Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Currency from the original 13 Colonies (set)

Colonial currency set
Voting period ends on 14 May 2014  at 05:04:33 (UTC) From the National Numismatic Collection, NMAH, Smithsonian Institution. Images by Godot13.
 * Reason:High quality, high EV (presented as a set). A set of Colonial currency with issue dates ranging from 1729 to 1780. Each note bears at least two autographed signatures of community members appointed by legislation to supervise the printing and personally sign the currency. Notes for this set were selected, when possible, for the signers' historical notability and include (but are not limited to): Speakers of a state or colonial legislative assembly (4); delegates to the Continental Congress (4, including its first President); Governors (or in one case State President) (3); signers of the Declaration of Independence (2); delegates to the Constitutional Convention (2); delegates to the Stamp Act Congress (2); Colonial treasurers (2); an inaugural appointee to the Supreme Court of the United States (1). Different from prior nominations of paper currency, the obverse and reverse images are separate. In a few instances the orientation of the obverse/reverse of Colonial currency are not aligned making the presentation in a single image distracting. Only the obverse presented is nominated.
 * Original:A 13-note group of Colonial currency with one representative example from each of the Thirteen Colonies (or its successor Province or State).
 * Articles in which these images appear: Early American currency (all); additionally, one each in John McKinly, Thomas Collins, William Few, John Hart, John Stevens, Jr., John H. Cruger, Edward Moseley, Metcalf Bowler, Peyton Randolph, John Blair, Jr., and Robert Carter Nicholas, Sr.; recently added to New Jersey pound, North Carolina pound, and Virginia pound.
 * FP category for this image:Currency
 * Creator:The respective Colonial, Provincial, and State governing bodies. Engravers and printers noted when present on the banknote or available from research literature.


 * Support as nominator – Godot13 (talk) 05:04, 4 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Support - A lot less green this time, eh? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 05:56, 4 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose I understand that there is historical value in these, and that part of that value lies in their present condition, but some of these are in awful shape. I don't like the idea of heavily damaged images being considered 'among Wikipedia's best', even when the damage is to the source work itself, and the file at hand is a high quality, accurate representation of the damaged source work. File:US-Colonial (NC-33)-North Carolina-27 Nov 1729 OBV.jpg is in awful, illegible shape, File:US-Colonial (PA-149)-Pennsylvania-20 Mar 1771 OBV.jpg isn't much better, and File:US-Colonial (MA-87.15)-Massachusetts-1 May 1741 OBV.jpg is pretty damaged, too. I could perhaps support some of these individually, but I can't support the set as a whole because I can't support some of the members.  S ven M anguard   Wha?  00:17, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment I thought this was about encyclopedic value? Does an example need to be in pristine condition to be a high EV FP? You mention the North Carolina (NC) note. It is possible to find an uncirculated example from the 1770’s or 1780’s? Yes. However the first issue printed by NC was in 1712-1713. There are no known examples from that issue (of a total of 1550 individual notes, miniscule printing). The second issue of currency from NC was in 1715 (handwritten like the first) and none have ever been reported or illustrated. The third issue (1722 and again handwritten) is only illustrated in the seminal reference with a single counterfeit note. The fourth series, handwritten in 1729 (and the note included in this set) is likely one of the earliest known pieces of colonial currency from North Carolina. The Pennsylvania note in the set is a case where condition was weighed against the notability of the signers. The example included is actually in very respectable condition, and it has the added bonus of having been hand signed by someone who signed the Declaration of Independence, participated in the design of the first American flag, and also happened to create the Great Seal found on the U.S. $1 bill. While not quite as early in Massachusetts colony’s history as North Carolina, a similar argument could be made for that note. High grade colonial notes from the late issues are common and they do not have the same historical significance as the notes in this set. Regarding your comment about “awful, illegible shape” this example of the same 1729 NC issue (thought to be a counterfeit) is graded as “very fine.” -- Godot13 (talk) 02:44, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
 * For a document, I don't think digital restoration would be called for. Paintings, even those in poor condition (the recent Rembrandt, for instance) generally go through on EV. I think these bills, some almost 300 years old, are similar. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:57, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I know that the FP criteria specifically state that images don't have to be in pristine condition (the words they use are aesthetically pleasing), but I think that there is a point where a source work is so heavily damaged that it undercuts the encyclopedic value. In the case of File:US-Colonial (NC-33)-North Carolina-27 Nov 1729 OBV.jpg, I have to strain to make out what is being depicted. The value it adds to the articles it is in isn't terribly great. It doesn't help me understand Edward Moseley at all, and any image of a North Carolina pound would work for that article. The image's strongest claim to EV is in Early American currency, where it is shrunk down to such a small size that it's legibility issues are magnified. I appreciate that this is difficult, if not impossible, to replace, but I don't feel that this is the kind of thing that the "not always required to be aesthetically pleasing" exemption is meant for.  S ven M anguard   Wha?  14:35, 5 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Support. These notes are so rare that just having a free use image in any condition is an amazing accomplishment. Rreagan007 (talk) 05:27, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Support Another phenomenal grouping from the Smithsonian Institution captured at high quality.  A veritable treasure trove of signatures from the birth of a nation. NiceCurrency (talk) 21:50, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Support — High historical EV, visual interest (to a Yank, anyway). Sca (talk) 15:04, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Support per Rreagan007. J e e  13:13, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

--Armbrust The Homunculus 05:25, 14 May 2014 (UTC) --Armbrust The Homunculus 05:25, 14 May 2014 (UTC) --Armbrust The Homunculus 05:25, 14 May 2014 (UTC) --Armbrust The Homunculus 05:25, 14 May 2014 (UTC) --Armbrust The Homunculus 05:25, 14 May 2014 (UTC) --Armbrust The Homunculus 05:25, 14 May 2014 (UTC) --Armbrust The Homunculus 05:25, 14 May 2014 (UTC) --Armbrust The Homunculus 05:25, 14 May 2014 (UTC) --Armbrust The Homunculus 05:25, 14 May 2014 (UTC) --Armbrust The Homunculus 05:25, 14 May 2014 (UTC) --Armbrust The Homunculus 05:25, 14 May 2014 (UTC) --Armbrust The Homunculus 05:25, 14 May 2014 (UTC) --Armbrust The Homunculus 05:25, 14 May 2014 (UTC)