User talk:RHM22/Archive 4

Re: Flowing Hair dollar image
Hi RHM22. Unfortunately, no, that image is not originally created by a US federal (Smithsonian) employee. At the link you supplied, there is a "Purchase this image". Clicking on it will direct you to here, which shows the image of the coin with its original background. There, the credit reads: "Photo by: Tom Mulvaney". The photographer is a private individual renowned for his images of ancient coins, and enjoys copyright protection for his work (the Smithsonian is very likely acting as an agent or distributor for him). As coins (and their inscriptions) are considered 3D objects, photographs of them cannot qualify under as well. Jappalang (talk) 00:16, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
 * The problem is, that's our blipping money there Pretty low of the Smithsonian to be doing that.  And I think they have hardly any coins on exhibit these days.  Next time I get to a museum with coins or a ANA show, I am taking lots of photos.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:55, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Yeah, it's a shame that the Smithsonian is selling some guys photos because they don't have any of their own, of an American coin no less. It's a really nice quality photo too!-RHM22 (talk) 02:08, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
 * They probably get a cut.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:17, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Yeah, they probably do.-RHM22 (talk) 14:08, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I would not call their practice low. From a business point of view, if I have something valuable that no one else longer has, I would consider charging people to have a look and use.  However, as a government employee, if I put up a photograph of it to attract others to come, that image would be "freely" taken by others for their own purposes.  If I instead engage a commercial photograph, giving him or her the sole opportunity and credit to take a photograph of the rare item and jointly market it, it is a win-win situation for the institution (gaining more funds outside of the budget) and the photographer (another star and income source in his or her portfolio).
 * Side-note (disclaimer): Despite my above use of win-win, I thoroughly despise the term. In my view, it is doublespeak.  There is always someone who loses (an indisputable fact of life in anything that involves limited resources), and win-win's touting of "there are no losers" applies only to those who are involved in the negotiation; in other words, the term is used as propaganda to justify exploitations.  My above example, of course, shows that the "losers" are the public who could have benefited from "free photographs of the rare item" (if they are free, however, the Smithsonian loses an income source).  Jappalang (talk) 02:02, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
 * (ec)Normally I would agree, but the Smithsonian receives massive amounts of federal funds. I know that they have that very coin in their possession and employees willing to take high quality photos or scans of it. If the Smithsonian were a private business or a nonprofit that receives very little federal aid, then I would understand their partnership with the photographer, but I doubt that they have many budget shortfalls, seeing as how they receieve so much government funding as well as musueum visits from the general public and revenues from their magazine and other products.-RHM22 (talk) 03:23, 28 February 2011 (UTC)


 * I agree. Let's spend a day or so polishing and then get it in at PR.--Wehwalt (talk) 03:21, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Sounds good!-RHM22 (talk) 03:23, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Can you add back the Bicentennial half image?--Wehwalt (talk) 19:07, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks. What I find a bit curious about the Bicentennial half is there is no bell in the bell tower of Independence Hall (I wrote the Liberty Bell article, so I care about such things).  Now, there hasn't always been a bell there, but there was in 1776 and there was in 1976.  WTF?  Maybe there is, but it just doesn't show up well on the uncirculated pieces.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:20, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I never noticed that! Maybe the designer copied it from an old photograph or drawing from when the bell wasn't up there. Do you know if the old hundreds have the bell?-RHM22 (talk) 19:28, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I happen to have a Series 1996 hundred on me, it is hard to tell, but I would say not. The Liberty Bell has not been up there since 1777; another bell, the Freedom or Centennial Bell, which is an oversized replica of the Liberty Bell sans crack has been there since about 1876.  However, the people on the $100 bill seem to be dressed in period clothes, so a case can be made for it.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:35, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I can't seem to find any information on where the design for the $100 bill reverse came from. I'd be willing to bet that it was an old engraving or painting, since that appears to be where all the portraits came from. I would say that the designer of the Bicentennial half probably based it on the same artwork that the designer of the hundred did, and that's probably the reason for the lack of bell.-RHM22 (talk) 19:44, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
 * No doubt, it has the look of an old painting or engraving. Perhaps when they finally get out the new $100 with bell hologram (they have been having production problems) there will be coverage.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:57, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I'll have to check the news stories. I don't follow paper money stuff much, but the old engravings on the small head notes were great. I love the Treasury building on the older $10 with that little Model T in front of it!-RHM22 (talk) 20:00, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree. Sigh.  And in those days you could actually walk in the Treasury Building and buy coins.  Today, no ID, no way.  I think I was in there once as an intern, dropping off papers, but still long after the coin windows had closed (obviously post 1964!)--Wehwalt (talk) 20:02, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Not sure if they still do it, but you used to be able to buy rolls of state quarters directly from the Federal Reserve in Atlanta (and probably in other places too) back when they came out.-RHM22 (talk) 20:04, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I was going to ask if you brought a wheelbarrow, but I guess not since the coin window was closed!-RHM22 (talk) 20:04, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
 * No, I was working for a conservative public interest group as I graduated from law school and I think we were suing them or they were parties and we were amicus curiae or something, and they sent me out to hand-deliver.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:07, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

I have to say, there's no better place than Wikipedia to post a Latin legal term! In the old paperbound encyclopedia days, I would have had a tough time with that one!-RHM22 (talk) 20:14, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
 * We lawyers just spout off that kind of thing. I always liked res ipsa loquitur, the thing speaks for itself, a doctrine in negligence tort law.  That is, if a safe lands on someone's head, you can assume someone was negligent.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:20, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
 * My understading of anything Latin is relegated to "Dei gratia de Regina/Rex", "Fidei defensor" and "Britton omnia", and I'm not even sure I spelled those right!-RHM22 (talk) 20:30, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
 * About nine out of ten. Yes, I can manage those.  One of these days, I'd like to improve Decimal Day, an article I've done some work on, but references are a problem.  I'd have to have UK help with access to newspaper archives.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:59, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I really like that decimal counter in the article! What a neat device. If you could find newspaper access, that would be a great article. There must be a wealth of information about that.-RHM22 (talk) 17:13, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
 * That isn't mine, I have a decimal counter that is like two circular disks that you turn to the correct figure and read the decimal equivalent through a hole. I am going to the UK later in the month, perhaps I can stop in a library.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:21, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Incidentally, whenever I am in the UK, I tend to go to antique fairs, and look for interesting items. They are more interesting if they somehow involve "old money", not the coins themselves though.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:23, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I've never been to one in the UK, but I've seen those antique fairs they have there on TV before. The things they have there always look so nice and a lot older than the flea markets here.-RHM22 (talk) 19:18, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
 * It all depends. Lot of junk there too, and repro.  Did you ever see Bargain Hunt?  That's the sort of place.  I went to a taping of Bargain Hunt once over there and got to meet the host, they were so surprised to see (hear?) an American there.  The auction scene.  I bought one of the items.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:15, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Was it cheap as chips?-RHM22 (talk) 21:16, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
 * With the price of silver having gone up since, still probably not.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:24, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Given Laser Brain's enthusiasm, I wonder if we should push ahead to FAC.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:39, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I would say so. I definitely think it'll fare nicely at FAC.-RHM22 (talk) 02:33, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
 * OK, then here we go. Give me a few minutes to get rid of the peer review, need to wave magic wand.--Wehwalt (talk) 03:25, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
 * And we're up. Hermione borrowed my wand, long story but it's a hoot.--Wehwalt (talk) 03:34, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm a little ashamed to admit it, but I know what you're referencing!-RHM22 (talk) 03:37, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Totally off topic, but when you were working on your Kruschev article, did you ever accidentally type "Soviet Onion"? I seem to type that every time!-RHM22 (talk) 03:38, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Not that one, but my fingers would sometimes get tied up typing his name.--Wehwalt (talk) 03:40, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
 * What do you think of removing that coinpage link also? There are a lot of pictures there, but there are basically only two designs and they're pictured in the article already.-RHM22 (talk) 03:45, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm fine with that. Did you add back the mintage figures?  A see also would be good.--Wehwalt (talk) 03:46, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I have a link to the mintage figures in the "see also" section.-RHM22 (talk) 03:49, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Your edit summary on the FAC page is great!-RHM22 (talk) 04:07, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Anything to attract reviewers. If I do Standing Liberty quarter someday, I'll mention the nekkid women in the edit summary.  Or woman.  Or half-naked.  Briefly.  Btw, I was looking at United States one hundred-dollar bill and it looks like there is a bell visible in the tower both in the 1930s version and the to-be-released Series 2009 version.  Perhaps it vanished through shoddy engraving over the years.  Typical of BEP.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:39, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
 * How about "woman exposes herself for a quarter"?-RHM22 (talk) 18:59, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
 * It is obvious you have passed beyond what a Jedi master may teach you.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:08, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Sacajawea Dollar
You're quite welcome! It's been fun learning about it, so a big thanks for contributing your research! Buttonwillowite (talk) 20:46, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
 * That sounds like a worthy goal.. Drop me a line if you need a peer-review or a copy-edit. I can't guarantee that I will be able to respond quickly, since I often drop out of wiki-life for a week or more at a time, but I would be happy to help when I can! BTW, it's not looking like I'll have time to finish reviewing the Sacagewea article today, but I will get back to it asap, just so you know. Buttonwillowite (talk) 00:03, 1 March 2011 (UTC)


 * I assume you've got all the comments and I can concentrate on Me and Juliet, which has gotten two sets of comments this morning.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:56, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Yup, I can field the stuff at Kennedy. Could you add the Bowers book though? I'm not sure of the specifics for that one.-RHM22 (talk) 16:59, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Unrelated, but I've finally figured out how to make clickable images. Let me know if you ever need any.-RHM22 (talk) 23:57, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I will.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:02, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Barnstar
Thanks! I also note that the Morgan dollar was promoted (per the the Signpost article). Congrats! ​​​​​​ ​​ Niagara ​​Don't give up the ship 02:28, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I checked Flickr and didn't find any. If I happen to run across one, I'll be sure to take a photo. ​​​​​​ ​​ Niagara ​​Don't give up the ship 15:50, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Trade dollar
Unfortunately, I do not have any trade dollars, but I know what do if I see one. Also, the license from Flickr for the AirBART machine should be fine as is (not a sculpture and any minor copyrighted text or icons would fall under de minimis). ​​​​​​ ​​ Niagara ​​Don't give up the ship 20:01, 6 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Can you view this article? It's really good.  I got a chuckle out of it.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:21, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Apparently the Times had a series about the trade dollar in the summer of 1883 (silly season stuff, if you ask me, but a, er, gold mine today) see here.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:24, 14 March 2011 (UTC)


 * This article explains something my legal mind had been wondering about, why the depositors at the Mint had bullion struck into trade dollars instead of (lighter) dollars or subsidiary coinage, where the bullion would go further. They had no choice.  It was trade dollars or nothing.  Really this is turning into a fascinating little subject, RHM22.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:28, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
 * That first one is hilarious! I'm going to read the other two now. I agree, the trade dollar may be the least popular and most interesting of all the dollars.-RHM22 (talk) 16:35, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, no one lost money on any of the others, beyond 75 cents on the Susan B.'s!--Wehwalt (talk) 16:37, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Oh, that reminds me, need to see what I can add on the Flowing hair ... hang on.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:39, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Panama-Pacific
I think you were interested in these. Article in the Coin World newsletter that came by email to me today. I think you're a subscriber so I won't bother with a link.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:26, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I noticed it, but I haven't read it yet. I'll have to give it a look.-RHM22 (talk) 17:37, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I did a draft blurb for the Kennedy and put it on my blurbs page for aspiring or actual FAs that haven't been TFA yet here.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:19, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
 * It looks good! Would you mind if I reworded it a little bit?-RHM22 (talk) 15:52, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Sure, but try to parallel your changes to the actual article.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:57, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Does it have to be worded exactly the same as the article, or just say the same thing? For instance, if the article says "it was worth fifty cents", could the blurb say "it was worth half of a dollar"?-RHM22 (talk) 15:58, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Generally, blurbs are drawn from the lede of the article, but changes to make things clearer in a smaller space are fine. I screwed up the change I made, I see.  Hang on.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:08, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of American Arts Commemorative Series medallions
The article American Arts Commemorative Series medallions you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold. The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needed to be addressed. If these are fixed within seven days, the article will pass, otherwise it will fail. See Talk:American Arts Commemorative Series medallions for things which need to be addressed. Jezhotwells (talk) 12:38, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Kennedy oppose
OK, I see the point. We have Jackie approving the design, but asking that the hair be altered after the trial strikes. We also have Jackie asking that the hair be altered after some proof coins were struck, resulting in the Part I and Part II. We need to reconcile that.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:37, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Breen mentions the trials strikes thing and says the change was made on the 5" model, and a new hub made. He does not say why the Type I to Type II proof took place.  Let me take a crack at it.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:42, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, it does say "allegedly", so it's not necessarily true. If you don't like it, just remove the part about Jackie from the type I proof stuff. Maybe something like "it was later changed etc".-RHM22 (talk) 22:14, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I think best to. Besides it makes her seem obsessed with his hair.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:17, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
 * It does seem a little odd! I bet she would really hate the current design if she didn't like heavily detailed hair.-RHM22 (talk) 22:18, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, it has an awful lot of emphasis!--Wehwalt (talk) 22:25, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

If you have your Yeomans handy, can you source what I just said about proofs and mintmarks? Just source it to the entire listing, from 1964 to present. It is better to do it this way than to introduce a new book, I think.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:07, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Ok, it's sourced. I reworded it also. What do you think? I noticed that you reference Breen at the end of one of the sentences, so feel free to reword if he doesn't cover that.-RHM22 (talk) 23:16, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
 * No, I would change it back where the silver proofs are talked about. I think we need to establish definitively, because it was questioned, that every year, proofs of the same metallic composition have been struck.  Then mention the bicentennial exception.  Then mention the silver proofs.  Your change there might be misunderstood.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:29, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't like the way it was before either though. When it says "they were minted in the same metal every year" makes it sound like they were minted in the same metal only.-RHM22 (talk) 23:38, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Then we can put "have been minted in the same metal" then say "In addition ... bicentennial silver '92 proof".--Wehwalt (talk) 23:41, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Yup, I've just added that. Let me know what you think.-RHM22 (talk) 23:42, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Sometimes, best way to solve a problem is to rearrange the pieces.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:54, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
 * It looks much better now with less information scattered throughout.-RHM22 (talk) 00:41, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, hopefully the same amount of info, just better arranged!--Wehwalt (talk) 00:46, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Though I disagreed with a few of the reviewers points, the article does look a lot better now. These current series are really hard to write about, especially ones with so many types and varieties like the Kennedy half dollar. Sac was a little bit of a hassle since it's still developing, but there's only two types (proof and not proof!), so it's not that hard to write. Would you like to go in for a coauthorship on Jefferson nickel later on? I'd love to see that as an FA, because then all the nickels will be covered.-RHM22 (talk) 01:22, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree. Sure, happy to, even have the Bowers book.  Not for a bit yet though.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:26, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I'd really like to finish the dollar coins first anyway, so I can order another book from the ANA. I'm thinking about doing Seated Liberty after a while. I have to say that I'm not looking forward to the tangled mess that is the 1804 dollar.-RHM22 (talk) 01:28, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, but it has its own article so summarize briefly and move on.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:34, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Yeah, but I have to work on the 1804 dollar article eventually anyway, since it's in the "U.S. dollar coins" template, and one of the criteria for FT is that there should be a template that links all the articles.-RHM22 (talk) 01:38, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Oops, I guess it's not in there! That makes things easier for sure.-RHM22 (talk) 01:48, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Somewhat surprised it doesn't have an article, the 1933 double eagle and 1913 V nickel do.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:10, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
 * There's an article (1804 dollar), but it's not in the dollar coins template.-RHM22 (talk) 02:12, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Ah, OK then.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:18, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Well, that went well. Glad you were online. I crashed from delayed impact jet lag, I think.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:00, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
 * There was a flurry of activity on the Sac dollar FAC also, and that was promoted too!-RHM22 (talk) 19:01, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Oh great! You are truly joining the elite here.  Let's look at completing the nickel series in about ten days when I am home, and perhaps get it in as a featured topic too!  Images of Jefferson nickels should not be an issue!--Wehwalt (talk) 19:25, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Yup, even I could supply a photo of a Jefferson nickel! I'm not sure if I'll be ready in only ten days, since I don't have any good references yet. I'll have my dollar coin book from the ANA for a while yet, and I won't be able to order one for Jefferson nickels until after I send that one back.-RHM22 (talk) 21:23, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
 * No hurry, let me know when you want to do it. I have the Bowers book, as it is shared with the Buffalo nickel.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:54, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Re: Fringe stuff
Thanks! :) I'm trying to get as many as possible promoted to GA. Recently I actually attempted to promote one of them to FA, but realized I needed more from the DVD season three special features (which naturally aren't out yet). Maybe I'll eventually try a different Fringe article for FA... Thanks again for noticing my Fringe edits! It's a great show (and that recent twist was indeed unnerving LOL). Ruby2010   talk  01:40, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Flowing hair
I would suggest referring to Washington's speech either in the lede or body as the State of the Union address. While he did not specifically call it that, it all comes from the constitutional mandate that the President annually report to Congress on the State of the Union. Washington did it in person, later presidents sent it on paper to be read aloud by someone or other, then they started doing the huge set piece thing it has become today. Also, I recall reading that when the silver percentage was questioned, the Mint defended on the grounds that .900 was within the permitted tolerances under the Mint Act.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:58, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I added something the State of the Union, but Bowers doesn't mention anything about the Mint defending the illegal standard.-RHM22 (talk) 00:28, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
 * By the way, would it be considered bad taste to ask permission to put Flowing Hair up for FAC? I already asked about Sac while Morgan dollar was still up, so I'm not sure if it's asking too much to put another one up or not.-RHM22 (talk) 03:04, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I think there are enough articles at FAC right now that I'd wait. Laser Brain has been supportive of the numismatics drive, but I don't want to push him.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:56, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, I don't want to put too many articles up for the nomination. If there are many FACs, should I review some? I'm not as accomplished as some of the other reviewers, but I'm sure that I could add something.-RHM22 (talk) 21:05, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Start somewhere and learn by doing. There are many articles begging for reviews.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:36, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Ok, I'll start a review then. I have reviewed one about a blizzard before, but it was very short.-RHM22 (talk) 21:38, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Weather event articles. Sigh.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:49, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Arts medallions:
According to the Coin World Almanac (ISBN 0-88687-460-2, 6th edition, New York 1990, publisher is World Almanac (really)), p. 516, the following is the number struck by the Mint. You have the number sold. The number melted, which is also listed, is just one minus the other (it is listed in here, so it's not OR).

1980: Wood 500,000 Anderson 1,000,000 1981: Twain 141,000 Cather 200,000 1982: Armstrong 420,000 Wright 360,000 1983: Frost 500,000 Calder 410,000 1984: 35,000 of each. It notes, same page that 20,000 of each were initially struck and that it was then produced according to demand.

It also says (page 511) that in 1982, the design was altered to make it more coin-like. On page 512 it says that in addition to contracting with J.Aron to sell the coins, the Mint set up a telephone ordering system, but that it was unsuccessful. (pages 513 through 516 do not deal with the medals). On page 405 it notes that the 1980 medals were the first gold struck by the Mint in almost half a century. That's all it has on them that you don't already have.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:55, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks! I'll incorporate that stuff.-RHM22 (talk) 21:07, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Are there any NY Times articles I haven't already gotten for you?--Wehwalt (talk) 21:36, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
 * None that I could find.-RHM22 (talk) 21:37, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
 * They are boring, but I'm sure a lot of people say the same thing about coin articles.-RHM22 (talk) 22:58, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
 * That's a reply to my weather comment?--Wehwalt (talk) 23:02, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
 * United States Assay Commission = redlink.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:13, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Oops, yeah, I was replying to the weather thing! Is there still an Assay Commission?-RHM22 (talk) 23:46, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
 * No, but it is probably still worth writing about. And the Coin World Almanac has a page on it.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:11, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Take a look at this. It's too bad that it's a DVD and not a book.-RHM22 (talk) 02:18, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Agreed, prefer to work from books. I think I could at least work up a GA on the Assay Commission. FA might be hard, it's the lack of source.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:30, 17 March 2011 (UTC) Brianboulton's not on much due to internet problems. We may need someone else to copyedit and get that oppose striken.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:32, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't know of anyone, but someone at the GOCE might like it.-RHM22 (talk) 15:09, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, if you know what you're doing there, go ahead and list it.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:03, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
 * It's listed. Hopefully there will be some interest in this article amongst the copyeditors.-RHM22 (talk) 18:15, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Do you have any sources for the great silver melt of 1979 or 1980? Maybe a quote from Breen or someone. That would probably be a good tidbit to add.-RHM22 (talk) 02:47, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
 * By the way, I'm afraid I might have to remove the images from the Flowing Hair dollar infobox. Apparently the OTRS permission didn't contain any proof of original authorship. I sent a link to the person's website that also has one of the same images, but I'm doubtful that it will work. I asked on the OTRS noticeboard to be sure though.-RHM22 (talk) 03:27, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I could probably come up with something or other on the silver melt, NY TImes certainly. Bowers notes that at least half of all the Kennedy halves containing silver were melted (odds are the percentages are rising as we speak).  I don't consider that an urgent matter to add to the article, though.  That's too bad on the Flowing Hair.  We really need to get organized on image sources, or we will have this a lot on early coins.  I was lucky on Shield nickel to find an expert on that series, who was generous with images, but ... if there were a significant number of coins on display at the Smithsonian, I'd spend a few hours there with a camera, but aside from the 1849 double eagle, I think there are very few.  Maybe the ANA this summer, I don't know.--Wehwalt (talk) 08:00, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I'm going to try and find somebody who has a website that is easier to authenticate! It's no big deal about the silver melt, just something that seemed a little interesting to add.-RHM22 (talk) 15:06, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
 * By the way, did you send away for that free book from that survey I sent you before? I got mine today, and it's actually better than I expected.-RHM22 (talk) 15:32, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
 * What is the link again? I forgot. If you think the melt is with including, then I will.  Where do you think it should go?  Starting to build a bit of a numismatics library ...  I was wondering, maybe we should ask the opposer to take a second look even though we haven't had a copyedit done.  She might think it OK.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:13, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
 * here's the link. I'm not sure if they have any more of those books though. Someone from the GOCE performed a copyedit of the article a day or two ago. I'll leave a message on the opposer's talk page.-RHM22 (talk) 01:31, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Actually, the best thing about the book is the basic information in the beginning. The most basic stuff is always the hardest to find a reliable source for. Other than that, you didn't miss a whole lot. It's good for free though.-RHM22 (talk) 01:49, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, I agree. Specifications, for example can be a pain.  I never was able to find out the thickness of a Shield nickel (it is not the same as the present piece), and I spoke with experts.  It is not prescribed by statute.  I'll give the half dollar article a glance over to make sure that no inaccuracies crept in.--Wehwalt (talk) 06:05, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Whoops, I did check it out at the time, I remember now. No major concerns, I corrected a slight quibble.  I'll leave a note of thanks on his/her page.--Wehwalt (talk) 06:12, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Yup, the part about them being melted was the only iffy thing.-RHM22 (talk) 14:50, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
 * It turns out that the Flowing Hair image is good afterall. The nice fellow that reviewed the OTRS ticket e-mailed the person that allowed the use of the images to confirm his e-mail address.-RHM22 (talk) 16:24, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Wonder World Tour
Your comments were taken care of. -- ipodnano05 * leave@message 18:07, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Sorry,, but would you mind using the template: resolved comments on your comments, so that it will be easier to read. Thank you :) -- ipodnano05 * leave@message 23:08, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Oh, I had no idea. Thank you for having the page's best interests. -- ipodnano05 * leave@message 04:17, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Credo
In response to your question at FAC talk: Credo has limited information on the topics you mention, but nothing in great detail. You may find some useful information though. &mdash;Charles Edward (Talk 15:56, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the response! I think I will leave the spots open for others who will find the references more useful.-RHM22 (talk) 16:03, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Congrats
Congrats on the Kennedy half dollar article being promoted. I really enjoyed reading about it and haven't ever seen this much information collected in one place. -- Andy Walsh  (talk)  18:04, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks! I'm very happy with how the article came out. This is probably my favorite of the coin articles that have been written so far, because of the comprehensiveness. Morgan dollars and trade dollars are interesting, but information about those is all over. Kennedy half dollars, on the other hand, are not so extensively covered. I learned a lot that I didn't know while working on it. Thanks for suggesting it!-RHM22 (talk) 18:45, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I think we have the best resource on the history of the Kennedy half available now.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:58, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree. I'll bet that the article will influence a lot of collectors and numismatists when more people discover it.-RHM22 (talk) 19:00, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Ooh, I see you are nomming Flowing Hair.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:18, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Yup!-RHM22 (talk) 19:22, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Going from Sacagawea dollar to Flowing Hair dollar is a big difference. One was made with an illegal amount of silver and the other was made illegally in gold.-RHM22 (talk) 19:26, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
 * That darn Mint never gets things right!--Wehwalt (talk) 19:53, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Any institution that issues five different dollars every year that nobody uses really should be looked into.-RHM22 (talk) 19:55, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Indeed. Not to mention the half dollar, which has seen considerable ineptitude.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:58, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Maybe if they make the hair a little stringier people will like it.-RHM22 (talk) 19:59, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I think that ship has sailed. And sunk.  Maybe if they put Justin Bieber on the half dollar.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:47, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Incidentally, don't know if you've ever checked out my article Matthew Boulton which has a nice numismatic connection. I had help with the images from a specialist in such things!--Wehwalt (talk) 20:55, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I didn't know you wrote that! That article is great. Boulton is one of the most important people in British numismatics.-RHM22 (talk) 22:24, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

I wrote it for the Boulton bicentennial a couple of years ago. Fun article to write. Thanks. British numismatics is even worse off than the US was before we started pulling up its socks for it.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:58, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Yeah, world coin articles are way worse than even U.S. coin articles. I'd improve them if I had better sources.-RHM22 (talk) 23:02, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I always have my eyes open for any useful-looking UK coin book. I have three different years of the Coincraft catalog and one of the Seaby's, though I've seen this year and it is huge so I will probably have to update again.  I really don't have enough yet to do a comprehensive job on anything besides Maundy.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:05, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
 * It's hard enough to find any good information on American coins. I have heard of some very good references from the early 20th century, but they are very rare and expensive.-RHM22 (talk) 23:16, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Hopefully the pre-1923 ones will be scanned ... --Wehwalt (talk) 20:51, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I've never heard of them being scanned, but the ANA might have them for loan.-RHM22 (talk) 20:55, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
 * From the Golden Age of Numismatics ... sigh.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:57, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Back then, you didn't have to be a millionaire to buy rare coins. It's not because there are more collectors, it's because coins are now investments.-RHM22 (talk) 21:02, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
 * By the way, take a look at this image. It's 1921, so it should be ok for the Peace dollar article.-RHM22 (talk) 21:04, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
 * But was it published? I would check commons and see if that photographic collection is known to be PD.  I do plan to start Peace dollar in about ten days, happy to work with you on it if you want.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:05, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I think it was published before 1923, since it has that caption on it. Somebody already uploaded the image with the wrong tag.-RHM22 (talk) 21:16, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Here's a nice image (on page 174). It was published in a newspaper in 1922, but I need to find proof first.-RHM22 (talk) 21:34, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Take a look at this! I tried searching for "Mrs. de Francisci", since that used to be more common than to use a woman's full name, and I came up with that! It even has an image of Anna Williams that I could add to the Morgan dollar article.-RHM22 (talk) 21:40, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

(od)Nice! She doesn't seem to look much like the dollar, but she's aged a bit since 1878!--Wehwalt (talk) 23:00, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I saw a drawing of her profile, and it looked just like the dollar. That was a drawing though, so I don't know how much artistic license the artist took.-RHM22 (talk) 23:07, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Also, look at the names under the photographs. They are "Anna D. Williams" and "Teresa di Francisci". I guess the proofreader was off that day.-RHM22 (talk) 23:09, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Yep, or the reporter was careless.--Wehwalt (talk) 06:15, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
 * What do you think of the one reviewer on FAC for Flowing Hair dollar? I really don't think he's right about those two things.-RHM22 (talk) 13:02, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I will look at it now.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:22, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks! Sorry for asking you to look into that, but I wanted to make sure that I wasn't wrong for not removing the link. I was pretty sure it's ok, but I don't want to leave something in there that I shouldn't.-RHM22 (talk) 19:06, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
 * No, it is OK. You know I'd apply my judgment to that, and if I disagreed with you i would, perhaps, suggest you take a second look at the issue.  With the exception of two or three editors who really provoke my anger here on the Wiki, I tend to be diplomatic.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:43, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I know, but I hate to ask someone to get involved in a (sort of) dispute.-RHM22 (talk) 19:51, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I understand. As long as everything is open and above board, it doesn't matter.  I sometimes get very irritated at attempts to canvass me by email, especially since I feel obligations to maintain high standards as an admin.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:57, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

A bit belated, but congrats on both the Kennedy half and Sacagewea dollars being promoted! I just noticed them in the Signpost. ​​​​​​ ​​ Niagara ​​Don't give up the ship 01:18, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Nixon in China
As you have showed some interest in this, you may like to add a comment or two at peer review, here. Your earlier comments were very helpful. Brianboulton (talk) 11:11, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Sure! I'll add a few comments a little later today.-RHM22 (talk) 12:10, 31 March 2011 (UTC)