Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 05:15, 4 January 2011

Morgan dollar is currently an Economics and business good article nominee. Nominated by RHM22 (talk) at 18:58, 1 January 2011 (UTC) An editor has indicated a willingness to review the article in accordance with the good article criteria and will decide whether or not to list it as a good article. Comments are welcome from any editor who has not nominated or contributed significantly to this article. This review will be closed by the first reviewer. To add comments to this review, click discuss review and edit the page.

Numismatics B‑class Mid‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Numismatics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of numismatics and currencies on Misplaced Pages. 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 B This article has been rated as B-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Greatest silver strike in history?

The History section starts with "The Comstock Lode, the greatest silver strike in history..." Comstock yielded much less silver than Potosí (192 million oz, according to Econ Geol (1989) 84:1574-1613), so I fear the word "greatest" is misleading at best. How about rephrasing to something like "one of the greatest silver strikes..."? Comments/criticisms?

(Be gentle with me, I'm a wikipedia newbie) Bobrayner (talk) 15:56, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Very nicely done

Here are some comments. I made some changes directly.

• Lede

Something should be said in the lede about the 1921 resurrection of the Morgan dollar.

Do you think it is "Morgan Dollar" or "Morgan dollar"?

• Background

Lede mentions free coinage of silver and gold, body just mentions silver. Also, you should somewhere mention and link to "Free Silver"

"Protests also came" You haven't mentioned any protests yet.

Restore legal tender. What you've written is a bit fuzzy. Certainly the Trade dollar was not a legal tender, though some argue that the Coinage Act of 1965 made it legal tender. But standard silver dollars (Seated Liberty, for example) as far as I know have always been legal tender. What you really mean, I think, is that they wanted to coin legal-tender dollars, not trade dollars.

• Design history

"Chief Engraver". He's often called that. Technically, he was "Engraver of the Mint". I think either "Chief Engraver" or "Engraver" would be fine, so long as you are consistent about it. I learned this during doing these coin articles.

• Production

"Linderman desired to involve the western mints of San Francisco and Carson City in production in order to help reach the monthly quota necessary under the Bland–Allison act" Well, yeah, but also the fact that they were nearer the silver mines might have had something to do with it. Does the source mention it?

You probably should mention that at that time, all dies were prepared at Philly and shipped.

• Sherman Act

You probably should mention when the Sherman Act was passed. Also be good to mention why the act was repealed.

• Pittman Act

The Pittman Act did not need to mention the redesign. The replacement of the Morgan dollar was authorized by the Act of September 26, 1890 which is a footnote in Liberty Head nickel.

• Treasury releasee somewhere in there,

Probably should mention that they were cashing in silver certificates, and that most silver coins thereafter ceased to be struck for circulation.

When I get a chance, I'll look to get you more detail, I'm sure Taxay talks about the Morgan Dollar. And my copy of Breen.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:20, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the suggestions and for all the edits. I've fixed nearly everything you mentioned, but I'm unsure of two things. Firstly, I don't know if Linderman's interest in the western mints had anything to do with their proximity the great silver deposits or not. I don't see anything in my source about that. I'm certain that the location probably did weigh on their minds, though. I'll reread the whole section of the book again to make absolutely sure that there's no mention, because it does seem like an important fact.

Secondly, as for the Peace dollar thing, the only reason I mentioned that is because that's what the source said. From what I understand, officials used the Pittman act as justification for the redesign, even though it wasn't necessary or even correct. I'm not really sure what to make of it. It's the Red Book, so it seems very reliable, but I don't know where I could find a second source to be 100% sure.

Anyway, thanks again for all the help! By the way, the Breen book is really great. I never owned one because the aftermarket price is so high, but I read quite a bit of it when it was briefly offered online for free.-RHM22 (talk) 06:05, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

I haven't looked at Breen yet, but Taxay contains a considerable amount of detail on the inception of the Morgan dollar. The Mint was very much on the ball on this one (unusual for them) and that is why Morgan was doing all those patterns. I will add it in when I get the chance, certainly some time this week. The nickel passed FA, so that is good. I am hopeful of getting to Peace dollar this week but time is short and Carousel (musical) is complicated. You might want to see if you could get a cheap used copy of Bowers' book on Morgans.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:47, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Between Taxay, Volume III of Burdette, and the Bowers book on Peace dollars, don't worry, we will clear up that point.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:52, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Nice work on buffalo nickel. Jefferson nickel is the only nickel article (unless you count half dimes) that's not FA I think.

Yeah, VAM talks about all the patterns Morgan did (or at least the ones that relate to the dollar). I didn't really want to go into too much detail so the article becomes too complicated for people who aren't interested in coins, but there is certainly some extra information if you think it worthwhile to add it. By the way, could you please move the article to "Morgan dollar" so the denomination isn't capitalized? I forgot about that from your comments last night. I'll change the bolded section in the lead also. I would have moved it myself, but there's already a redirect page with that title, and I don't think I can move it and the talk page.-RHM22 (talk) 15:15, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Nevermind that Jefferson nickel thing. I checked, and it's not even an article! For some reason, it redirects to an article about every United States five cent coin.-RHM22 (talk) 15:16, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Ok, I found out for sure now. VAM page 409 lists the legislation that approved the Morgan dollar: "RESOLVED by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That as soon as practicable after the passage of this resolution, all standard silver dollars coined under the provisions of Section 2 of the Act entitled 'An Act to conserve the gold supply of the United States; to provide silver for subsidiary coinages and for commercial use; to assist foreign Governments at war with the enemies of the United States; and for the above purposes to stabilize the price and encourage the production of silver,' approved April 23, 1918, shall be of an appropriate design commemorative of the terminations of the war between the Imperial German Government and the people of the United States." For some reason, they used the Pittman act to authorize the coin instead of the 1890 act.-RHM22 (talk) 19:27, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

• I looked at my copies of Taxay and Breen, they talk much about the stupidity of the Bland-Allison Act but really don't have much that you need.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:16, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Surely, though VAM mentions that the original hubs and so forth for the silver dollar were destroyed by the Mint in around 1909 when they were trying to get rid of a lot of obsolete hubs, and when they had to issue it again in 1921, it was totally reengraved.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:19, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Yes, new master dies were created in 1921. VAM lists the date of destruction of the dies as 1910. Should I add that to the article?-RHM22 (talk) 13:21, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Definitely. Volume 2 of Burdette has a long discussion of this point, little of which is relevant to the Morgan dollar. Usual power struggle within the Mint, as usual involving Charles Barber.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:42, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Ok, I'll add it into the Pittman Act section. VAM only says that Morgan created the dies by hand rather than using the Janvier reducing lathe and that minor changes were made to the design. Does Burdette go into any more detail about the clash of Barber and Morgan?-RHM22 (talk) 14:09, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

By the way, you wouldn't happen to have a GSA Morgan in the plastic case, would you? A scan of one of those would be perfect for the article.-RHM22 (talk) 03:57, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

No, I wanted one when I was a kid, but never bought one as a grownup.--Wehwalt (talk) 04:05, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

I don't have one either. To be honest, I don't even like Morgan dollars. I only have a couple as type coins. The story behind them is very interesting, though. It oftens ends up that the story is more interesting than the coin. Anyway, I added a little sentence in there about the creation of new master dies in 1921.-RHM22 (talk) 04:33, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Same here. Probably in my safe deposit box. The story is almost always the most interesting part. I think we are seeing that as we plow through numismatic history.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:16, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Definitely. I'm hopeful that we'll be able to cover every U.S. coin design.

Do you think I should nominate this for GA? It's not FA quality yet, is it? It seems a little short to me for FA, but I'm not sure what else I should add. VAM has some information about how the designs were modified slightly throughout production. Do you think I should add that, or is it too technical/obscure?-RHM22 (talk) 15:36, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

I think you should, and was going to propose it in a day or so. You need more outside feedback.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:04, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Ok, I've nominated it for GA.-RHM22 (talk) 19:00, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Racepacket (talk) 05:12, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Three disamb. links require attention: Silver dollar, William Barber and Morgan Dollar (with a capital D). External links check out.

GA review (see here for criteria)

I will be reviewing your article. It clearly represents a lot of work.

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

   Why is the Bland-Allison Act separated by a hyphen sometimes and a ndash other times?

   Please reword: "In the early 1960s, a large amount of uncirculated Morgan dollars were found to be available from the Treasury vaults for face value." Sale at face value is a separate idea.

   In the Production Section, capitalize "Act" before .

   "Cleveland, who believed that the Panic of 1893 was caused by the Sherman act, called the session in order to repeal the provisions of the Sherman Silver Purchase Act."->"Cleveland, who believed that the Panic of 1893 was caused by the Sherman Silver Purchase Act, called the session in order to repeal it." - Please avoid calling it the "Sherman act" to avoid confusion with the better known antitrust law.

   Perhaps change "as a coin to commemorate peace." -> " as a coin to commemorate the end of World War I."?

   "conducted a total of seven between"->" conducted a total of seven sales between" or were they auctions?

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

   Why is this sentence relevant, " On July 23, 1965, the Coinage Act of 1965 was approved. The act eliminated all silver in the dime and quarter dollar, and reduced the silver in the half dollar from ninety percent to forty percent." ?

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

   no edit wars.

6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

   In File:Philadelphia, Mint coining press, from Robert N. Dennis collection of stereoscopic views.png, I don't understand why you feel that this photo is in the public domain. Perhaps the wrong template is being used. Do you know when the photo was first published? If it was before 1923 you can use a different template to claim expiration of copyright.

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   Placing article on hold.Racepacket (talk) 05:44, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the review! I believe I've addressed all of your concerns. I don't know the exact date of the card, but I know it's before 1923, so I added a PD-US tag.-RHM22 (talk) 17:46, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Congratulations. Racepacket (talk) 21:44, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

• Good article nominees
• Good article nominees on review
• B-Class numismatic articles
• Mid-importance numismatic articles
• WikiProject Numismatics articles