Talk:Turban Head eagle/GA1

GA Review[edit]

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Malleus Fatuorum 23:12, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Detailed comments to follow over the next day or so.

Thanks, that had been sitting there forever.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:18, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Low-hanging fruit; I was feeling lazy after Mavis. I don't think it should take me too long ... Malleus Fatuorum 23:25, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Lead

Can we do something about the repetition of gold in "Increases in the price of gold made it profitable for the coins to be melted for their gold content"?

"Four 1804-dated eagles were struck in 1834 as part of sets of US coins to be given to foreign potentates." They weren't struck as part of sets, they were presumably struck to be included in such sets.

The images, particularly the first, are rather fuzzy. Can they not be sharpened up a bit or replaced with better ones?

Unhappily, it is what we got. I did my best, but I did not have a tripod and there was no way to eliminate the vibration of my body.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:59, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ah well, we'll have to live with it then. I have a wonderful Panasonic Lumix camera with the most amazing image stabilisation system, but I'm told that the best way to take pictures of items behind a glass screen is to (gently) press the lens against the glass. But I'm no expert. Malleus Fatuorum 00:10, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'll try that next time. But it is unlikely I am getting back to Colorado Springs anytime soon.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:20, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Inception

"In 1791, Congress passed a resolution authorizing President George Washington to establish a mint." Elsewhere "mint" is capitalised.

Yes, I know, because it is short for "Bureau of the Mint". Here, it is just a generic mint.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:59, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Feeling that the action was inadequate, President Washington asked legislators to pass a comprehensive act which would govern the new facility." What "action", what "act"? I'd always capitalise "Act" when referring to a law, but it may be different in the US.

But this is a generic act, it has not yet happened. I can change that to "law".--Wehwalt (talk) 23:59, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

We're still talking about a legal Act thought, not a common or garden act like going shopping. Malleus Fatuorum 00:15, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but one which did not yet exist and I've changed it to "law".--Wehwalt (talk) 00:20, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"... pursuant to which the highest denomination authorized to be struck was the eagle." That looks more to me like a piece of Victorian prose than it does a 21st-century encyclopedia article.

"The first deposit of gold to be struck into coins was made at the Mint in February 1795". I don't understand what "the first deposit of gold ... was made at the Mint in February 1795" means. The first delivery of gold to be struck into coins was received by the Mint in February 1795?

The government did not supply the gold, for the most part, that was struck into coins. People would deposit gold, and then come back later and get coins. There was usually a slight charge for the service.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:59, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I see. Do we know who made that first deposit? Malleus Fatuorum 00:13, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Moses Brown. He took his money in half eagles.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:33, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's worth including, because it's a bizarre idea to us Brits that you take your gold to the Mint and have them make it look pretty for a fee. Malleus Fatuorum 00:53, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Royal Mint did the same thing at least until the early 19th century, and I think it continued at the colonial branch mints such as Melbourne into the 20th. Although it didn't happen that much in London in the 18th, which is probably why you are unfamiliar with it.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:58, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, well, I live and learn. Malleus Fatuorum 01:03, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oh yes, sometimes they would do it from captured Spanish gold and silver, for example there are some from bullion brought back by the South Sea Company that say SCC on them (obviously that didn't last), and that say VIGO on them captured there ... well beyond my price range.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:07, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"The new director took office on July 9, 1795, and pressed to have the gold coin project completed with great speed." That phrasing ("pressed to have the gold coin project completed with great speed") seems a bit archaic to me. Are those your own words or those of Albanese?

Mine. The relevant quotations are "he immediately set about producing coins made from gold. He assumed his duties on July 9, 1795 and barely three weeks later, on July 31, he oversaw the minting of the first Half Eagles". "he expedited the preparations that Rittenhouse had made". Albanese speculates that part of the reason was that he wanted the gold struck before yellow fever broke out in Philadelphia, as it did in the late summer in many years (it was less common when I went to university there. So was gold.)

OK, but the phrasing still seems a bit stilted to me. I've offered an alternative, see what you think. Malleus Fatuorum 01:01, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Production

"DeSaussure is believed to have struck half eagles first for this reason in consultation with bank officals." That's not quite right, as he didn't strike the coins in consultation with bank officials. What about "DeSaussure is believed to have struck half eagles first for that reason, after consultation with bank officals"?

Why would yellow fever epidemics in Philadelphia have an effect on the Mint's production?

Ah, good point. I have added the Mint's location.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:51, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

1804 issues

"In 1834, the United States Government intended to present a set of then-current US coin to four Asian rulers ...". Shouldn't that be "coins"?

Those are done.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:03, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

One last one for you: "Albanese believes that the eagle in that set is not the original, but another of the four purchased to replace one sold to a collector". I don't quote follow that, what four are we talking about? Malleus Fatuorum 15:07, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That is fixed

Images

This is just a question for you really, but what's your take on the licensing of File:1796_eagle.jpg and File:1804 eagle crosslet 4.jpg? I understand that the coins themselves aren't copyrighted, but the photographs from the ANA catalog surely are?

The ANA auction catalog was published without a copyright notice before 1978 in the US. Thus, it is in the public domain. I went through a large quantity of auction catalogs to find a few that were not in copyright.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:28, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I'll take your word for that, not myself being any kind of expert on US copyright law. I think we can close this now. Malleus Fatuorum 15:37, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks for your work.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:05, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.