Talk:Three-dollar piece

File:1854 three-dollar piece rev.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion

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. If the image is non-free then you may need to provide a fair use rationale If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale, then it cannot be uploaded or used. If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Deletion Review This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 17:49, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Crisco comments

Hi Wehwalt, great job here. I'll leave some comments here as I'm copyediting:

• corn, wheat, cotton, and tobacco. - Why link corn and not link the other crops?

Corn is ambiguous in British/American English, though in my view the presence of "wheat" should remove the ambiguity. Just in case though.

• Fair enough. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:14, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

• 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

More for the reader.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:05, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

• I got that much, but it may be undue weight (especially since he doesn't figure in the article again) — Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:14, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

• Haven't told us who Taxay is/was
• Q. David Bowers notes - Does he summarise any key points?
• we know - Don't think we should say "we" in the articles. "Much of what is known", perhaps, or "recorded"?
• Is Indian Princess as a representation of America sufficiently common enough to warrant an article?

Yes, I think there should be an article. I discuss her in Statue of Liberty#Design, style, and symbolism as well.

• Might be worth redlinking in that case. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:18, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

• 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)

• And the timing? I'm still not parsing this sentence. Perhaps simplify? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:18, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

I'll play with it.

• 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

• Where?--Wehwalt (talk) 13:05, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

• In front of the sentence. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:18, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

• Montroville W. Dickeson - Worth a redlink? (Seems to have been an amateur archeologist too)
• Far West... = or =/= West Coast? If the former, move the link to Western Coast of the United States forward

I suppose ... Far West was the contemporary term, with "West" a bit ambiguous (if you were from Illinois, you were a Westerner at the time).

• Alright. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:18, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

• (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).

• Agree on the last point . If you have figures for mint sales it might be worked into the sentence. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:18, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

• 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)

I could put a list of mintages, but with about 40 different by date and mint mark, I fear it would be too long.

• Makes sense. As a side note: Hackel debacle is a redlink ;) — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:08, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

• I'd have to look for sources.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:37, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

• 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)

• My thoughts exactly about where we could find such a coin. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:18, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

That's about it from me, interesting article. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 12:52, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments, I'll work through these today.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:11, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Status of San Francisco mint building

The NOTE "b^ Which still houses that facility" is incorrect, that building ceased coining in 1937: http://www.sfmuseum.org/hist3/sfmint.html

(Hope I followed protocol here)

Joecoin (talk) 13:44, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

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)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Three-dollar piece/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Khazar2 (talk · contribs) 00:21, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

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)

Review

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.

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.	Prose is excellent. Sources do not appear to be available through Google Books or Amazon for spotchecks, but happy to accept them in good faith.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.
2. Verifiable with no original research:
	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).
	2c. it contains no original research.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	Comparison to sources through Google suggests that main aspects are more than covered.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.
	7. Overall assessment.	Pass

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)

Large cent image

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)

Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/United States gold coins (III) – Three-dollar piece (1854–89)

The infobox image for Three-dollar piece has been at Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates and is now a Featured Picture.--Godot13 (talk) 03:40, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

File:NNC-US-1854-G$3-Indian Princess Head.jpg to appear as POTD soon

Hello! This is a note to let the editors of this article know that File:NNC-US-1854-G$3-Indian Princess Head.jpg will be appearing as picture of the day on June 29, 2018. You can view and edit the POTD blurb at Template:POTD/2018-06-29. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 12:08, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

Picture of the day

The three-dollar piece was a gold coin produced by the United States Mint from 1854 to 1889. The coin was designed by Mint Chief Engraver James B. Longacre. Its obverse bears a representation of Lady Liberty wearing a headdress of a Native American and the reverse a wreath of corn, wheat, cotton, and tobacco. Although over 100,000 were struck in the first year, the coin saw little use. The piece was last struck in 1889, and Congress ended the series the following year.Coin: United States Mint; photograph: Jaclyn Nash/National Numismatic Collection

What would the value (in gold) of this coin be today?

I think we should add this information somewhere AbeNMS92 (talk) 00:23, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

But it changes every day. And we give the amount of gold in it. The result is simple multiplication that the reader can do. Wehwalt (talk) 09:01, 18 November 2024 (UTC)