Talk:Drake's Plate of Brass

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject California (Rated C-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject California, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of California on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Why does the caption on the image say "Note the hole in the lower left" when the hole is in the lower right? Nvinen 22:49, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps because I am an idiot? Must have been late. Nice catch. Chris vLS 00:02, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Are we able to add a short description of who Drake is and why he is important? - Ta bu shi da yu 06:03, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)\

That's what the hyperlink on his name is for, surely. -- Derek Ross | Talk 06:13, 2005 Jan 29 (UTC)

FOR THE TRUTH GO TO and look at "Plate of Brass" —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 07:14, 25 November 2010 (UTC)


Was the ultraviolet inscription ever found? Rich Farmbrough 17:03, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)

No it never was, thats why the wikipedia authors were able to write about it. But seriously, it should be mentioned how they found out about it. (unsigned, by
It's a HUGE question mark about the 2002 story -- there's no mention in the article of anyone checking for it, or for the authors going asking for the Bancroft to examine it. Of course, the plate when found was pretty dirty -- the hoaxsters had burned it a couple times -- but someone cleaned it up, since it looks shiny now . . . perhaps removing the paint? . . .
Anyway, the source for it is the account's from Noll and the ECV "Preposterous Plate" book.
Chris vLS 20:15, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Satisfactory...credo quia absurdum

I'll add that the paint isn't there now. Not that I know anything about this excellent story, but you implied it above. Tempshill 18:08, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
In footnote 13 to the 2002 Von der Porten et al. article in California History, vol. 81, no. 2, pp. 116-133, which is the definitive public exposure of the hoax, it is stated that tests for the fluorescent paint were conducted in 1994 and 2002. These showed that "small spots of luminescence, not natural to brass, firmly adhere to indentations in the back, around the hole which had been cut out as if to hold an Elizabethan sixpence. No luminescence appeared in the many letter grooves on the front of the plate, showing that the fluorescent material had not come from the soil or the artificial weathering process [performed by the hoaxers to make the plate appear old]... The fluorescent material survived only in fractures around the hole for the coin grooves because William Caldeira and Beryle Shinn had scrubbed the plate and a group of printers had cleaned the plate with kerosene..." WMThomas (talk) 16:38, 21 April 2008 (UTC)


Can the intro sentence to 'Origins: a practical joke gone awry' be rephrased: the original DPB article was written in 2005 and 'only recently' may now be less so. Jackiespeel (talk) 09:34, 10 April 2015 (UTC)