Talk:Lincoln cent

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Featured article Lincoln cent is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so.
Main Page trophy This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on December 27, 2010.
Article milestones
Date Process Result
December 1, 2010 Featured article candidate Promoted
Did You Know
WikiProject Numismatics (Rated FA-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon 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.
Featured article FA  This article has been rated as FA-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject United States (Rated FA-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon 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.
Featured article FA  This article has been rated as FA-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Resources/Ideas for Expansion[edit]

On the first point, you mean first circulating coin.--Wehwalt (talk) 04:19, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

On the first point, you mean first American circulating coin. The first coin depicting a "real person" may have been struck by the Romans more then 2000 years ago, but quite possibly dates from prior to that -- one of the Greek states maybe? Maybe someone who specializes in ancient coins can comment further.

BTW, I live in the US and don't recall seeing any of those four 2009 commemorative cents in circulation to this day. The commemorative Jefferson/Lewis & Clark Expedition nickles were in circulation. So were the quarters issued for each of the 50 states and the various territories. Not so the 2009 Lincoln commemorative cents. ( (talk) 03:33, 27 December 2010 (UTC))

I've seen a few of them around, but they don't seem to have circulated the way the state quarters or the Jefferson nickels have. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 03:43, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
Probably has to do with how many coins the banks were drawing from the Federal Reserve, sometimes it is high, sometimes they sit in storage. I haven't seen a National Parks quarter outside a collector's set yet.--Wehwalt (talk) 03:45, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
I have likewise seen a few National Parks quarters. But it was much easier to acquire the state quarters somehow. Hard telling what's going on. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 03:56, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
So, is anybody objecting to the article noting that this was the first circulating U.S. coin to depict an actual person? (talk) 23:49, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
No, if you are going to source it to the Times article, it seems appropriate. The conversation has gotten rather sidetracked with the Greek thing, so I wasn't sure we had resolved it.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:54, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
Your citation, with its backstory on the history of U.S. coinage, appears to be a reasonable reference. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 23:55, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
OK, I put it through again. (talk) 23:59, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

What about the 1863 Washington 2-cent piece? My only source on this is Wikipedia, but it looks like that was regularly circulating for several years. I think someone should look into this to see if the Times was mistaken. (talk) 15:31, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

Well, I wrote that article too, and that was a pattern. It was never approved by the Mint Director (Pollock) or the Secretary of the Treasury (Chase). Under the Act of May 22, 1864, that was required. If some circulated, it wasn't authorized.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:50, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

Brenner's Initials[edit]

According to the New York Times, Lincoln cents without the initials entered production on August 13, which is later than indicated in the article. See Coining Lincoln Cents. Sir Nils (talk) 04:02, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Bowers says that Landis sent Leach 100 of them on August 12, and there is a section heading, "August 12, 1909". Given that contemporary newspaper accounts can often be wrong, I'm inclined not to change the date. I could put the Times in a footnote. Probably in the morning.--Wehwalt (talk) 04:32, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Missing info[edit]

I find it strange that this article can make featured article status without ever even mentioning, neither in the infobox which includes the composition change to mostly zinc, nor in the text, a 19.6% reduction in weight from 0.1 oz t before the 1982 change.

Well, not all that strange—I guess it just confirms what I've known for a long time about the innumeracy of the denizens of the featured article process. Gene Nygaard (talk) 14:33, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Since what you have proposed is a relatively simple and noncontroversial change, you might do well to find a source on it and just implement it in the article. Or get involved as a reviewer. It's your encyclopedia too you know!--Wehwalt (talk) 14:56, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

No section for notable pennies?[edit]

I think a section that mentions the most notable penny rarities (like the 1970 S small date and 1972 double die) would benefit this article. The 1955 double die is mentioned briefly already. I believe a large portion of readers of this article are likely to be beginner numismatists so it seems a very appropriate addition. As a featured article, it seems odd to me that it's not already part of the article. Perhaps it once was? Jason Quinn (talk) 13:10, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Sounds good to me, and I would encourage you to add such a section. Mudwater (Talk) 13:30, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
Perhaps put a section at the foot of the article, sort of a list, and a brief description? All sourced, of course. Several of them I think are already their own article, and we should point the reader there for in depth info.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:18, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
Sounds like a plan. Mudwater (Talk) 17:37, 19 January 2013 (UTC)