Talk:Shield nickel

Erroneous discussion of the "Shield"
The discussion of the nature, symbolism, etc. of the "shield" reads as if it were something novel developed for the coin. In fact it is simply the shield from the coat of arms of the United States, dating to 1782. See http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/27807.pdf. 76.199.89.188 (talk) 12:18, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
 * It's not identically the same, but in any event, it's new to the reader and ought to be explained.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:04, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Rapid advancement
Boo-rah! This article went from a DYK in late August 2010 to a Featured Article in early October! Kudos to all involved, especially Wehwalt! --Piledhigheranddeeper (talk) 18:50, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Corrections to introduction

 * The Shield nickel was a five cent coin in the currency of the United States, issued from 1866 until 1883, when it was replaced by the Liberty Head nickel. It was designed by James B. Longacre, and is the first United States five cent piece to be made out of copper-nickel, the same alloy of which American five cent coins are struck today. Taking its name from the motif on the obverse side and the material from which it was made, it contributed the designation "nickel" to coins of that denomination, previously called half dimes.


 * The above is my revision to the introductory paragraph. Wehwalt reversed it, on the grounds that it is "inaccurate". This may indeed be the case. This is not my area of expertise. My intention was not to change the facts, but to put the facts that I gleaned from reading the introduction into an order that could be understood by a reader who was a) not from the USA, b) not knowlegable about currency.
 * An introduction should, within the first sentence, tell what it is, and date it. Following sentences in the introduction should give the interesting facts. Please reconsider my revision and remove or correct any information that is inaccurate, rather than simply reversing it to a state that is not meaningful to your non-informed, non-American. What is a half-dime?

Amandajm (talk) 02:46, 8 October 2010 (UTC)


 * I've added a sentence to the first paragraph and modified the second paragraph accordingly. I should note that it is ill-advised to rewrite the lede of the TFA on TFA day as it should broadly correspond to the blurb on main page, and discrepancies might cause confusion.  Perhaps a better route is to bring it to talk page first; if an edit receives short shrift on TFA day, it is often because of the rush of edits.  This article was targeted by vandalism to such an extent that it had to be semi-protected and then I believe full protected.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:13, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Mintages Section
Okay, this page needs a LOT of work. I took out the George Washington pattern image because it was WAY too small to be useful to the page, and replaced it with an "Indian Head" nickel pattern. Then I moved the James B. Longacre portrait upwards and then moved the first error date image to the left. This makes for a better flow on the page so it isn't as cluttered and looks more constructive. The only glaring flaw on this page that I see now is the mintages section, where there is a gigantic table. It's on the far right of the page, leaving a ton of white space and then after the gigantic table is finished, it jumps to the see also section. Is there any way we can center that table or move it to the left? Possibly move the See Also and References sections into the white space so it isn't as lengthy with nothing to fill that space? Get back to me with possible ideas. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.179.136.5 (talk) 16:15, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Agreed on all counts. I think the table can be collapsed, but I'm not sure how so I will ask around.  I've got a few images of patterns, perhaps I can replace it with something more useful.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:08, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
 * The white space on the left can be filled with images, though I am not certain how many useful images I have. I have an 1871 proof (the image, not the coin, alas)--Wehwalt (talk) 18:12, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Now a FA in Chinese Wikipedia
I have translated this article to Chinese Wikipedia here and promoted to FA status, and I want to thank User:Wehwalt for his effort to write this amazing article. --Jarodalien (talk) 08:27, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Images
An IP, whom I will notify cf this discussion, has twice removed 's images making the point that the 1866 proof designs are not used for circulation strikes. Per this page, the IP seems to be correct, although it was a very fine distinction. I guess one question, Godot, is if you got any Shield nickel images that weren't 1866 proof.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:53, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
 * I screwed that up. Hopefully this will ping .--Wehwalt (talk) 18:55, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

I responded in UserTalk:Wehwalt with a detailed explanation of this issue. Copied here because I don't know where Godot13 will see it:

I created an account so you would see more than my IP address. I am the user (and shield nickel expert Howard Spindel) who reverted the edit that added high-res photos. I am also the provider of the lower-res photos. The high-res photos are of an 1866 proof, which used prototype dies and is not representative of production shield nickel minting practices. The issue has nothing to do with whether the 1866 is a proof or not (the 1878 originally shown is also a proof, but it uses production dies). BTW, I am also the author of the shield nickel hubs page cited at: http://www.shieldnickels.net/hubs/hubs.html. If you want to replace the current images with high-res images of production dies, I'd have no issue with that whether the hi-res images were of proofs or business strikes. (But there are other issues that used prototype dies, so be careful not to pick one of those.)

As a suggestion, if you need to include the high-res photos of an 1866 proof using prototype dies, you could add a section of text to the article discussing the prototype dies and include photos of the 1866 proof there (likely overkill for the intent of this article, but at least it would be accurate). IMO as a shield nickel expert, it is inaccurate to use prototype dies to illustrate the main point of the article. Howard Spindel (talk) 00:03, 7 September 2016 (UTC)


 * - Many thanks for the detailed explanation. Sadly, I was selecting coins by their initial mint date without having expertise in the field. I may be able to get another high res image down the road.--Godot13 (talk) 01:32, 7 September 2016 (UTC)


 * You're welcome. If you can find a high-res image from production dies, that would be great.  Alternatively, what is considered high-res?  I use a very old camera (Nikon 995) but it might be capable enough.

The prototype dies are back up today. May I understand the reasoning? Thank you.198.145.28.18 (talk) 22:20, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Sorry, my error. I accidentally added them back in changing the language as we agreed.  I've put yours back.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:59, 7 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Thank you for explaining!198.145.28.18 (talk) 08:12, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

Concurrent production of shield and liberty nickels
There is an article section which reads:

---

Shield nickels dated 1883 had already been coined by the time the Barber design was ready, and Mint officials desired to discourage speculation. Accordingly, they kept the shield design in production for several months side by side with what became known as the Liberty Head nickel. Almost a million and a half Shield nickels were struck in 1883.[32] Coinage of the Shield nickel was ended on June 26, 1883.

This section inaccurately quotes Peters & Mohon, who state that the mint desired to discourage speculation in *proof* shield nickels and continued their production until June 26, 1883. Nothing is said (or known to my knowledge) about when business strike shield nickel production was discontinued. The entire production of ~1.5M was within the mint's capability to produce within January, so there isn't a reason to assume "several months" of additional production. Howard Spindel (talk) 00:16, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Well, sorry about that. Do you have suggested phrasing?  I can massage the prose.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:29, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

Suggestion to replace the text I copied above: The Barber design was first struck on Jan. 30, 1883 and placed in circulation Feb. 1, 1883. Mint officials desired to discourage hoarding and speculation of 1883 proof shield nickels, and received permission on Feb. 6, 1883 to continue production of proof shield nickels concurrent with proofs of the Barber design. Proof shield nickels continued to be struck until June 26, 1883 when the last 1500 proof shield nickels were produced. [32] Howard Spindel (talk) 01:26, 7 September 2016 (UTC)


 * I've adopted that phrasing, with minor changes. Thank you, Howard.--Wehwalt (talk) 08:57, 7 September 2016 (UTC)