Talk:Refunding Certificate

File:US-$10-RC-1879-Fr-214.jpg to appear as POTD soon
Hello! This is a note to let the editors of this article know that File:US-$10-RC-1879-Fr-214.jpg will be appearing as picture of the day on May 26, 2016. You can view and edit the POTD blurb at Template:POTD/2016-05-26. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 00:27, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

1907, 1885
The article states:
 * In 1907, Congress passed an act that ended the interest accrual of the certificates, and fixed the value of them at $21.30, over twice their face value. By January 1, 1885, all but $260,000 (99.4%) in face value had been redeemed, and since that time most others have met the same fate.

The original version of the page said:
 * However, in 1907, Congress passed an act that ended the interest accrual of the certificates, and fixed the value of them at $21.30, over twice their face value. Needless to say, by January 1, 1885, all but $260,000 in face value had been redeemed, and since that time most others have met the same fate.

The "Needless to say" suggests that the second sentence is a consequence of the first, which only makes sense if one of the dates is incorrect: e.g. if 1907 were changed to 1877, or if 1885 were changed to 1908. jnestorius(talk) 15:11, 26 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Also wondered about this. Searching for it, the 1907 date seems well established (would be interesting to track down the act of Congress). I can't find anything for 1885 that isn't just a repeat from this page, but then again don't have access to the sources mentioned at the end. My thought is that it's just very badly worded and ordered, rather than a typo. &#8209;&#8209; Yodin T 09:03, 27 May 2016 (UTC)


 * please can you confirm your source for the 1885 fact? &#8209;&#8209; Yodin T 20:55, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

Percentage does not make sense
The percentage in this sentence does not make sense: "By January 1, 1885, all but $260,000 (99.4%) [sic] in face value had been redeemed, and since that time most others have met the same fate." Shouldn't the percentage be ".6%"? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Autodidact1 (talk • contribs) 19:39, 28 May 2016 (UTC)