Talk:United States Bicentennial coinage

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the United States Bicentennial coinage article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

United States Bicentennial coinage is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so.

United States Bicentennial coinage is the main article in the United States Bicentennial coinage series, a featured topic. This is identified as among the best series of articles produced by the Wikipedia community. If you can update or improve it, please do so.

This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on July 4, 2015.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
August 21, 2011	Good article nominee	Listed
September 20, 2011	Featured article candidate	Not promoted
March 17, 2012	Featured article candidate	Promoted
July 22, 2013	Featured topic candidate	Promoted
Current status: Featured article

Numismatics: American currency Mid‑importance

	Numismatics portal 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
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the American currency task force (assessed as Mid-importance).

United States Low‑importance

	United States portal 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. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Value?[edit]

What is the value for each of these coins nowadays? As a collector, how much are they worth? I have quite a few of each and I am interested in a figure. --Jared ^[T]/_[+] 21:07, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not a whole lot, typically. They were minted in large quantities and are still pretty easy to obtain. --cholmes75 (chit chat) 15:40, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

up to about 8-10 dollars for a brillint uncirculated, very minimual wear 3 dollars, more wear, 1 dollar if.(prices close, not exact) Jo e I 16:59, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have the 1776-1976-P dollar (T2) and quarter, plus the 1776-1976-D half. The 2004 Red book gives a quote of 1.50 for the dollar and half in MS-65. The quote is 1.00 for the quarter in MS-65. Mine are about AU-58. In short, the bicentennial issues are a good pick for a younger collector as they are affordable. - Thanks, Hoshie 00:18, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I guess. But few dealers are gonna pay you more than face. Maybe a very slight premium for the dollar, which no longer circulates. --Wehwalt 14:04, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Citations[edit]

Is there any reason to list a reference with minimal information, like this one, Breen, p. 582., when it seems like more information would be better? And what is the difference between a reference and a note? Arkmanda (talk) 03:07, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I'm not done yet, I just kicked off for the night. Breen devotes the entire page to a discussion. I'll be merging the references and notes. Sometimes people use the references for things like Breen, p. 582 and notes for things like textual footnotes, but I usually keep all that in one section. I started this article about five years ago and I am returning to it to see if I can do a better job on it. I haven't added images yet but I have one or two in mind.--Wehwalt (talk) 08:44, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I see. I hadn't added the citation for Breen yet. Taken care of that now.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:54, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I understand it better now, thanks. Arkmanda (talk) 23:35, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Choice of words[edit]

When reading this sentence, "Regardless of date of coining, each coin bears the dual date "1776-1976".", of seems redundant. Could it say "Regardless of the date coined, each coin bears the dual date "1776-1976"."? Should it be "dual dates"? and regarding the dates in quotation, "1776-1976", Why are the dates connected by a dash when the actual coin shows a dot? Arkmanda (talk) 00:00, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, though I will probably change the text anyway so I don't use the word "date" twice so close to each other. Perhaps "regardless of when struck, each coins bears the dual date 1976-1976. I agree, it's a dot, but it seems to be rendered as a dash in the sources and that is what it is meant to imply, the anniversary timespan.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:06, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So the quotation marks mean, this is how it is shown in the source and not, this is exactly how it appears in reality? Arkmanda (talk) 00:09, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What does a dot between two numbers mean? A dash is understood. I see your point, but isn't that just an artistic liberty on the part of the Mint?--Wehwalt (talk) 00:14, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I know, a dot between two numbers means to multiply, so I am sure you are correct that it is an artistic liberty. I was just confused to the reasoning for the quotation marks. I thought it was trying to imply exactly this way. The punctuation threw me because it emphasized some particular meaning that I wasn't getting from the reading. If the dates were shown outside of quotations, I would have understood no less than an inclusive span of time. Sometimes a word will be italicized and it throws me unless I know the reason for distinguishing it. If any of that makes sense. Arkmanda (talk) 00:23, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No, it is fine. I should keep it out of quotation marks then.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:31, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Also, that was in the article before I went to work on it. Sometimes it takes me a little while to smooth out inconsistencies. I read my articles over and over again. It takes time to wear them smooth.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:34, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The dual date[edit]

This is one aspect of the article I failed to mention during the review. Every example of the dual date is shown in the article with an en dash except the first occurrence in the lead. I did mean to inquire about this inconsistency. I think the MOS calls for the en dash, unless there is a better reason not to which eludes me at this time. Thanks for considering this aspect as well. My76Strat (talk) 05:59, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

OK, nice catch. On my browser it is hard to see the difference.--Wehwalt (talk) 06:33, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Now a FA in Chinese Wikipedia[edit]

I have translated this article to Chinese Wikipedia here and promoted to FA status, and I want to thank User:Wehwalt for his effort to write this amazing article. --Jarodalien (talk) 08:34, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Like Amazing work! ---Another Believer _(Talk) 05:54, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent!--Wehwalt (talk) 09:12, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]