Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/High-denomination Federal Reserve Notes (Set)

High-denomination Federal Reserve Notes (Set)
Voting period ends on 17 Sep 2014  at 08:01:33 (UTC) From the National Numismatic Collection, National Museum of American History, Smithsonian Institution. Images by Godot13.
 * Reason:High quality, high EV (presented as a set). Serial #1 high-denomination set of U.S. Federal Reserve Notes, Series 1918 and 1928. Large-size Series 1918 Federal Reserve Notes are obtainable in the $500 and $1,000 denomination. There are no $5,000 or $10,000 notes in private hands. Small-size $10,000 bills (Series 1934) exist in number (in large part due to the $1,000,000 display of 100 $10,000 notes formerly housed at Binion's Horseshoe Casino), however there are only ten Series 1928 notes known to exist. That all eight notes are serial #1 makes this set virtually impossible to improve. From the U.S. Treasury Department collection transferred to the National Numismatic Collection in 1978. There is no way to improve this high-denomination set of Federal Reserve Notes.
 * Original:An eight-note complete Serial #1 high-denomination set of U.S. Federal Reserve Notes, Series 1918 and 1928.
 * Articles in which these images appear:Large denominations of United States currency (all), Federal Reserve Note (4), Series of 1928 (United States Currency) (4)
 * FP category for this image:Currency
 * Creator:Bureau of Engraving and Printing


 * Support as nominator – Godot13 (talk) 08:01, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Support - Even more... a 10k bill.... and in 1928 dollars too! — Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:55, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Support Those are good pictures - I mean the ones displayed on the bills. And technically good. Hafspajen (talk) 10:19, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment — Interesting for their high-denominational value, but it seems to me we've had quite a few U.S. currency FPs of late. How about some banknotes from less well known countries / governments — perhaps from some that no longer exist, such as the Free City of Danzig? (Right) Historical EV. Sca (talk) 14:21, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Sca-Actually, in terms of the EV, the high denomination value may be secondary to their serial number indicating they were the first of their kind printed. The next nomination will be with your comment in mind...--Godot13 (talk) 18:35, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Support. Nice work. Rreagan007 (talk) 18:36, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't understand how is legal to have these and the image doesn't explain it. Nergaal (talk) 16:07, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Quoted from above:"From the U.S. Treasury Department collection transferred to the National Numismatic Collection in 1978...National Museum of American History, Smithsonian Institution." There is also a tag on each of the images indicating it is at the Smithsonian.--Godot13 (talk) 19:53, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
 * From a pure copyright perspective, it's fine, as all works by the US government (such as these notes) are PD. In regards to having high quality scans of banknotes, Commons:Currency has some discussion. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 04:24, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
 * It is not quite clear that the image is PD. I understand the work of US government to be PD, but in case of money I would prefer to have an explicit link in the template stating that that note is indeed PD. And besides the copyright, is it legal to own prints of this at any size? I would prefer to have the answer to this question clearly covered for banknotes that are still technically in circulation. Some info at here could be more explicitly be included in one of the templates. Nergaal (talk) 07:10, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Again, check out the link; the sentence you're looking for is "... Title 18, Section 474, ... restricts transmitting electronic images "with intent to defraud" but says that 'The Secretary shall establish a system [...] to ensure that the legitimate use of such electronic methods and retention of such reproductions by businesses, hobbyists, press and others shall not be unduly restricted.'" . If you want Godot to use the PD-USGov-money template, I'm sure he can do it. I doubt the Smithsonian (a government agency, I believe) would be letting him put these scans on Wikipedia if it was illegal. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:16, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
 * There is also an OTRS tag attached to each image as I needed to document Smithsonian approval. Any none of these note are in active circulation anymore.--Godot13 (talk) 08:58, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I am not saying that this image is illegal. I was trying to point out that the description below the image does not clearly explain how the image is legal to have - being that in at least several parts of the world high res images of banknotes are technically illegal to own (or so I thought). Nergaal (talk) 00:58, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I guess the "Godot13 / Smithsonian Institution" template is fine, but personally I would prefer to add to "permits color illustrations of U.S. currency" something along the lines "including currency in circulation". Nergaal (talk) 01:13, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Btw, speaking of the actual images, are the actual banknotes blackish on one side and green on the other? It is not clear to me if the stark difference in color is intentional but the designers or by the editor. Also, there is a pink mark on the reverse of the newer 10k note (above "of") which I believe should be erased? Similarly for the front of the older 5k and 10k, there are pencil marks in blue and pink. And there is some yellow staining on the back of the newer 1k which could be removed? Nergaal (talk) 01:16, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
 * There are several pages on Commons already which make this point clear. Policy does not require that individual pages have text where templates are enough.
 * If you'd actually try Googling you'd find out very quickly that yes, the two colours are in the original notes. This is underexposed, but one can clearly see the difference between the two. Asking that here, without taking the time to search for the answer on your own, is akin to accusing the uploader of misrepresenting the object.
 * When one is documenting an actual artefact (in this case, a particular bill), one does not "remove" imperfections on the artefact itself. Scanner gunk, yes. Actual imperfections in the note/painting/sculpture? No. One documents it, flaws, marks, and all. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 02:15, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Not sure why u annoyed. But it is strange to me why creases should be fixed while obvlius imperfections that have nothing to do with the artifact. A pencil mark that was not supposed to be there but which can be easily removed without altering the actual value and accuracy of the pic is not that different from a note having been folded. Nergaal (talk) 11:56, 18 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Trivialities above aside, great work. Support. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 01:58, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

--Armbrust The Homunculus 12:44, 17 September 2014 (UTC) --Armbrust The Homunculus 12:44, 17 September 2014 (UTC) --Armbrust The Homunculus 12:44, 17 September 2014 (UTC) --Armbrust The Homunculus 12:44, 17 September 2014 (UTC) --Armbrust The Homunculus 12:44, 17 September 2014 (UTC) --Armbrust The Homunculus 12:44, 17 September 2014 (UTC) --Armbrust The Homunculus 12:44, 17 September 2014 (UTC) --Armbrust The Homunculus 12:44, 17 September 2014 (UTC)