Talk:Three-cent piece

(Page per material?)

I'm not sure whether the three cent silver and three cent nickel need seperate pages or not. They were not seperate denominations, like the half dime and the nickel were. The three cent pieces are odd ducks.Brian Schlosser42 21:19, 8 Jun 2004 (UTC)

(Postal rate)

What postal rate changes in 1889? First-class was still three cents as far as I know. Stan 05:49, 9 Jun 2004 (UTC)

(Images)

Just added some images. They seem to work better side by side; with a separate entry under obverse/reverse/obverse/reverse the table is too long. Should the size of the silver images be proportionally smaller to the nickel, to keep the scale? Splarka 06:27, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

current value?

It would be nice to see some indication of how much this coin is worth today (to collectors, I mean, not its legal value, which I suppose is still just three cents). --Trovatore 21:10, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

They range anywhere from $14-$28 dollars low grade, to $485-over $3000 for up to proof grades. I'll see if I can find a good site for price listings, but those things change and range way to much for use to put them on every type of coin in wikipedia. Joe I 21:23, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

Dubious

   I found

One reason often given for the discontinuation of the three cent nickel piece in 1889 is that this coin and the dime (10 cent silver coin) were identical in diameter, and hence caused confusion upon the introduction of mechanical vending machines.

and consequently tagged {{Dubious}}: "Confusion" is a bizarre word here: machines are reasonably described as "fooled", and since there is no reason that the introduction of machines should fool or confuse people about coins, it must be presumed to mean the fraud that would make the coin problematic in light of the low capabilities of 19th-cent'y machines. But addressing this by ceasing issuance of the 3¢ would not protect vending machine operators from up to $770,000 of fraud against dime machines, which was not then, uh, chump change for a nascent industry. Give us the source for this hardly credible assertion, and someone will be in the position to reword it in a way that doesn't send readers away shaking their heads.
--Jerzy•t 21:12, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

I searched around the web quite a bit and found many, many cites make this assertion. So the statement is actually true that this is an "oft cited reason" (whether or not it is true). Not sure if that means it isn't dubious, but we should resolve this one way or another in order to clean up the page. Do you have any suggesetions Jerzy? Sammybenny (talk) 00:32, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

    The page can be cleaned up by removing the sentence that has gone unremedied for 9 months, and the one following it that no longer makes sense when it's removed, and placing copies of them in this talk section to support future work by others more interested than i (and apparently than you).
    Verifiable reasons for withdrawal (i.e. chain of events that caused it) would be relevant to the history of this coin; the fact and substance of speculation about it would only become relevant if we had evidence that qualified experts have tried and failed at verifying how withdrawal came about.
--Jerzy•t 15:45, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Redesign

I've edited the information on the redesign. First, I've added the information that an olive sprig and a bundle of arrows were added to the reverse. Second, I've corrected the number of lines that surrounded the star on the obverse. The first redesign added two, not three lines. What appears to be a third line is actually the edge of the star. Likewise, the second redesign reduced the number of lines to one, not two, although it's arguable that what really happened was the merging of the edge of the star with the inner line, since star is now larger and the edge of the star is raised. Mrrhum (talk) 22:35, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Thickness of Trime incorrectly listed as 1.55mm

A trime is really thin. It is thinner than a dime, and a dime is 1.35mm in thickness.

An good estimate based on density and surface area says that the trime is ~0.5mm

For the three cent nickle, given the confusion with the dime, it too is probably ~1.35mm thick. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.118.126.154 (talk) 12:02, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

Requested move 20 October 2018

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Moved. (non-admin closure) Simplexity22 (talk) 09:57, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

---

Three-cent piece (United States coin) → Three-cent piece – Three-cent piece is currently a redirect that leads to this article, which means that this article title has unnecessary disambiguation. Also see Three-dollar piece for a similarly-titled article that does not have any parenthetical disambiguator. HotdogPi 01:15, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

• Support If an article is written on a different three-cent piece, we can always move it back, or add a hatnote, depending on the relative notability. --Trovatore (talk) 08:42, 20 October 2018 (UTC)
• Support, per nom and above. Randy Kryn (talk) 21:29, 20 October 2018 (UTC)
• Comment we already have such articles, Threepence (British coin), if you are to use penny and cent interchangeably, if you consider it the three-small-unit-denomination piece. (yes, this is pre-decimal pence, and is actually 3/240 of a pound) -- 65.94.42.18 (talk) 04:40, 26 October 2018 (UTC)
  • I don't think that's a problem. Pence are different from cents. The US has never used pence, and the UK, unless I'm misinformed, has never used cents, not even post-decimalization. --Trovatore (talk) 05:09, 26 October 2018 (UTC)
    • There's also Threepence (Irish coin) and Threepence (Australian) (though both pre-decimialization). And Australia does use cents and pennies. The U.S. uses pennies. Ireland uses Euro cents -- 65.94.42.18 (talk) 04:30, 27 October 2018 (UTC)
      • None of that matters unless the article about one of their coins would plausibly be titled Three-cent piece. Does Ireland or Australia have a three-cent piece, the article about which would most naturally be called "three-cent piece"? If not, then the point is not relevant to the current discussion. --Trovatore (talk) 19:19, 27 October 2018 (UTC)
• Support per WP:PRECISE. Just reverses a redirect. Threepence would never be called three-cent pieces. Station1 (talk) 07:53, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.