Talk:Three-cent nickel

Repetition in the lead
I don't understand why it's considered proper to say twice in the lead that the coin was "initially popular". I have proposed a better form of words that avoids this redundancy, but have been reverted. I understand that this is how that article was when it passed FAC, but maybe it ought not to have passed without this being corrected. Caiaphodus (talk) 12:41, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
 * You omitted a sentence. That's hardly a change of form of words.  It's usual to give an executive summary in the lede paragraph then expand on it in the remainder of the lede.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:56, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
 * "Eliminating a sentence" is what eliminating repetition means in this case. And it is not at all usual to provide an executive summary of the lede in the opening paragraph. Should I raise this issue at WT:FAC? Caiaphodus (talk) 13:06, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Well, you can, but I've massaged the prose to avoid the "initially popular" repetition, which I agree was an oversight. Does that help?--Wehwalt (talk) 13:18, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
 * That's certainly an improvement, thanks. Caiaphodus (talk) 11:47, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I didn't realize you meant repeated phrasing. NP and thanks for pointing it out.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:32, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Lowering postal rates
another blow to the three-cent piece occurred on October 1, 1883 when the United States Post Office Department lowered first-class mail rates from three to two cents for the first 0.5 ounces (14 g).

I don't have my Scott United States Specialized Catalog handy, so I can't check its convenient chart of postal rate changes, but if I remember rightly, all nineteenth-century postal rate changes (or at least, all postal rate changes following the introduction of federal stamps, 1847) were specifically the result of congressional legislation; I don't believe the USPOD had the authority to modify postal rates. Does Goldstein specifically say that the USPOD itself lowered the postal rates? Nyttend (talk) 21:13, 3 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Chapter 92, page 480 of this pdf (page 455 of the volume), is the Act reducing postage rates. BencherliteTalk 21:45, 3 March 2015 (UTC)


 * What he says is, "On October 1, 1883, postage rates were further reduced, to 2 cents for half-ounce letters, and on July 1, 1885, that rate applied to letters up to one ounce." There's also a timeline on the same page, and it says "Oct. 1, 1883/July 1, 1885: Reduction of postage rates to two cents." I'm flexible on this one.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:59, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks, but I'm not paying attention to the date: I'm only addressing the statement that the USPOD did the lowering. Do we need to include the fact that Congress lowered the rate, or would it be sufficient to say something like "...1883, when first-class mail rates were lowered from three..."?  Nyttend (talk) 23:12, 3 March 2015 (UTC)


 * I don't think it's that important to the three-cent piece who did the lowering. Thank you Bencherlite for that ref.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:35, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Done. Thanks for the help!  Nyttend (talk) 23:57, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
 * No problem. I enjoyed seeing quite how many Acts Congress could pass in a day back in the good ol' days! BencherliteTalk 23:59, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
 * You would be surprised. The Act of Septemer 26, 1890 that put an end to this coin is actually one of two acts passed that day that have significance for numismatists (the other put in the 25 year rule that forbade changing the designs in that timeframe).  I don't think either is worth an independent article, but it just goes to show.  If it ever becomes an issue, I'd put in the public law number.  I've thought of doing a stamp article but I no longer have much by way of resources, I'd have to go to Pennsylvania and the APS library Thanks all.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:10, 4 March 2015 (UTC)