This article is within the scope of WikiProject Numismatics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Numismatics articles 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.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
There are numerous references in other related articles that the silver content of early dollar coins (up to 1837) was 89.25% and not 90%. The silver content of the dollar coins has always been 371.25 grains, and the weight stated in this article - 26.96 grams = 416 grains also corresponds to 90%. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 18.104.22.168 (talk) 09:53, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
Actually, the fineness in the infobox is right and wrong. The legal fineness was 89.25%, but the Mint used the illegal fineness of 90% for all Flowing Hair dollars and all Draped Bust dollars produced in the calendar year of 1795. Assayer Albion Cox persuaded then Mint Director David Rittenhouse that the unusual fineness of 89.25% would be difficult to create and would darken in circulation, so it was illegally changed to 90% or .900 fine. When a new Mint director (Elias Boudinot) assumed the position in October 1795, he ordered that the legal fineness be used instead. By the time it was changed, that year's coinage of dollars was complete, and it wasn't implemented for that denomination until 1796, though some were likely struck in 1796 with the date of 1795. In other words, some 1795 Draped Bust dollars are 90% silver, some are 89.25% silver and all 1796 and later and 89.25% silver.-RHM22 (talk) 21:00, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
"and again throughout the 19th century." What is this supposed to mean ? Production of this coin ceased in 1804, is that right ? That is hardly "again throughout the 19th century", do you know what those words actually mean ?Eregli bob (talk) 00:38, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
It is very confusing if you look at the first line, looking at the main article on the 1804 dollar, it was actually minted in 1834 and again from 1858-1860. Huh. Well hope that helps. --OfTheGreen (talk) 00:44, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
It helps show that the original question was pertinent. Throughout means 'all the way through', from the beginning to the end: in this case, it means 1801, 1802, 1803 . . . 1898, 1899, 1900. So "throughout" the century looks like an overly generous characterization of the actual production run. 22.214.171.124 (talk) 15:46, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
It wouldn't hurt to mention the other dates exactly, would it? --OfTheGreen (talk) 20:17, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
I can't find the above quote, but assume it pertains to the DBD, not the MTT. With regard to my post about mistaking a DBD (presumably made in China, as that's where the missionary said he got it) for a MTT, I happened to be next door to a library at the time, so tried to look up MTT on line. The Warner Robins, Georgia library's "Net Nanny" blocked my search. I pulled a book off the shelf that explained why: MT's partially exposed bosom has been considered pornographic by a great many cultures, including by whoever programmed the library's Net Nanny. Note that the MTT was in world-wide use when the DBD was designed. If you compare the obverse of the one with the other, you'll see the exposure is the same. Though the library book only related world-wide prudish reaction to the MTT, prudery is a world-wide phenomena, too. It is not inconceivable that prudery tarnished the DBD, yet made it desirable to others, "throughout the 19th century," making mint employees susceptible to bribery to knock off some. I've searched for knock-offs of either in Thai and Lao bazaars, but have yet to get lucky. --Pawyilee (talk) 04:41, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
Scott tagged the article with "This article needs to explain how and when this coin got the name "Draped Bust'". This information was apparently not needed to pass FA, so I don't think it's needed now either, hence the removal of the tag. With regards to the issue itself, some information can be found here: Early US Dollars. I'm opposed to the tag as something that "needs" fixing, but not opposing content changes to the article. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 20:29, 11 October 2016 (UTC)
Of course it needs fixing. It's literally one of the most basic facts about this coin going completely unaddressed despite the article being completely reliant on the consequences of the fact.
The "featured article" process is an exercise in stylistic nitpicking that frequently promotes articles with glaring factual errors. Treating it as some sort of sacred cow is a bad idea. — Scott•talk 16:25, 12 October 2016 (UTC)