Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Liberty Head double eagle/archive1

< Wikipedia:Featured article candidates

Liberty Head double eagle edit

The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Ian Rose 07:03, 21 June 2014 [1].

Liberty Head double eagle (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Toolbox
Nominator(s): Wehwalt (talk) 19:13, 31 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about... a big coin. Really, in its day, it was more considered a known weight of gold as much as it was spending money, because then, twenty dollars was a fair sum of cash. It was only much later that it really was considered a collectable, and one that we can certainly admire for its beauty.Wehwalt (talk) 19:13, 31 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments

  • One DAB needs to be resolved.
  • Congress adjusted the weight perhaps "revised" instead of "adjusted"?
  • the truncation of the head what does this mean? And I haven't been able to spot the initials on the photos either. That's all I've spotted on this pass. I'll make another one later.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 20:12, 31 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
My eyes hurt. "Truncation" means cut off, that is, where the depiction of the head ends. Look directly above the gap between the 5 and the 6 in the date. Really, it is clearer in the 1904 coin shown further down in the article. I've dealt with the other issues. Thank you for the review and the image review.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:25, 31 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Image Review

  • All images appropriately licensed.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 20:12, 31 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't see any issues on this pass, the thorough reviews by Crisco and Brian seem to have caught everything.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 02:56, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Crisco comments
    • The coin was immediately successful: merchants and banks used it in trade. - Is the colon the best choice?
    • Latin American gold coins for that purpose. - do we have something this can be linked to? Sounds interesting.
The Colombian real article is the closest we come, we're talking about the Colombian gold 8-escudo piece, or the Spanish equivalent struck at the colonial mints. [[Doubloon.jpg]] shows it, but the license situation there is hopeless and I wouldn't waste my time adding it.
    • the Double eagle - Caps in original?
Yeah.
    • According to numismatist David Lange, "the double eagle was a banker's coin intended to simplify transfers of large sums between financial institutions and between nations". - is this so controversial that we have to both quote and attribute it? Simply paraphrasing might be enough
He's the sole source I have that says it, and his book is a much more general purpose history of the Mint than the specialized books I otherwise used. So yeah, I want to hang the view on him. After all, Taxay's account of the debates does not mention it.
    • metal galvano - anything to link here?
Pipe to electrotyping added.
    • In addition, the head was in such high relief that the coins would not stack. - is this objective fact or Peale's opinion (perhaps as part of an underhanded deal against Longacre)
I've added that it was Peale's allegation, and given what I've put in both Peale's and Longacre's articles, probably inaccurate, but who is going to put a unique coin into a stack to check?
    • Q. David Bowers - might be worth including "numismatist"? You do later, but first mention is here
I think that's fixed now.
    • that Liberty's head opposed the eagle
That's a shortened form of Peale's allegation in the previous paragraph regarding metal flow and high points of the coin.
    • It is not the specimen sent to Meredith, which is unlocated, and which is said to have been owned in the 1950s by coin dealer William K. Nagy, whose former business partner John W. Haseltine supposedly acquired it from the Meredith estate. - Might be worth simplifying this
I have, though I worry that the point, that this piece is not the one in the NNC, is going to get lost.
    • One piece, in gilt brass, was later struck for Philadelphia druggist and numismatist Robert Coulton Davis, who had close ties to the Mint. - Perhaps be explicit that this is an 1849 striking?
Inserted.
    • Bowers, writing in 2004, stated that despite the negative contemporary reaction, the design of the double eagle is very popular among collectors. - specify modern collectors?
"Now" inserted, which I hope in combination with the date, you'll accept.
    • The section Type III (1877–1907) has some serious whitespace issues.
    • Is the background leading to the establishment of the SF Mint really necessary? You mention SF in the paragraph before and the paragraph below already goes into more details regarding SF and the double eagle
Since having an efficient way of striking California gold was a major point of the double eagle, I think we can continue a modest amount of detail past "preparation".
    • SS Central America and others. Ship name should be formatted SS Central America, not SS Central America
Fine.
They haven't said how that one will be sold. They are only starting to sell them. While they say it is valued at close to a million, I'm concerned about puffery. I'd prefer to at least wait for the auction announcement. If they plan to put it in the August auctions associated with the ANA convention in Chicago, there will likely be an announcement soon, if not, we can wait.
    • An additional leaf was added to the olive branch, making a total of nine, and the shape of the leaves was changed. - did this have a symbolic meaning?
The leaves themselves? Not that I've ever heard.--Wehwalt (talk) 06:12, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Double eagles were unpopular in commerce in the South, as were eagles. - Any reason why?
Not seen anything definite on this, but I think it goes back to the private gold coins that circulated in the South in the early 19th century being small. Or perhaps that was symptomatic. The article I read on Peale and the set-up of the Charlotte and Dahlonega mints in the 1830s didn't discuss why eagles were not to be coined there (the double eagle was later).
    • Both paragraphs in #Replacement begin with dates
Adjusted.
    • Personally I think both paragraphs in #Replacement could be merged.
On balance, I think one long paragraph is too much. I'd rather keep it split.
    • Was there any downturn in the general popularity of the Liberty Head double eagle before it was discontinued, or was Roosevelt entirely to blame? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 12:32, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Not that I've seen. The gold coins and the cent were the oldest extant designs, and were clearly available for redesign under the 1890 act. I've never seen any specific complaint about the double eagle dating from that time.--Wehwalt (talk) 06:12, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I think I've caught everything. Thank you for the review.--Wehwalt (talk) 06:21, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - All my concerns have been addressed. Fantastic piece of work. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 06:23, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you most kindly. I appreciate the high praise indeed.--Wehwalt (talk) 09:29, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - spotchecks not done

  • Some of the technical details in the infobox appear to not be sourced anywhere
  • FN50: the date given is not the same as that shown in the link - did it change? Nikkimaria (talk) 12:47, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I have placed an overall source on top. Apparently the article was updated. I've changed those. Thank you.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:28, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Another competent and informative article to add to the prestigious coins stable. Some mainly minor issues/suggestions:

Lead
  • "The gold dollar and double eagle were the result. After considerable infighting at the Philadelphia Mint, Chief Engraver James B. Longacre designed the coin...": Two different coins were the result, Longacre designed "the coin". Minor clarification needed
Double eagle, then.
  • "it began to be issued in commerce in 1850" – slightly clumsy? Perhaps "began commercial issue in 1850"?
Slight modification from that.
Inception
  • Give year for California Gold Rush, to avoid necessity of consulting link
  • "McKay introduced a version into the House..." – "a version of the bill into the House"?
Both done.
Preparation
  • I'm familiar with Peale's peccadilloes from a previous article, but I wonder whether it's necessary to refer to them here? They don't appear especially relevant to the preparation of the double eagle. On my reading, Longacre was the outsider at the Mint because of his association with Calhoun, not because of direct conflict with Peale's activities. Or were there other factors at work? It does seem a little strange that the Mint director and Chief Coiner should deliberately seek to sabotage the production of the new coin, on personal grounds. What were they seeking to achieve?
I had been troubled by the need to recite that story in yet another article (this is now the fourth) on reviewing the article pre-FAC and that was one reason I kept putting off nominating this one. But even though we are heartily sick of the Peale-Longacre conflict, this is the approximate level of detail at which we are covering pre-issue preparations, where information is available. I have cut it back by several sentences which didn't seem to involve the double eagle.
Re what P/P were trying to accomplish: The conventional wisdom seems to be that they wanted Longacre's position left vacant or awarded to someone more trustworthy. Until then, after all, Longacre had not had much to do; the position had been a sinecure for him, allowing him to learn the art of die-sinking. The Contamin lathe had eliminated much of the need for an Engraver, since the early incumbents spent most of their time making new dies by hand. And Peale's personal view (expressed in his 1835 report) was that designs should be selected by competition. Otherwise, I expect that they thought that if a new design was needed, they could have Peale do it or else have it contracted outside the Mint. I am suspicious of the conventional wisdom though, as so much of it seems to come from Longacre. If we can view it as accurate, I suppose Peale felt that there was no urgent need for a double eagle, and once Longacre was fired, they could fix things up. Most of the latter half of the paragraph is personal speculation though.
  • Grammar: "He enclosed a double eagle, asking that if Meredith approved of the piece, to send word as quickly as possible..." → "He enclosed a double eagle, asking Meredith, if he approved of the piece, to send word as quickly as possible..."
  • On the same point: do we know how many double eagles were made in 1849? Only a few, I imagine. The last paragraph of the section mentions several, only one of which is known to be extant.
No. They were not regular-issue, as the design had not yet been approved, and would not be listed in the annual Mint Director's report.
  • A parenthetical note after "Taylor administration": "(which took office on March 5, 1849)" – might be helpful
  • "He found that Meredith had been lied to by Patterson..." → "He found that Patterson had lied to Meredith..."
Both accomplished.
Design
  • "thirteen stars and the date – year rather than date?
    "year of issue"
  • Final sentence of first para: as you have previously mentioned the thirteen stars, I sugggest you revise this sentence slightly: "Above the bird, the thirteen stars, representative of the original states, are arranged as a halo, together with an arc of rays".
I've played with it some.
  • "He did find that the reverse "has some commendable points of heraldic imagery"[27] and that side of the coin is "like the frontispiece for a patriotic brochure". I have tweaked this sentence - see what you think.
Looks OK, thanks.
  • This design section doesn't refer to the variations that were introduced with the later versions of the coin
No, but the description is generic enough to refer to any of the three.
Type I (1850–1866)
  • As the section heading includes the date range 1850–66, the reference to minting "some double eagles" at New Orleans in 1879 is a little puzzling. Were these late mintings of Type 1?
Deleted. They were not.
  • "Only a handful of the Philadelphia specimens were not melted, but by the time word reached San Francisco to stop production, almost 20,000 had been issued." To me, it would seem logical to flip this sentence: "By the time word reached San Francisco to stop production, almost 20,000 of the Philadelphia specimens had been issued, all but a handful of which were melted".
As it is the San Francisco pieces that numbered five figures, I've played with it.
Type II (1866–1876)
  • Tautology: "An additional leaf was added..."
I've played with it.
Type III (1877–1907)
  • "In 1876, William Barber..." – maybe just "Barber"
As for almost all of this period, Charles Barber was Chief Engraver, probably best not to confuse anyone coming to the section cold.
  • It is not totally clear from the text what the 1876 changes made by Barber were, though you discuss the following year's changes in detail.
Played with as well.
Replacement
  • "Other commissions and cancer delayed his work" – a little stark for my tastes.
Collecting
  • No points of issue here.

Looking forward to supporting. Brianboulton (talk) 13:37, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for that indeed. I've addressed all your points, I hope.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:43, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support: I'm happy with your responses, no further issues. Brianboulton (talk) 10:22, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks to everyone for the reviews and for the supports we have three supports an image review and a source review.--Wehwalt (talk) 10:00, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Liberty_Head_double_eagle/archive1&oldid=614306902"