Talk:Gold dollar/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Sturmvogel 66 (talk · contribs) 06:45, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

I'll get to this shortly.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 06:45, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for doing these. It's good the same person is doing both as the articles are related.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:56, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

• The external link is broken, no DABs

Removed.--Wehwalt (talk) 04:00, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

• Is there an image available for the proposed 1836(?) gold dollar design?

I'll see if I can find one in the PD 1913 edition of Woodin on patterns. There may be one on display at the ANA library, but my visit there was cancelled due tot he floods in Colorado Springs.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:34, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

It's not on display in Colorado Springs. I took pictures of everything and it's not there. I'll check Woodin tomorrow.--Wehwalt (talk) 04:39, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

It's not a deal breaker if nothing's available, but it would be nice.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 05:20, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

here (number 50). Regrettably the quality of the image is not high. I don't own a physical copy of it. However, I do have an image of that cap and rays design used on an 1849 (according to the caption in the display, but Adams and Woodin say 1850) pattern for the three-cent piece that I could upload and insert.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:10, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

• Why no sabotage of the dollar gold coin?

Longacre may have moved too fast. I don't know why. The sources do not say. I have an article on Peale in a sandbox, awaiting further work.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:34, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

• I don't know that I'd describe the hair of the Type I Liberty as in a bun, more like some sort of roll, with tendrils handing down the back of her neck. How do your sources describe it?

That is the term used by the source. I reproduced it exactly. That was the only source that described Liberty's hairstyle, so I jumped on it, so to speak.--Wehwalt (talk) 04:39, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Fair enough.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 05:20, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

• Close or Closed Wreath? And what are the five varieties of the 1849?

I've seen it both "Close" and "Closed". On searching coin sites, I'm going to go with closed, which seems more prevalent today. I don't have my copy of Bowers with me, but three were without the initial L, with the open wreath, and with the closed wreath. Regrettably, we lack sufficient coin images to display them all.

That's OK, but you might give a little more detail about the variations, but a full description isn't necessary.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 05:20, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Since we don't have images for the varieties (we are in short supply of coin images), I saw little point in teasing the reader with info I couldn't illustrate.--Wehwalt (talk) 04:00, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

• Minted I think? were melted at the Philadelphia Mint

No, melted. The Treasury melted worn gold coins, under certain conditions, see interesting discussion and evidence of much activity in 1873 (when the Coinage Act of 1873 authorized the practice) here

My fault, I didn't give the full sentence which I think is in error: For the Mint's 1891 fiscal year, only 495 gold dollars (and 33 three-dollar pieces) were melted at the Philadelphia Mint, testifying to the continued demand for the coin from investors and from jewelers.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 05:20, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Wrong melting :) In other words, few coins were returned to the Mint. As I alluded to above, slightly light (due to wear) gold coins would be accepted by the Mint, and then melted and recoined, once they had been in circulation twenty years. One half of one percent light was the figure. The difference was made up by the government. The risk of a lightweight gold coin, otherwise, fell (like a counterfeit one) on the last holder. Less than five hundred pieces, with a total mintage well in the millions. That is a very small figure compared to the number of pieces out there, and indicates that the public could get more than a dollar for even a worn gold dollar. So sayeth Bowers anyway.--Wehwalt (talk) 10:55, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Ok, but it threw me to go from the previous sentence about production to this one about melting without more of a transition. A sentence or so about the mint's melting policies would help to make that transition and/or data for meltings of earlier years.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 15:44, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Whatever the mint did with respect to lightweight gold coins before 1873 must have been by some sort of internal regulation because the provisions in the 1873 act don't seem to be in the 1837 act (the last rectification) or in any of the acts relating to coinage between that time. I use this source. [1]. I'll play with it.--Wehwalt (talk) 03:36, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

I've rewritten the text. If you want, I can add a footnote. I'm a little afraid of synthesis if I implement your suggestion. I don't actually know that the coins were melted because of the Act of 1873.--Wehwalt (talk) 04:00, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

You haven't touched the bit about the 1891 meltings. There needs to be a better transition here. You go from gross production totals straight to meltings. Is melting data available for other years to give a standard of comparison? Perhaps the thing to do is to delete the sentence entirely as the next sentence discusses continued demand for jewelry, etc. Your other changes are fine.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 14:25, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

I have removed it. I agree, it needs more context. The Mint melted large quantities of three-dollar pieces over the 1890s, but very few in 1890-1891. Bowers knows a lot, but he's gets stuff wrong sometimes and this seems a bit dodgy.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:49, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

• You give a most expensive price, but not a price for least expensive VF grade. The 2014 edition of R.S. Yeoman's A Guide Book of United States Coins rates the least expensive gold dollar in very fine condition {VF-20), a value given for each of the Type 1 Philadelphia issues, from 1849 to 1853. Those seeking one of each type will find the most expensive to be a specimen of the Type 2, with the 1854 and 1855 estimated at $350 in that condition--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 05:10, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

Ah, it is $300. I will add that.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:34, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

I think I got everything, pending your further comments on it. I'll work on the double eagle tomorrow. Thanks for your help.--Wehwalt (talk) 04:00, 27 September 2013 (UTC)