Talk:Pilgrim Tercentenary half dollar

Background section too long

The "background" section does not need to cover the history of the Pilgrims, which has almost nothing to do with the coin, just to refer to the main article. On the other hand, it might be useful to connect it to the colonial revival and nativist trends at the time. With, of course, reliable sources. --Macrakis (talk) 17:53, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

Many of the articles on the classic US commemoratives have a background section. For one thing, it helps explain who Bradford was.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:59, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

I certainly agree that the background section should connect features of the coin, notably Bradford and the Mayflower, to their origins. A couple of sentences briefly explaining what they are and linking to their full articles is enough. It is generally a bad idea to repeat information that is easily found in the full article and which is only peripherally related to the article's topic, in this case, a coin, not the voyage of the Mayflower or the theology of the Pilgrims.

As I say above, on the other hand, more historical context on the issuance of the coin is relevant here. For example, we don't even mention in the current version how important the Mayflower is to the foundation story of the US. I'll see if I can fix that. --Macrakis (talk) 17:38, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

dead link

Hello User:Wehwalt, ref name "profile" is dead, maybe is best to just list the title, date, author etc. for that bill instead of cite a temporary link?

I can only connect by VPN now, but can't edit here most cases. Apply for permission already but never get an answer.--Jarodalien (talk) 11:26, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

section "Preparation":

"The Pilgrim Tercentenary Commission... Commission of Fine Arts (CFA) ..."

"Dallin finished his models in August 1920 and the commission referred the designs to sculptor member James Earle Fraser"

I think is the best to clarify the latter as CFA.--Jarodalien (talk) 14:22, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

"These were coined in July, together with 53 pieces held for the 1922 Assay Commission, and they have the year of issue added on the obverse to the left of Bradford." Is this means that 1920-dated issue doesn't have "1920" on obverse because is pretty unusual.--Jarodalien (talk) 15:56, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

I will deal with these comments sometime this weekend. I'm sorry for your difficulties with online. Thanks for going through it in such detail.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:59, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

Sorry about that, was trying to juggle real life and Wikipedia. I am grateful for your attention to these articles when your internet is so limited. I've made that clarification. Having the date on the reverse is not that unusual for commemoratives. It's more unusual for regular issues (except for some recent dollar coin issues), the original Mint Act of 1792 specifically required the date of striking to appear on the obverse, and that was renewed by the later acts of 1837 and 1873 (I just looked). However, these requirements did not apply to commemoratives which were to have the designs set by the Director of the Mint with the approval of the Secretary of the Treasury. So that puts us in the oddball situations with no date or two dates or five dates, none of which is when they actually struck the coin. Once Heritage Auctions lets us use its images, we'll be able to illustrate these things better, such as here. I need to follow up with them Monday.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:33, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

I need to check more on the dead link. I will get back with you tomorrow.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:33, 16 May 2020 (UTC)