Talk:Twenty-cent piece (United States coin)

Untitled

The US was also considering joining the Latin Monetary Union with the dollar at 5 Francs. If they'd done that, then 1 Franc would've been exactly 20 cents. Was that part of the motivation? -- Nik42 04:39, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

It is one theory. See: [1], however, I believe by the time the coin actually came into production the idea had been dropped. Splarka 05:36, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Twenty-cent piece (United States coin)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Khazar2 (talk · contribs) 14:11, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

This one's next. -- Khazar2 (talk) 14:11, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Initial comments

Again, solid research and solid prose; clearly close to promotion. I'll hold this one until you've had a chance to address the bottom three points here.

• "the twenty-cent piece was made a legal tender up to five dollars" -- Am I understanding this phrase right that you couldn't use, say, 30 of them for a payment of six dollars? Interesting.

You are correct. Remember, we are not dealing with a token here, but a dollar defined by the gold standard, which the US was for all intents and purposes on. A full-weight gold coin was worth exactly what it said, it contained, say, ten dollars in gold if you melted it down. If you melted down $6 in twenty-cent pieces in 1875, you would have silver worth somewhat less than six dollars (I have the historic values of silver in my references). The dollar was defined as gold. Silver and base metal pieces had limited legal tender status.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:30, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

• " Vermeule admitted the pattern designs made by Barber, especially the "Liberty by the Seashore" design, which the historian believes owe a debt to the British copper coins of that period depicting Britannia—Barber was an Englishman by birth." -- this sentence seems to get a little confused--what is it that Vermeule is admitting here? I wonder if this could be untangled into two sentences--also, "admitted" should probably be avoided per WP:WTW in favor of "said" or "wrote".

It should have been "admired". Typo.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:39, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

• "He deems it appropriate" -- tense seems to be shifting here; Vermeule's other comments were relayed in past tense
• ""The new twenty-cent coin". The New York Times. April 29, 1875. Retrieved June 20, 2013." -- is this entry correct? The paper seems to be the Mansfield Herald

I've fixed the remainder. Thank you very much for the review.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:49, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Checklist

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.	See minor prose points above.
	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.
	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 as GA

Proofs

The lede seems slightly confusing. Proofs were struck in all 4 years of this coin's run. The statement, "for circulation in 1875 and 76 and for collectors the following two years" seems to indicate that proofs were only struck in 1877 and 78. Joefromrandb (talk) 06:27, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. Tweaked.--Wehwalt (talk) 08:35, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

Minting twenty-cent coins again

Does anybody thinks they have plans to mint the twenty-cent coins again — Preceding unsigned comment added by 162.222.219.230 (talk) 05:51, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

No, the coins Americans will accept right now are pretty set. I don't think will ever be minted again, except as a commemorative (the 150th anniversary will be in 2025)--Wehwalt (talk) 15:38, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

External links modified (February 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Twenty-cent piece (United States coin). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060811041051/http://www.coincommunity.com/us_coin_links/us_twenty_cents.asp to http://www.coincommunity.com/us_coin_links/us_twenty_cents.asp

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:07, 10 February 2018 (UTC)