Talk:United States Bicentennial coinage

Value?
What is the value for each of these coins nowadays? As a collector, how much are they worth? I have quite a few of each and I am interested in a figure. -- Jared  [T]/[+ ] 21:07, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Not a whole lot, typically. They were minted in large quantities and are still pretty easy to obtain.  --cholmes75 (chit chat) 15:40, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
 * up to about 8-10 dollars for a brillint uncirculated, very minimual wear 3 dollars, more wear, 1 dollar if.(prices close, not exact)  Jo  e  I  16:59, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I have the 1776-1976-P dollar (T2) and quarter, plus the 1776-1976-D half. The 2004 Red book gives a quote of 1.50 for the dollar and half in MS-65. The quote is 1.00 for the quarter in MS-65. Mine are about AU-58. In short, the bicentennial issues are a good pick for a younger collector as they are affordable. - Thanks, Hoshie 00:18, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I guess. But few dealers are gonna pay you more than face.  Maybe a very slight premium for the dollar, which no longer circulates. --Wehwalt 14:04, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Choice of words
When reading this sentence, "Regardless of date of coining, each coin bears the dual date "1776-1976".", of seems redundant. Could it say "Regardless of the date coined, each coin bears the dual date "1776-1976"."? Should it be "dual dates"? and regarding the dates in quotation, "1776-1976", Why are the dates connected by a dash when the actual coin shows a dot? Arkmanda (talk) 00:00, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, though I will probably change the text anyway so I don't use the word "date" twice so close to each other. Perhaps "regardless of when struck, each coins bears the dual date 1976-1976.  I agree, it's a dot, but it seems to be rendered as a dash in the sources and that is what it is meant to imply, the anniversary timespan.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:06, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
 * So the quotation marks mean, this is how it is shown in the source and not, this is exactly how it appears in reality? Arkmanda (talk) 00:09, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
 * What does a dot between two numbers mean? A dash is understood.  I see your point, but isn't that just an artistic liberty on the part of the Mint?--Wehwalt (talk) 00:14, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
 * As far as I know, a dot between two numbers means to multiply, so I am sure you are correct that it is an artistic liberty. I was just confused to the reasoning for the quotation marks. I thought it was trying to imply exactly this way. The punctuation threw me because it emphasized some particular meaning that I wasn't getting from the reading. If the dates were shown outside of quotations, I would have understood no less than an inclusive span of time. Sometimes a word will be italicized and it throws me unless I know the reason for distinguishing it. If any of that makes sense. Arkmanda (talk) 00:23, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
 * No, it is fine. I should keep it out of quotation marks then.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:31, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Also, that was in the article before I went to work on it. Sometimes it takes me a little while to smooth out inconsistencies.  I read my articles over and over again.  It takes time to wear them smooth.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:34, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

The dual date
This is one aspect of the article I failed to mention during the review. Every example of the dual date is shown in the article with an en dash except the first occurrence in the lead. I did mean to inquire about this inconsistency. I think the MOS calls for the en dash, unless there is a better reason not to which eludes me at this time. Thanks for considering this aspect as well. My76Strat (talk) 05:59, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
 * OK, nice catch. On my browser it is hard to see the difference.--Wehwalt (talk) 06:33, 22 August 2011 (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) 08:34, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Amazing work! --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 05:54, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Excellent!--Wehwalt (talk) 09:12, 16 January 2017 (UTC)