Talk:Refunding Certificate
This article is rated Stub-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
File:US-$10-RC-1879-Fr-214.jpg to appear as POTD soon
[edit]Hello! This is a note to let the editors of this article know that File:US-$10-RC-1879-Fr-214.jpg will be appearing as picture of the day on May 26, 2016. You can view and edit the POTD blurb at Template:POTD/2016-05-26. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 00:27, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
1907, 1885
[edit]The article states:
- In 1907, Congress passed an act that ended the interest accrual of the certificates, and fixed the value of them at $21.30, over twice their face value. By January 1, 1885, all but $260,000 (99.4%) in face value had been redeemed, and since that time most others have met the same fate.
The original version of the page said:
- However, in 1907, Congress passed an act that ended the interest accrual of the certificates, and fixed the value of them at $21.30, over twice their face value. Needless to say, by January 1, 1885, all but $260,000 in face value had been redeemed, and since that time most others have met the same fate.
The "Needless to say" suggests that the second sentence is a consequence of the first, which only makes sense if one of the dates is incorrect: e.g. if 1907 were changed to 1877, or if 1885 were changed to 1908. jnestorius(talk) 15:11, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
- Also wondered about this. Searching for it, the 1907 date seems well established (would be interesting to track down the act of Congress). I can't find anything for 1885 that isn't just a repeat from this page, but then again don't have access to the sources mentioned at the end. My thought is that it's just very badly worded and ordered, rather than a typo. ‑‑YodinT 09:03, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
- @Iamvered: please can you confirm your source for the 1885 fact? ‑‑YodinT 20:55, 28 July 2016 (UTC)
Percentage does not make sense
[edit]The percentage in this sentence does not make sense: "By January 1, 1885, all but $260,000 (99.4%) [sic] in face value had been redeemed, and since that time most others have met the same fate." Shouldn't the percentage be ".6%"? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Autodidact1 (talk • contribs) 19:39, 28 May 2016 (UTC)
- Stub-Class United States articles
- Low-importance United States articles
- Stub-Class United States articles of Low-importance
- WikiProject United States articles
- Stub-Class numismatic articles
- Mid-importance numismatic articles
- Stub-Class American currency articles
- Unknown-importance American currency articles
- American currency articles
- WikiProject Numismatics articles