Talk:Promotional fake United States currency

$400

I once heard that someone working at a Wal-Mart store accepted a $400 bill, but cannot find a source for this information, if anyone can, feel free to add it, or reply to this message. --WillMak050389 19:33, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

0.5 cent

Anyone know of this la?Enlil Ninlil 08:54, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

There was a real half cent coin long ago, is that what you mean? --Jwwalker 19:12, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

i think he means 3 cent bill Jgsho (talk) 00:48, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Both 0.5 cent and 3 cent bills were real and circulated in the 19th century. See Fractional currency --yang long (talk) 14:57, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Simpsons episode

Is it really necessary to have a complete description of a single episode of a TV show that happens to feature a fake bill?

I'm assuming you mean the episode that featured the fictional trillion dollar bill. I think it's fair for that episode's article to have a description of it, but unless it's actually issued in some physical form, I see no reason to include it here. If it's mentioned at all, it might deserve a one sentence note with a link to that episode's article, but no more than that. 75.70.123.215 (talk) 21:54, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree. It's gone.PacificBoy 20:15, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Six Dollar Bill

http://faculty.haas.berkeley.edu/vergaraa/images/6dollarbill.jpg —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.162.147.244 (talk • contribs)

Sundae

The link to that sundae story doesn't work. 惑乱 分からん * \)/ (\ (< \) (2 /) /)/ * 00:34, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

"Of Course"

This entire article could probably be used rewritten. Who ever wrote it orginally kept using "of course" which sounds terrible and it not at all academic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.20.122.76 (talk) 04:41, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Million dollar bills

Not sure what you'd use as a source for it, but there are many companies that print million dollar bills as gifts and novelties. They're very careful not to assert the bills are genuine and legal tender, and the Federal Reserve declares them legal to produce and own as long as it's not done fraudulently (ie., nobody attempts to use them as legal tender or claim that they are) since there is not and never has been a geunine million dollar bill. There existance should probably be worth mentioning here; all I see mentioned about them here is a few instances of people actually trying to spend or deposit them (and a couple people printing them as political tracts) but no mention of businesses that print them as novelties. 75.70.123.215 (talk) 21:58, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

"smuggling"

How does one "smuggle" currency? I'm confused. ✏✎✍✌✉✈✇✆✃✄Ⓠ‽ (talk) 22:23, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

I was surprised to learn recently that some jurisdictions limit the amount of currency an individual may transport across borders without proper license. Rationale apparently is related to the war on drugs or the war on terror, for what it's worth. Jessemckay (talk) 04:54, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

$3 bill / standard portraits on pre-federal currency

The reference given in the section describes the wide variety of currency issued by banks during the antebellum period (including the depiction of Santa Claus on some bills), but gives no indication that there was any standardization on subjects or portraits by denomination, or that Santa Claus was associated with the $3 denomination. To the contrary, it includes pictures of two $3 bills without him. I've marked the majority of the paragraph as citation-needed for now, but if a corroborating citation can't be found, it should probably be removed. --Speight (talk) 03:31, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with File:1329063dollars.jpg

The image File:1329063dollars.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

• That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
• That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --00:35, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

$1 billion dollar section

The first paragraph of this section reads like a conspiracy theory. Why is Christopher Story cited as a credible source? How is he an authority on legal tender, especially in America? I suggest deleting this paragraph. --Mad Pierrot (talk) 20:20, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

I've added the tag to the portion of the portion of the article described above. The source provided appears to be official, but the website does not appear to credible at all. This is the cited article, and the website it is on. I'm going to review the Wikipedia:Reliable_sources and Wikipedia:Verifiability pages and then revisit this section again. --Mad Pierrot (talk) 18:15, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

I removed the portion because I believe it is an example of an extremist source. If anyone disagrees I would be happy to talk about it.--Mad Pierrot (talk) 21:07, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Malicious Software Warning in Referenced Site

The reference: ^ Homeland Security Agents Seize "Billion Dollar" Bogus Federal Reserve Notes leads to a site that has been flagged by TrustE as distributing malware (Opera blocks me when I try to visit it). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.47.174.66 (talk) 21:35, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Trillion dollar bills

Just for the record, there are also novelty trillion dollar bills, though not as numerous or widespread as the million or billion bills. Since the only "source" (i.e., on the web) that I know of are auctions on eBay, I have no doubt that someone will whine about an unsourced reference, thus I refuse to "be bold" and add it to the article, strictly on principle. --Joe Sewell (talk) 20:41, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

here

Does this really need to be said?

"Though not meant to be used as actual legal tender, Christian evangelist Ray Comfort's ministry, Living Waters Publications, produces a fake $1,000,000 bill"

Really? What exactly is the purpose of that phrase? 71.49.83.179 (talk) 19:47, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Typo?

near the top is this line: "The bills have "THIS IS LEGAL TENDER FOR ANY DEBTS, THE PUBLIC, OR PRIVATE". It seems to contradict the rest of the article. Chardansearavitriol (talk) 22:21, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

22 & 13 dollar bills

i have a thirteen dollar bill and i also found a fake 22 dollar bill that was printed somewhere you should try an add those — Preceding unsigned comment added by Black60dragon (talk • contribs) 01:39, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Article has been included in Wikipedia

The article was deemed worthy for inclusion in Wikipedia: the result of the AfD was to keep it, because it's functional and appropriate as a Wikipedia article per Wikipedia notability guidelines, and its inclusion is congruent with building Wikipedia. Northamerica1000 (talk) 22:52, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

TWE Dollars?

The TWE dollar bill is TOTALY messed up!--Jgsho (talk) 00:52, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

I used to actually HAVE one. Jackson was on it and it said Jefferson.Ericl (talk) 21:59, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

References for genuine big bills

This paper (with references) confirms that Treasury notes with very high nominations HAVE indeed been issued by the US Treasury:

http://www.ehs.org.uk/ehs/conference2005/Assets/NollFullPaper.doc

–::–

A Paper for Presentation at the 2005 Annual Conference of the Economic History Society at the University of Leicester, 8-10 April 2005

By Dr. Franklin Noll

Introduction For most of their history after World War II, Treasury notes have been issued with denominations never rising above a high of $1 million. Yet, from 1955 to 1969, the Treasury issued Treasury notes with the added denominations of $100 million and $500 million. The purpose of this study is to determine why the Treasury issued these very-high-denomination Treasury notes and why it stopped doing so.

–::–

This guy also has more interesting papers: http://franklinnoll.com/Treasury-Securities-Knowledgebase.html

This pdf, for example, shows that there multiple treasury notes with very high nominations were issued: http://franklinnoll.com/Vol_10.pdf

For example (page 5):

–::–

Treasury Notes: Series A-1947 Description: Authorizing Act (s): 24 September 1917, amended Liability: Public Debt Issued for: United States Treasury Instrument Type: Note Conditions: Interest: 1.50% Maturity: 4 years Redeemable: on maturity [15 September 1947] Callable: n/a Sold at: par Denominations: Negotiable: Coupon: $$500, $1,000, $5,000, $10,000, $100,000, $1,000,000 Non-Negotiable: n/a Issues: Series A-1947 [12 July 1943] Source(s): Annual Report of the Secretary of the Treasury, 1943: 327.

–::–

The Annual Reports of the Secretary of the Treasury can be found at archive.org:

http://www.archive.org/search.php?query=creator:%22United+States.+Dept.+of+the+Treasury%22

This one should be very interesting. The one from 1934: http://www.archive.org/details/annualreportofse1934unit

And 1935: http://www.archive.org/details/annualreportofse1935unit http://www.archive.org/stream/annualreportofse1935unit/annualreportofse1935unit_djvu.txt

Very interesting that here you find the proof that bonds with attached interest coupons WERE issued and with nominations as high as $100,000 as well:

–::–

[Treasury notes, series D-1936. Department Circular No. 522]

Treasury Department, Washington, September 10, 1934.

EXCHANGE OFFERING OF NOTES

The Secretary of the Treasury, pursuant to the authority of the Second Lib- erty Bond Act, approved September 24, 1917, as amended, offers for subscrip- tion, at par, 1% percent notes of the United States, designated Treasury notes of series D-1936, in payment of which only Treasury certificates of indebted- ness of series TS-1934, maturing September 15, 1934, may be tendered. The amount of the offering is limited to the amount of Treasury certificates of indebtedness of series TS-1934 tendered and accepted.

DESCRIPTION OF NOTES

The notes will be dated September 15, 1934, and will bear interest from that date at the rate of 1^^ percent per annum, payable semiannually on March 15 and September 15 in each year. They will mature September 15, 1936, and will not be subject to call for redemption prior to maturity.

The notes shall be exempt, both as to principal and interest, from all taxa- tion (except estate or inheritance taxes) now or hereafter imposed by the United States, any State, or any of the possessions of the United States, or by any local taxing authority.

The notes will be accepted at par during such time and under such rules and regulations as shall be prescribed or approved by the Secretary of the Treasury in payment of income and profits taxes payable at the maturity of the notes.

The notes will be acceptable to secure deposits of public moneys, but will not bear the circulation privilege.

Bearer notes with interest coupons attached will be issued in denominations of $100, $500, $1,000, $5,000, $10,000, and $100,000. The notes will not be issued in registered form.

–::–

Googling for “series of 1934″ (with the “” also in the google search bar), like for example:

http://www.highdenomination.com/Gold_Details.asp?id=904

–::–

This listing, of a $100,000 Gold Certificate, is intended for educational purposes only. I do not own this note, nor have I ever owned it in the past. The description and the scan were uploaded in response to the many people who claim they have a genuine $100,000 Gold Certificate, and would like to know a little more about their note. This then is for you.

The $100,000 Gold Certificate is the highest denomination ever printed for all Federal paper money in the United States. The notes were dated Series of 1934 and a total of 42,000 units were printed. Depicted on the front of the note is Woodrow Wilson, 28th President of the United States. He served as President from 1913 to 1921.

It is important to understand that $100,000 Gold Certificates (like the one pictured) were intended for use in FISCAL CHANNELS ONLY. They were never issued for general circulation. The notes are strictly government property and are not legal to collect or own.

Of the 42,000 notes printed, there are no notes outstanding. In other words, all the notes that were printed are accounted for.

–::–

Interesting contradiction. How can you have “many people who claim” when “all the notes that were printed are accounted for”?

Well, they were “accounted for” by wiping “approximately $100 million in gold, silver, and other assets as security for this old currency” under the carpet in 1961:

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/docs/historical/senate/senate_frdp_old1960.pdf

–::–

BILLS TO EXTEND AUTHORITY OF FEDERAL RESERVE BANKS TO PURCHASE TREASURY OBLIGATIONS AND TO AUTHORIZE ADJUSTMENTS IN ACCOUNTS OF OUTSTANDING OLD SERIES CURRENCY JUNE 24, 1960

COMPTROLLER GENERAL OF THE UNITED STATES,

Washington, March 9, 1959. Hon. A. WILLIS ROBERTSON, Chairman, Committee on Banking and Currency, U.S. Senate.

DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: Your letter of February 27, 1959, acknowledged March 2, requests our comments on S. 1177.

The bill would authorize adjustments in the accounts of paper currency issues of the United States issued prior to July 1, 1929, and gold certificates issued prior to January 30, 1934, and the writing off the Treasury statements and accounts of the amount of each denomination of each kind of old large-size currency now outstanding that has been destroyed or irretrievably lost and which in the judgment of the Secretary of the Treasury will never be presented for redemption. The effect of the proposal would be to improve the cash position of the Treasury by more than $100 million.

We believe that the purpose of S. 1177 is meritorious and would have no objections to its enactment.

Sincerely yours, JOSEPH CAMPBELL, Comptroller General of the United States.

The CHAIRMAN. S. 3714 would authorize the Treasury to adjust its accounts with respect to the large size currency issued by the Government prior to 1929 and with respect to about $12 million of gold certificates issued between 1929 and 1934. The Treasury and the Federal Reserve System are holding approximately $100 million in gold, silver, and other assets as security for this old currency. This includes about $61 million in gold and silver reserves held by the Treasury and about $37 million in reserves held by the Federal Reserve banks to secure Federal Reserve notes.

The bill would authorize the Treasury to transfer the amounts of this old currency from its currency accounts to the outstanding public debt, to be reported as part of the outstanding public debt, in the same manner as Federal Reserve bank notes, national bank notes, and U.S. notes are now reported. The Federal Reserve banks would pay to the Treasury an amount sufficient to discharge their liabilities for outstanding Federal Reserve notes. This action would make available to the Treasury for current use approximately $3 to $4 million a year. Any of the old notes presented for redemption would be redeemed in regular course from the general fund of the Treasury.

The bill would also permit the Secretary of the Treasury to determine the amount of the old currency which has been destroyed or irretrievably lost and to reduce amounts of this old currency outstanding on the records of the Treasury. This action would not impair the redeemability of any currency subsequently presented to the Treasury. The Treasury would be authorized to withhold from destruction one piece of each currency issue to provide a historical collection of the paper currency of the United States.

The chairman would state that that appears to be a rather technical provision, but he understands it just boils down to this, that a very substantial amount of paper money has been lost or destroyed and the backing for it in gold and gold certificates is still kept for its ultimate redemption. This proposal is that instead of keeping all of those assets locked up for a contingency that may never happen, the Treasury wants the privilege of saving about $3 to $4 million a year in interest on outstanding debt by using those assets to retire the debt to that extent, with a clear provision that if any of these old notes should later show up, they will be fully redeemed.

–::–

This act appears to have been enacted, but it may have been changed:

http://www.federalreserve.gov/aboutthefed/section16.htm

“The act of June 30, 1961, is the Old Series Currency Adjustment Act”

Also a very interesting detail can be found in several Treasury bulletins, like this one:

http://www.archive.org/stream/treasurybulletin1967unitaug/treasurybulletin1967unitaug_djvu.txt

“Excludes gold certificates, Series of 1934, which are issued only to Federal Reserve banks and do not appear in circulation.”

How can you have “gold certificates, Series of 1934″ which are “issued only to Federal Reserve banks and do not appear in circulation” that have been DESTROYED or IRRETRIEVABLY LOST?

I mean, if these things were really only used by Federal Reserve banks, why on earth would you need an act to “authorize adjustments in the accounts of paper currency [..] and writing off [...]old large-size currency now outstanding that has been destroyed or irretrievably lost”???

L4m4re (talk) 19:06, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Excision of non-notable information

Per a previous edit, certain non-notable/non-encyclopedic/trivial information has been removed from this article. Regardless that it had been cited, as citation alone does not make something significant or appropriate for inclusion under a given topic.

The items removed may have occurred, and indeed may have had cites, but failed on their merits to have any inherent encyclopedic significance. Just because someone goes into a House of Pancakes or such and tries to pay with a phony homemade gazillion dollar bill does not make it notable.

If an effort is made to produce or pass a faux or "replica" bill for some relevant cultural or historic reason - say a member of the US Congress, or a political activist, sought to present a high-denomination faux "bill" to a representative of Native Americans as a publicity stunt seeking to goad the US government into paying billions of dollars in reparations for past harms as a means of attracting attention to the matter; or the same done seeking to "settle" US debts to African Americans for their ancestors' sufferings under slavery, etc., these may attain the minimum threshold for notability...depending on the parties involved, media coverage, and outcome. An anonymous individual pursing the same gambit with a post on their readerless blog would not, even if somehow some media entity capable of being cited could be produced as a reference. Children win Little League awards, for example, that can are noted in newspapers and thus capable of being cited yet fail to meet a minimum Wikipedia threshold for notability, as well as any culturally held norms for "encyclopedic". While relevant to that individual they are in the larger scheme of things trivial to the collective.

Such inherently trivial matters only become relevant for inclusion in Wikipedia articles if they are a meaningful part of the biography of an individual (who already meets Wikipedia's minimum threshold for notability), such as an individual thus cited who goes on to play baseball professionally, or where mention of early sports prowess contributes to a fuller understanding of someone who took a different course in life perhaps as a result of an accident that subsequently robbed them of full use of their body (see, for example, the bio of former Major League Baseball Commissioner Fay Vincent.

The items in this article that meet minimum thresholds of relevance to the subject have been left; the balance excised accordingly. Yours, Wikiuser100 (talk) 22:56, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

Can you cut out the WP:LAWYERING? When it comes to notability, things that have been published as historical meet the standards. I can agree that things that make a splash in the news aren't notable and thank you for explaining that bit. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 00:48, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Ease your tone, please User:Knowledgekid87. No, just because something is published somewhere and thus is "citable" does not make it "notable". Anyone can dig up endless lists of Garden Club meeting schedules, even local chapter annual awards mentioned in newspapers and at websites, but that does not make them or the individuals receiving them "notable". Are the items relevant, encyclopedic, not merely "factual", that's the bar. It is the one I've applied to this article, inherently grey and slippery-sloped as it is. Yours Wikiuser100 (talk) 17:02, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Wikiuser100 You are telling me money issued by Massachusetts during the 1700s and by the Republic of Texas in the form of $3 bills isn't notable? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 19:09, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

To recap this is the removed content:

Although both the colony of Massachusetts and the Thirteen Colonies printed $3 bills, the United States never issued one; however, a $3.00 gold coin was issued by the U.S. from 1854 to 1889.

Legitimate three-dollar bills were also produced by various banks in the early days of the United States, by the Republic of Texas, and the Confederacy. Before the creation of the Federal Reserve System, individual banks offered their own currencies.

I fail to see how this is not notable and can cite books if you want as proof of it. The bit is relevant as these were at one time real money which expands the topic of the article. It would be false to say that a $3 bill is a fake denomination of United States currency is what I am getting at. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 19:16, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

===References===

Thank you for raising your concerns here, User:Knowledgekid87. The above is outlined very clearly. However, by definition the items highlighted are not "Fake denominations" of any money (let alone "fake" United States currency, as the title of this article specifies, none having been issued intending to impersonate legitimate currency of the U.S. Government): they were in fact real, and belong in an article or articles covering alternative Colonial/Confederate/non-U.S. Federal Government-issued domestic currencies. Just as true "counterfeit" money (duplicated faithfully and intended to be passed off as real) belongs not here but in an article on it. This article is on faux or "Fake" money, never intended to be real. That's why the above items (cited or not) were removed. Feel free to integrate them elsewhere in Wikipedia where they may be relevant. Yours Wikiuser100 (talk) 21:28, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

The expression "fake as a three-dollar bill" infers that there never was a real $3 bill issued. If this is not the case, we should say so. The removed content was valid. K7L (talk) 16:17, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

$2001 bill?

I got a novelty 9/11 $2001 bill with George W. Bush's face on it. DudeWithAFeud (talk) 02:08, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

"Citation Needed" on second sentence

Further down the page from the introductory statement, a sentence that asserts the same exact thing as the second sentence (regarding the legality of making joke money) and includes a citation. So would it be reasonable to move the citation to the similar sentence at the top of the page and remove it from the later one? 74.78.144.5 (talk) 04:08, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

I added the citation to the lede even though leads typically don't have citations, this one was buried in the article. Maybe we should have a short section on the legality of fake currency? Raquel Baranow (talk) 17:36, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

Gay meaning of queer as a $3 bill

The following sentence I added today was immediately deleted as "lacking a source", together with a chronology problem the nature of which I don't understand:

"Queer as a three-dollar bill" is used in discussions of gay matters to make an approving remark about someone's or something's great "gayness."

deisenbe (talk) 21:17, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

Nazi propaganda leaflets and Bible tracts

Do Nazi German propaganda leaflets and evangelical Bible tracts disguised as US banknotes count as "promotional" notes? (There were Nazi leaflets dropped over Paris that "promoted" Antisemitism and were disguised as US notes, and there have been many instances of evangelical Christians leaving fake tips to restaurant workers that "promote" the Bible.) KMF (talk) 18:41, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

I think so, read the first paragraph ... wonder if this qualifies:

Money of the Beast 666

Raquel Baranow (talk) 00:26, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

I would include it, as for the 666 note that falls under self promotion as it appears you commissioned the note. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 14:30, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

I have dozens of pictures I have taken that others or myself have posted to WP articles that are linked to my flickr photography account, which is entirely Creative Commons. Is this "self promotion" too?! Raquel Baranow (talk) 16:26, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

It can be. We have had people arguing over "my picture is better than yours", in which ego gets mixed up with the "legit" question of what image helps illuminate the article better. We have had professional photographers use WP via the commons to promote their studios. We have people wanting to use WP to promote things, doing so via images they uploaded to the commons and tried to force into articles. So yeah, it happens a lot. Jytdog (talk) 17:11, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

Pretty much anything that you would personally benefit from is not good to upload here. If I made a manga series and uploaded a picture of my cover art to Wikipedia, then I would understand if someone wanted it from a third party reliable source rather than from myself. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 18:24, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

So, if someone else posted my "Money of the Beast 666" image to the article or, others agreed it is ok to add the pic to the article, it would be okay? How about we have a Gallery of Promotional money?! "Funny Money" is a very popular Google search ... I have a "Funny Money" group on flickr, which I will not promote here and there are several other such groups on flickr. Raquel Baranow (talk) 16:29, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

"United States"?

Are these not done in other countries? 184.21.204.5 (talk) 21:18, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

If you can find reliable sources detailing promotional fake currency in other countries, then by all means, write articles for them. - ZLEA _T\^C 23:41, 21 February 2023 (UTC)