Talk:Double eagle

2009 High Relief Image
Suggest adding an image of the 2009 High Relief version from an angle that displays the drastic concave nature of the new versions  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.100.104.17 (talk) 22:19, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

The 2009 High Relief coin has a $50 face value and is therefore not a double eagle. Wlmg (talk) 20:43, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Merge St. Gaudens Double Eagle into Double Eagle
Seems like two articles describing the same coin. I believe there is a Liberty Double Eagle (1877-1907) and a St. Gaudens Double Eagle (1907-1933). However, I doubt that two (or three) articles are required to describe Double Eagles. nirvana2013 11:36, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't agree. We have individual articles for different designs of other US coinage, for example, Lincoln cent or Susan B. Anthony Dollar. I see no reason to merge.--Wehwalt 19:08, 1 June 2006 (UTC)


 * It seems the St. Gaudens Double Eagle has sufficient info to warrant an article on it's own, and being the highest priced and one of the most well known coins around doesn't hurt.  Joe I  19:24, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Alternatively, Double Eagle could become a disambiguation page linking to Liberty Double Eagle and St. Gaudens Double Eagle articles. nirvana2013 12:56, 4 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Damnit, ther's also 1933 Double Eagle, shouldn't that be merged with St. Gaudens Double Eagle, unless I'm missing something. But yes, if no merge, definatly a disambiguation page.   Joe I  00:00, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

from the article: "…There are other extremely rare types of St. Gaudens double eagles, minted in 1907."

Still think both articles are about the same coin "design" the St. Gaudens Double Eagle. That article has info about the designer. The 1933 Double Eagle article describes the high auction price and history of that "individual" series of the same St. Gaudens Double Eagle. Suggest changing this article into the disambiguation page (and delete the awkward and mis-capitalized Double eagle (disambiguation) - and also include the link to the Liberty Double Eagle. P.S. The 1933 Double Eagle article is interesting, nearly a Featured article candidate. —dogears (talk • contribs) 04:39, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Citation for 1933's for display
Hmmm... I don't know that the mint ever actually "said" that they intended to save the coins for display, but this photo was taken in Atlanta in April at the ANA show. So it would seem their display is a result, but maybe not an intention.  Bobby  I'm Here, Are You There? 01:58, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Merge Suggested Part 2
I've put these two up for merge again because it seems like the information is duplicated in both articles. Although St. Gaudens Double Eagle only deals with the St. Gaudens coins, Double Eagle is for all double eagles, and the information available there on the St. Gaudens' era coins is considerably less. I know this argument was shot down before, and I'd like to suggest an alternative. Make Double Eagle a disambig page with minimal info and consolidate the info about each era (Liberty Head and St. Gaudens) into their own articles.-MBK004 21:32, 12 September 2007 (UTC)


 * How is it handled with other denominations of coinage? I think we have too much specific info in this article to merge well into Double Eagle.  In addition, as I pointed out in the original debate, Lincoln cent and many other specific types of coinage have their own articles, as do specific denominations.  I just don't see that it would be worth doing.--Wehwalt 21:37, 12 September 2007 (UTC)


 * If there is too much specific info, then wouldn't Double Eagle have not enough specific information? What about the pre-St. Gaudens Double Eagles, they deserve their own article, don't they? I agree that there does exist a large amount of information, but between these two and 1933 Double Eagle, there seems to be information repeated several times over when it really doesn't need to be because of the interwiki linking we use. You're right, many specific types of coins have their own articles, along with the denominations, but in this case, there is a visible gap in the amount of information available for the earlier double eagles compared to the later (St. Gaudens). I started this merge suggestion as a way to provoke discussion on ways of rectifying this. I would be perfectly content to see the articles remain separate. I'm just asking for opinions and ways to improve the articles.-MBK004 21:42, 12 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I think a better answer is improving the Double Eagle article, for example, putting in the reasons for starting to coin the denomination (territorial gold, other California gold interests), fictional references. And there should probably be an article on Liberty Double Eagle, as you said.--Wehwalt 11:11, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

I have to agree with Wehwalt. A merge is not the appropriate action here. Caerwine Caer’s whines 16:28, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

How much does a Double Eagle Weigh?
This coin wasmoney and made in a time when the weight of gold money, and its purity was absolutely vital. Debts were denominated in gold by weight. So, how much did a double eagle weigh and how pure was it?

This article also needs a lot of cleaning up. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.111.71.197 (talk) 20:42, 26 November 2007 (UTC)


 * St. Gaudens Double Eagle says

Hence the gold content was worth $20 at the then official price of $20.67/oz. Rod57 (talk) 18:17, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) Weight: 33.436 grams (516 grains) (1.075 troy ounces)
 * 2) Composition: 90% gold, 10% copper
 * 3) Gold Content: ~30.093 grams (464.4 grains) (0.9675 troy ounces)

Naw that's wrong. The double eagle had about 10% silver and a lesser amount of copper.

Wlmg (talk) 20:45, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Intro - Value of gold content
The intro could say that at the time the DEs were issued (1849 to 1933) the official price of gold was $20.67/troy oz (Gold Reserve Act). Rod57 (talk) 12:45, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Question For Wikipedians
Should a couple of interesting items, but aside items, be included, or are they beyond the scope of what a wikipedia.com entry on the aspects of a specific subject necessitates? Below items are easily verifiable via Google search, but are they important enough to include in main article? Google Term 1 "Counterfeit, full gold-weight double eagle coins" Google Term 2 "U.S. Mint Confiscates 10 Rare Gold Coins" 1

Counterfeit - Double Eagles
Counterfeit, full gold-weight double eagle coins still plague U.S. gold coin collectors. Full-weight fake gold coins exist; they were created by the millions in Europe during the early-to-mid twentieth century, not to defraud collectors but because gold coins issued by a nation were worth a premium over gold bullion ingots, when sold to banks. Some experts estimate the problem may affect as many as 10% to 15% of all U.S. gold Double Eagles currently on the market, and that surely most are undetected by the average collector and dealer because the weight, diameter, thickness, color, and gold purity of the coins are all correct. ...and... 2

Is there any source for this? It sounds extremely dubious.

Wlmg (talk) 20:48, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

U.S. Mint Confiscates 10 Rare Gold Coins
Recently in the news was the story of a woman who had 10 gold Double Eagle coins confiscated from her by the United States Mint because no records exist that the coins were put in circulation in the first place, so the coins must of been "taken unlawfully". Certainly this seems a common enough action by the U.S. Mint on the surface, but the recent case, whereby private property was taken by the U.S. Mint, should it give pause for reflection? The constitutional right to own private property as well as Freedom and Liberty are main ideals etcetera type of theme and does this warrant attention beyond the type of coin or really just an aside?

Who says the Liberty Head coins have "less desirable artwork?"
Is there some objective form of measurement for deciding which designs are "less desirable?" If so, a specialist needs to add the cite. Otherwise this sounds like someone's subjective opinion based only on which design they find more appealing.

One would expect the older design to be rarer -- particularly in higher grades -- but perhaps that is not true. Can any coin experts provide documentation? (71.22.47.232 (talk) 10:35, 20 January 2011 (UTC))


 * I am glad to see this section as I agree that the "less desirable" wording is subjective. I'd like to see some references to back that claim up.  Jus  da  fax   08:51, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Values of current coins
In the second paragraph of the 1933 Double Eagle section, there's a discussion of the cost of the one legally sold double eagle and what it would cost to assemble a set with or without it. First of all, this is all subjective, since values of coins to collectors change over time based on many factors, including rarity, inherent metal value, quality, and what someone will pay for it then, now, or later. Secondly, even if this is all taken into account, the section has no basis in time: "Without the rare pattern, the set would be less than $750,000." In today's dollars? U. S. dollars? U. S. dollars as they were valued when the 1933 coin was sold for $7.6 million? And will this amount be true in the future? This is definitely a problem IMHO. 01:13, 21 July 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.253.143.182 (talk)

Image Contradicts Article?
Can someone explain why the article says that the value should show as "Twenty D." through 1876 and the lede image is an 1875 coin that says "Twenty Dollars" (which should not appear until 1877)? Obviously NOT a huge deal, just curious. 159.53.110.140 (talk) 20:44, 24 March 2015 (UTC) (posted by User:Kevin.159.53 - can't sign in from work)

Size?
What is the physical size of these coins? None of the pictures show anything other than the coins themself, so there is no scale to compare them to. Some indication of their size, say in comparison to a current coin, would be helpful. T bonham (talk) 22:07, 11 September 2018 (UTC)