Talk:Lafayette dollar

Honorary citizen of the US - out by one!
There's now an eighth - Bernardo de Gálvez (July 2014) - Congress document. Not sure what source is best to use. BencherliteTalk 12:06, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Oh, Lord, they're passing them out on street corners. Let me look at it.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:08, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Not actually yet, Obama hasn't signed it. I've bookmarked the page and once he does I will look for news coverage.  Thanks.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:10, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

First to depict a US citizen
If this coin is the first to depict a US citizen, is it also the first to depict a real, non-mythological, non-symbolic human? At the time of its coinage, Lafayette, if I am not mistaken, Lafayette was not yet an honorary citizen, so the US citizen depicted was Washington, and this coin is also the first US coin to depict a foreign national. TomS TDotO (talk) 11:13, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
 * It does seem an odd way of expressing it - as if previous coins depicted non-US citizens. I would describe it as the first US coin to depict a real historical person (rather than Liberty or an un-named character). I think Lafayette was conferred with honorary citizenship within his lifetime.Mattojgb (talk) 15:18, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Columbus and Isabella had appeared on coins in 1892-93. Lafayette was a citizen because Connecticut and two or three other states granted him citizenship, for the most part during his 1784 visit.  It's discussed in his article.  I can explicitly say, drawing on sources from the Lafayette article (because the coin sources don't address this) that he was a US citizen, but I'm trying to finesse the sources. They all focus on Washington but I've come to realize that's only partially right.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:23, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
 * OK. I am glad that I didn't just "correct" this. Thank you.   TomS TDotO (talk) 20:47, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

Horses' Feet
According to the article: "His horse has two feet up, which, by some accounts, in art means Lafayette died on the battlefield, which he did not—one hoof up would mean a battlefield wound, and all four feet on the ground means the subject died a natural death." There's no source given for this business about horses' feet, and since the coin doesn't actually follow the convention described, is it really relevant to the article anyway? Chuntuk (talk) 11:55, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

PS. I've only heard of the horses' feet rule being applied to statues - in which context it is debunked at http://www.snopes.com/military/statue.asp. Chuntuk (talk) 12:01, 3 December 2015 (UTC)


 * It's in the source at the end of the paragraph. You do not have to include a footnote on every sentence, the one next following in the paragraph is meant to cover it.  And it's in there.  It's a depiction of an intended statue, after all, though Bartlett eventually altered it.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:17, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
 * See Equestrian statue   TomS TDotO (talk) 13:33, 3 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the pointer on where those "some accounts" may be found, but I still think the sentence about horses' feet is irrelevant to this article. If there were a properly sourced indication that the sculptor/coinmaker intended to pass some information by the configuration of the horse's legs, then it would belong in the article. But (unless we have any information to the contrary) it appears that the sculptor just arranged the horse in a way that looked best to him, and which didn't happen to conform to the convention dreamed up about such things by persons unknown (cf. Snopes article above). I suggest the sentence in question be removed. Chuntuk (talk) 13:37, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
 * All right.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:02, 3 December 2015 (UTC)