Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Grant Memorial coinage/archive1

Grant Memorial coinage

 * Nominator(s): Wehwalt (talk) 22:12, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

This article is about... Two coins, the last commemoratives we have to deal with from the 1920s. The usual legacy of (relative) beauty and doubt about whether the money went to a good cause.Wehwalt (talk) 22:12, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

Support Comments from Moise
Hi Wehwalt. I'm working my way through the article. So far it's looking pretty good for prose and (though I'm not an expert on coins) seems quite comprehensive as usual. I made several small edit-suggestions on my first read-through, and am now working on my second read-through.
 * "He fought in the Mexican-American War. He resigned from the Army in 1854, and attempted several civilian trades with limited success. He was more successful once the Civil War began; after a series of victories, President Lincoln appointed him General in chief of Union Armies in late 1863." Three sentences in a row beginning with "He". Maybe consider changing the second one around for some variety.
 * Done.


 * "Reed Smoot of Utah noticed from the report that the entire bill, bar the enacting clause, had been re-written and Willis asked that McLean as chairman of the Banking Committee explain this." This sentence changes directions a few times and gets a bit complicated; especially it feels like "asked that McLean as chairman of the Banking Committee explain this" is more complicated than need be. I don't have any immediate suggestions, but if you have any ideas could you try to simplify this?
 * I've played with it a bit.


 * "This satisfied Smoot, and the presiding officer, Vice President Calvin Coolidge, asked if there was objection to the bill being considered." I don't have a good idea for this one either (but maybe you do). Each time I read it, my immediate first interpretation is that "and the presiding officer" means "it also satisfied the presiding officer". Then when I get to "asked" I realize that interpretation doesn't work, and I have to go back and re-read it. It'd be ideal if the first part could be re-written to avoid this mini-confusion. Moisejp (talk) 00:12, 27 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I've played with it a bit hope it helps.


 * "At the CFA meeting on February 24, members viewed the model for the obverse of the gold dollar and were pleased with it, approving it." – "were pleased with it, approving it" feels a bit awkward to me. Do you have another way you could express that?
 * Done.--Wehwalt (talk) 07:01, 27 May 2019 (UTC)


 * "On the coin, Grant wears a military coat, but the closely-cropped beard suggests he is meant to look as he did in the final years of his life." I wasn't sure whether this is supposed to mean his beard is not closely cropped in the photo, and that it wasn't taken in the later years of his life—i.e., the coin designer broke away from the image because it was perhaps felt a later Grant would be more "representative" or something. I don't know how much of this may be answered in your sources, but just in general I feel it's better not to stir up unanswered questions in the reader's mind, if it can be avoided. Moisejp (talk) 00:24, 27 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Duffield's point is that he is shown appearing like he did later on, but is wearing a coat typical of his Civil War years. I've tried to make this clearer.


 * Design section, second paragraph, I got a little confused. Does "the trees do not appear on the medal issued for the Grant birth centennial" mean it's suspected there may not have actually been trees, unlike what's in the coin? Also, I think "but for the sake of better effect a little of the realism might have been sacrificed without detracting from historic interest" means that (unlike what she actually did) the designer could have chosen to sacrifice some realism and such a decision would not have detracted from historical interest; if it does mean that, I'm not sure how that fits in with the question of whether or not there really were trees. Or maybe it means she did sacrifice realism (by adding trees that were not there) but this did not detract from historical interest (but it's not clear to me how the presence or absence of trees affects "historical interest"). Yeah, all in all, I guess I don't know what this paragraph is trying to say. Moisejp (talk) 00:43, 27 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I've gone back and re-read the source and made an edit I hope helps. Duffield doesn't seem to doubt there were trees, he just thinks it unnecessary to show them.


 * "Some of the Grant half dollars without stars were spent, and are worn today." I was wondering whether it'd be worthwhile to wiki-link "worn" to Coin grading or somewhere else. I'm not sure if the link I suggested is the perfect place to direct to. I guess mostly coin enthusiasts will be reading this article, but wasn't sure if people with less knowledge would immediately catch this means that from having been circulated, they got worn down (scratched, etc.) and their value lessened. Well, if there is a good place to link to (or if it's worthwhile to spell out the meaning and implication more), great, but if you don't think it's worthwhile, then please ignore this comment. Moisejp (talk) 01:07, 27 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I've played with that too.

Those are all of my comments, thanks. Moisejp (talk) 01:11, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

OK, it looks good and happy to support. One final thing I wanted to confirm at the very end, it's saying the most valued silver half dollar is $9,750, four times more than the most valued gold dollar at $2,250? If so, that's surprising but I guess that doesn't mean it's not true, but just checking. Cheers, Moisejp (talk) 13:57, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I think it is because the half dollars are more widely collected. Collecting gold, there are only I think seven and the Panama-Pacific ones are very pricey.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:01, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

Image review

 * I'm asking because I don't know: re. File:Grant Centennial dollar obverse.jpg, the license says "permits color illustrations of U.S. currency provided: 1. The illustration is of a size less than three-fourths or more than one and one-half, in linear dimension, of each part of the item illustrated;" The image at [] seems to be about 16 cm in diameter, while the image at [] displays as about 12 cm, and the image in the article displays as about 4 cm. 12 cm would be about 3/4 of 16 cm, but are those the relevant versions to compare for this condition of the license? Moisejp (talk) 01:24, 27 May 2019 (UTC)
 * That is a reference to paper money and is not applicable to coins.


 * The coin images are all in public domain, and depending on the question of dimensions above, may all be properly licensed.
 * The non-coin images are all properly licensed. Moisejp (talk) 01:32, 27 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the reviews. I think I've covered everything.--Wehwalt (talk) 06:59, 27 May 2019 (UTC)
 * OK, the images seem good to go, then. I'll come back and look at your prose changes in the next couple of days. Moisejp (talk) 14:35, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

Support Comments by Usernameunique
Lead
 * the 100th anniversary of the birth of Ulysses S. Grant — This appears only in the lead.
 * Adjusted.
 * Perhaps better in the second "Background" paragraph, but your call.


 * The half dollar with star has long been priced higher than the one without the star — Seems likely it is highly prized compared to commemorative coins generally, which might be worth adding.
 * Mentioned.

Background
 * It's a bit unclear where this section is going. Perhaps (but only do if you like the idea) add subsections, Ulysses S. Grant and Commemorative coins.
 * I'm not the biggest fan of one-paragraph subsections and would rather just keep consistency with a bunch of other commemorative coin articles that have a similar background section.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:54, 31 May 2019 (UTC)


 * He was more successful once the Civil War began — So he rejoined the Army at some point?
 * Added.


 * the responsible group was the Ulysses S. Grant Centenary Memorial Association (Grant Commission) — Some information seems to be missing here. What was the point of the Grant Commission? Why create it? What did they do, besides brainstorm commemorative coins?
 * Added. I think I've addressed your concerns about a disconnected section now.

Legislation
 * The written report recommended a number of amendments — Such as?
 * They were mostly technical in nature, the biggest was the insistence that the sponsoring organization pay for the dies. In practice, this meant pay for the sculptor.


 * and the bill obliged the Commission to pay for the coinage dies used, there would be no expense to the government. — Should there be an "as" or similar between "and" and "the bill"?
 * Added.


 * and noted that Nichols was a former state chief justice — What is the relevance of this?
 * He is assuring the Senate that not only is the coin wanted locally, the Association is being run by the very best people, that it's not fly-by-night. I think it should be left as is, because it serves the same purpose with the reader.

Preparation
 * The full CFA ratified the decision in time for the gold coinage to take place during March. — To be minted? To be distributed?
 * Rephrased.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:00, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

Design
 * Is the photograph captioned Portrait of Grant by the studio of Mathew Brady the photograph that Laura Gardin Fraser used for her design?
 * Laura Fraser worked from a photograph of Grant — When was it taken?
 * Responding to the two above: None of my sources states with any certainty which photograph of Grant. This seemed to fit as he was facing right and wearing the military coat.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:26, 31 May 2019 (UTC)


 * Slabaugh noted, "there is no question of the fine quality of her work". — This seems better suited for the third paragraph.
 * The second instead.


 * the building is dwarfed by the trees — Meaning the building as it actually appeared in person?
 * Clarified, I hope.
 * Yes, looks good.


 * "the design itself tells the story" — According to who?
 * Clarified.


 * actual flans — What are flans?
 * I see someone added a pipe to planchet.
 * Whoops, added the link but forgot to remove the question.

Distribution and collecting
 * "a bonus that greatly surprised the committee". — According to who?
 * A number of sources put it in varying ways, I just picked the most colorful. It appears to trace back to a piece by Duffield (again, uncredited) in July 1922 about this in which he says, "It is said that 5,000 of this variety were received unexpectedly by the committee, and that they are being sold at a higher price than the variety without the star." ("Two Varieties of the Grant half dollar", p. 314). He points out that their ads weren't even mentioning this. The sources seem consistent on this.


 * Duffield printed — Maybe The Numismatist printed.
 * Done.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:02, 31 May 2019 (UTC)


 * and the silver for $1.50 — This is the first time, other than the lead, that silver is mentioned. That the half dollars were made of silver should be mentioned earlier.
 * Done.


 * the Commission was requiring — Perhaps "the Commission required"?
 * That puts it back in Wikipedia's voice when it is more supposed to be about what Nichols is saying, concluding with the insider offer. Such was life in the Harding administration.


 * Few of the coins went to the general public; many of the half dollars and most of the gold pieces went to coin collectors. — Are coin collectors not members of the general public? I'm somewhat unclear what the distinction that you're drawing is.
 * some proofs of each variety may exist — What would account for this?
 * Simply because they often were, for the personal collection of the designer or the Chief Engraver, than specific knowledge there.
 * Might be worth adding, such as "may exist, as often happened for the personal collections of the designers of the Chief Engaver; numismatist Anthony Swiatek ..."


 * by 1935 it sold for $65, the highest value of any U.S. silver commemorative coin — More than gold coins, and in particular, more than the gold dollar with star (of which there were an equal number)?
 * The silver commemorative series is more widely collected. There's not as much demand for the gold dollars; of the eight (depending how you count) gold coins, two, the $50 Panama Pacifics, are out of people's price range.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:26, 31 May 2019 (UTC)


 * On that note, were the half dollars with star sold separately,
 * It's mentioned that they were, late in the year. I'm just trying to give a generalized sense of the goings on than track every ad in The Numismatist.


 * In that year, a dentist from the Bronx, New York purchased several hundred of the half dollars without stars and proceeded to punch stars into them. — How was this discovered?
 * I did some research on this and although the archived The Numismatist doesn't go into this particular scam, there was a similar one a few years earlier. A faked coin, apparently, shows disturbances around the star that a real coin would not. Bullowa, writing a few years later, talked some about fakes and this issue but doesn't actually mention a Bronx dentist. Do you feel more needs to be said?
 * Nope, just an interesting story. You might think about adding some in a footnote (e.g., it's also interesting how disturbances can indicate fakes), but it's entirely discretionary.


 * The second- and third-to-last paragraphs may be able to be combined.
 * I don't want to bury the bit about continued counterfeiting so would prefer to keep them apart.

References
 * #5: Is this not available for free?
 * I hesitantly say I don't see it. You've proven quite good at finding these things, though.
 * Would you mind emailing me to send the pdf that you have? I'm not finding the May 11, 1921 version through text searches. Incidentally, the page-number links for 8, 10, & 11 redirect to the home page.
 * OK, will email. You need to reply and then I can send the text. As for the others, I was trying to address your previous comment about free availability of the CR. If you have a better formatting I will adopt it.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:24, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
 * For instance, #8 should link to here or here. Looks like it is also volume 61, not 67 (it was the 67th Congress).


 * #32: This is out of copyright, and available online for free.
 * Thanks, also replaced the other 1922 sources the same way.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:02, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

Sources
 * How do you know the "uncredited" works are Duffield's?
 * They are notes by the editor, and Duffield was the editor.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:56, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

Looks good,. Minor comments above. --Usernameunique (talk) 22:51, 29 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your thorough comments. Everything done or replied too.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:26, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
 * My pleasure, . A few more comments/questions above, but adding my support. --Usernameunique (talk) 01:36, 4 June 2019 (UTC)
 * I will review and reply individually but thank you again.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:48, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

Support. I must have been asleep at the switch: I always look out for Wehwalt's coin articles, but I missed this one till now. Having combed the article to find something to complain about I have failed, and am happy to support FA status for it. Clear, comprehensive, authoritative – just the job.  Tim riley  talk   14:03, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

-- Laser brain  (talk)  22:49, 17 June 2019 (UTC)