrific article--extremely well written, well sourced, and (to a non-expert) appears comprehensive. A clear pass. I did make some minor edits as I went; feel free to revert if you disagree with any.
2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.
2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).
Thanks for that, and for your review Yes, I would be surprised if many of the books are available on Google books, too old and specialized.--Wehwalt (talk) 09:46, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Coin speaking, I am not sure the image would qualify as a "poor condition" piece. The details remain in Fine condition but it would be labeled as a "problem coin". I suggest a better image of a mutilated or worn down cent if you are going to use the "poor" wording. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 00:09, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]