This is an archive of past discussions on Wikipedia:WikiProject Numismatics. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

This WikiProject is now active as of August 22 2005.We will be updating and expanding it. If you would like to join please sign your name on the participants list. If you have any questions you can leave a message here. Johann Wolfgang 03:41, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

Man, I've seen a few new coin articles pop up, and a fair amount of editing on existing numismatic related articles. I can't believe no one else has signed up yet. Joe I 00:38, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

Maybe we should put up a few notes on the village pump or the Community Portal. Or why not put together a featured article to get some attention directed towards it. I'm also thinking of putting up a messaging list for people interested.

Johann Wolfgang [ T ...C ]
03:04, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

I would like to expand this project to cover all coinage (ancient/medieval/modern) . There is currently no structure or organization to the coin-related articles in wikipedia. Does anyone have any ideas how to better organize the topics? Maximus Rex 13:10, 23 Mar 2004 (UTC)

We should organize all the coinage articles in descending order (if possible) by time period (ie., ancient/medieval/modern), continent, country, date, mint, and variety. --Merovingian ↕ Talk 13:19, Mar 23, 2004 (UTC)

There is a huge amount of information out there already about current coins. For example, tenge. I don't think this is under the numismatics project, but I'm new around here and don't know how to tell. There's an infobox there with the name of the currency for each country in that continent which is very useful. Should that be listed somewhere? --mom2jandk 12:45, 07 November 2005 (UTC)

Goto Template:Numismaticnotice, hit "what links here", and that's all the Numinastic articles we know about.  :) Joe I 03:33, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Finally figured out how to do that (should've asked, but I always get sidetracked finding something else to read or do). Anyway, there's lots of stuff not there. I've found some by trying to go through the category hierarchy which is a mess (see my comment below under Categories). If I find a numismatic article that doesn't have the notice, I assume I should add it, right? Mom2jandk 22:36, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

Definatly put it in there if you'd like. I thought we'd gotten all the ones in categories, but guess not. If you find any without categories, please find one to put it in as well :) Joe I 01:06, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

I've created a {{Coin infobox}} template. I based it on the discussions here as well as the Infobox page. I've implemented it on the United States dollar coin page for everyone to see. I'm proposing that this become the standard. In case you aren't aware, infobox templates are very nice because they allow editors to easily create the infobox by copying a standard format and filling in a form. Take a look at the source code to the US dollar coin page for a great example of this.

If this is acceptable to everyone, I'll edit the main Project page to describe how to use it when editing coin pages. I haven't looked into paper currency to see if there is any standard infobox for it yet, but I'm sure it'd be a good idea to create ona and use it. Markkawika 03:42, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

I've had a problem with the infoboxs since day one I saw them. They just seem to big. Having that big a&& coin stareing at me freaks me out :) besides scrunchin the text up, such as United States dollar coin, and the infobox heading has the denomination in it, should the value be listed right under it? I played around with it awhile back. See here. Joe I 21:21, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

Well, personally I feel like having a picture of the coin on the page that talks about the coin is an important feature. As to the need for the value, it doesn't make much sense on the Dollar Coin page, I agree, but if you look at the Dime page, it is very helpful because it explains that "one dime" is equivalent to "0.10 U.S. Dollars". So I feel that both the value and the denomination should stay. I'm certainly open to the idea of tweaking the width somewhat if that is the consensus. Markkawika 23:50, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

And now that I've continued to explore Coin pages, I found the {{Coin}} template, created by an anonymous user. It's about the same as my template, but with less descriptive variable names, and with visible lines in the table. I personally prefer the appearance of it, but I like certain parts of mine (the auto-insertion of the "Image:" tag and the "200px" image scaler). Anyone object if I merge the two together? Markkawika 09:46, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

I think it would be great if you merged them. I'd like to reiterate what User:KeithTyler said below, that the years of minting should be included. I'd also like to see the catalog number included, although this is maybe more relevant to world coins (my interest). When talking about a specific type of world coin, it is, in my experience, the chief identifier. For world coins, the Standard Catalog of World Coins is the catalog. Mom2jandk 03:28, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

I've placed a copy of the infobox at Wikipedia:Infobox, so please be sure that any changes are reflected there as well. Tuf-Kat 04:39, Sep 30, 2004 (UTC)

I'd like to suggest including years of minting in the Infobox. - KeithTyler 18:34, Oct 11, 2004 (UTC)

Shouldn't the image used in an infobox be a high grade example when available? Also, for coins that have changed appearance, I think you should either use the most recent version or the version that was minted for the longest time. --brian0918™ 13:07, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I agree that it should be the highest-grade legal example available. I've upgraded the images on the US Half dollar page using this rationale. As to what image to use, that's a really good question. In my personal opinion, each separate example of a coin should have its own page, though that's probably more work than it's worth. For now I agree with you, use the most representative version of the coin. Markkawika 09:50, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

I think it has to apply to only a single example of the coin since the information included (like composition, design, etc) is specific to a specific type. Including all examples is not practical for all coins, but the box has to refer to a specific type, and the image should match that type. Including the years of minting, and possibly catalog number (see above) will make it more clear which type it refers to. Mom2jandk 03:28, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

See also Sacagawea Dollar for a succession box mentioned on article page. Joe I 00:44, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

I think we should start up this Wikiproject again.
Johann Wolfgang 19:53, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

I'm in, for what it's worth. Not alot of free time, but better than none. :) Joe I 01:52, August 23, 2005 (UTC)

I'll help out where I can.--chris.lawson 01:52, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

Hi, I'm a member of the Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team. We are looking for quality articles for a print or CD version of Wikipedia. We recently began assessing using these criteria, and we are looking for A-Class and good B-Class articles, with no POV or copyright problems. Can you recommend any suitable articles on Numismatics? I know that this project has been dormant for some time, but any suggestions are welcome. Cheers. --Shanel 22:00, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

The infobox says just value, should that be face value or redemption value? Joe I 04:42, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

Almost all numismatic and currency guides do not include redemption value. I think it should be face value instead.

Johann Wolfgang [ T ...C ]
18:07, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

The front page says that there is a sign up list, but I don't see one. --Kurthalomieu J. McCool 03:03, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

Theres a link on the front page to Wikipedia:WikiProject_Numismatics/Participants

Welcome Aboard ya'll :) Joe I 03:28, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

Oh, I see it now. It's been a long day. It think it'd be best if the link was at the top also. --Kurthalomieu J. McCool 05:27, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

I've added welcome messages to both your talk pages.

Thanks you for joining the WikiProject:Numismatics.

Johann Wolfgang [ T ...C ]
15:50, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

Should the List of circulating currencies page be added to this project? – Zntrip 18:03, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

I'm not quite sure... This project seems to be about Numismatics, but I wouldn't mind if its scope were widened to include currencies in general... As it is now, however, I'm fairly sure that only coins should be included. ナイトスタリオン ✉ 20:49, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

I suppose, but the Currency page is part of the project. And we all know that the List of currencies page’s list is far more superior than the currency page’s. ;) – Zntrip 22:17, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

True that, true that. I'm still highly in favour of widening this project's scope to include currencies and monetary affairs in general (not in the least connected to the fact that I'm mostly interested in changes of currencies... ;)). ナイトスタリオン ✉ 08:56, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

Currency is considered numismatics.

Johann Wolfgang [ T ...C ]
17:11, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

I just updated the link from [[List of currencies]] to [[List of circulating currencies]] in the above comment. Ingrid 05:43, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Some work is left at commons:Category:Roman coins, see commons:User:Saperaud/Money. --Saperaud 02:04, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

In the above proposed table, if it is used, Tokens, Medals, Orders, and Decorations should be under Exonumia. Also, Stocks, Bonds and Checks should maybe be under Paper Money (not my area so I am not sure...). --Qwertypoiuy 17:20, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

The stub claims to contain a picture of the five pound note, but the picture is of a one pound coin. I decided not to alter anything myself, leaving it to the project members to add the picture or remove the referance. The stub does describe some points of interest about the note.

Thanks for pointing that out, we'll take care of it soon.

Johann Wolfgang [ T ...C ]
17:07, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

Currently, a number of currencies is still not at the standard name of Somewhereian generic currency (Namibian dollar), but at Generic currency (Kwanza) or Generic currency (currency) (Rand (currency)). I've listed all currencies that should be moved at Wikipedia:Requested moves, and I suppose this WikiProject is the place where talk on this should take place. ナイトスタリオン ✉ 17:15, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

1. Support all of the relevant moves. Stefán Ingi (talk) 15:20, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
2. Support. Almost forgot to vote myself... ;) ナイトスタリオン ✉ 17:19, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
3. Support per Stefán and Nightstallion.--chris.lawson 01:51, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
4. Support per Stefán, Nightstallion and Chris :) I oppose removal of diacritics from the names - though I'll support the addition of ASCII forms to the articles with the "foreignchar" template or some other mechanism. - Haukur Þorgeirsson

From WP:RM The list:

• Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Numismatics — The following moves are to made to standardize currency names to the format DEMONYM NAME, as in Namibian dollar:
  • Dobra → São Tomé and Príncipe dobra
  • Kwanza → Angolan kwanza
  • Pula (currency) → Botswana pula
  • Loti → Lesotho loti
  • Rand (currency) → South African rand
  • Lilangeni → Swaziland lilangeni
  • Dalasi → Gambian dalasi
  • Cedi → Ghanaian cedi
  • Naira → Nigerian naira
  • Gourde → Haitian gourde
  • Quetzal (currency) → Guatemalan quetzal
  • Real (currency) → Brazilian real
  • Ouguiya → Mauritanian ouguiya
  • Kyrgyzstani Som → Kyrgyzstani som
  • Indian Rupee → Indian rupee
  • Rupiah → Indonesian rupiah
  • Ringgit → Malaysian ringgit
  • Baht → Thai baht
  • Kroon → Estonian kroon
  • Tolar → Slovenian tolar
  • Forint → Hungarian forint
  • Złoty → Polish złoty
  • Slovak crown → Slovak koruna (to mirror Czech koruna)
  • Swedish Krona → Swedish krona
  • Icelandic Króna → Icelandic króna
  • Ruble → Russian ruble
  • Kuna (currency) → Croatian kuna
  • Lari (Georgia) → Georgian lari

Do all the names you are proposing fit in with the international standard names used in ISO 4217 ? -- Philip Baird Shearer 15:45, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

Yes. The only ones I left out for now are Pound sterling (should be Great British pound) and Renminbi (should be Chinese yuan); the others follow the ISO code. ナイトスタリオン ✉ 16:41, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

Please see ISO web site: Currency codes which has a link to ISO 4217 Currency names and code elements I have not looked through them all but "Icelandic króna" is wrong it should be "Icelandic krona" and it also seems that they do not use the country in the name of a currency unless it is for disambiguation puropses eg "Dobra" is under "Debra" not "São Tomé and Príncipe dobra" --Philip Baird Shearer 03:56, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

I realize that. I'm not sold on króna, if there's consensus, let it be krona; but I think the standardization is worth going against ISO in a few cases. ナイトスタリオン ✉ 08:01, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

Also the Polish Zloty. Normally I do not approve of using ASCII as a starndard because in most cases it is a cultural not a techical issue as to why the English language only uses 26 characters. But in these cases the reason why ISO uses ASCII (and can't remember, but it may be only UPPER CASE) is to do with backwards compatability on the SWIFT system and the other banking systems linked to them. It is hard enough to convert EBCDIC to ASCII and back without trying to convert anything else. --Philip Baird Shearer 10:13, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

Well, but that doesn't mean we have to be backwards compatible with SWIFT, does it? ;) I think we don't always need to follow the standard. We don't do it with country names, anyway... ナイトスタリオン ✉ 09:15, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

I did a few which didn't need an administrator Stefán Ingi 23:54, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

I did all of those who didn't need an admin. ナイトスタリオン ✉ 08:11, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

The remaining five have just been done by Rob Church and his bot. Next, I'd like to discuss the two remaining cases: The British pound/Pound sterling and the Chinese yuan/Renminbi. What place should those articles be at? I'm not even sure myself, so I'd like to hear what arguments you've got for either variant. Thanks! ナイトスタリオン ✉ 22:53, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

Rather than answer the question, let me add another Gulden (historical currency) is both the Austro-Hungarian gulden and German gulden (plus there's a Dutch gulden, but that's already a separate article). There's a precedent at franc which is about the franc generally. Still, I find the gulden article confusing since they appear to be completely separate currencies with the same name (and derived from the same currency), but the article format makes it seem like they're the same. I'm not sure if I understand the topic enough to split the article, but I might try anyway. Mom2jandk 02:26, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

Actually, let me add my opinon on the other topic as well. I don't see why the articles shouldn't match the style used elsewhere. I'm not sure I fully understand what Renminbi is though. Is it that they call their currency "renminbi" but that's not the denomination? Sort of like "renminbi" means "Chinese money" in Chinese? I think there could also be either a separate article for renminbi linking to Chinese yuan, or just a redirect from renminbi. Either way, I'd like to see an explanation somewhere of why there are two names, since reading the current article didn't fully explain it to me. As far as British pound, I think it's comparable to Deutsche Mark which I believe should be moved to "German mark" with a redirect and mention that it's often referred to as "Deutsche Mark". Or am I missing some subtlety in the importance of "Pound sterling" as opposed to "British pound". Mom2jandk 02:26, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

Personally, I'd be for "Chinese yuan" and "British pound", yeah. It'd be great if you could split the gulden articles. I'll try to add more currencies that need to be moved below; I think that this one very productive user, Dove-something, now adds new article links by the style guidelines, so we should be okay after those moves. ナイトスタリオン ✉ 07:00, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

I think, if there is any debate on naming, just leave it the way it is, then put redirects to the article. This would save time and would take fewer people. However when Searchme (Joe1) and I started labeling articles for categorization and sorting, we realized there were a lot of coin articles, somewhere around 1000 to 1200. So we will certainly have our work cut out for us.

Johann Wolfgang 23:32, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

I started a Modern_Commemoratives page. Right now it's just an incomplete list, if you can fill in something, please feel free. Joe I 23:23, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

There is a British Commonwealth numismatic page where you can link your articles to.It is here; British Commonwealth Numismatics. - (Aidan Work 05:33, 16 November 2005 (UTC))

Now at Wikipedia:WikiProject British Commonwealth Numismatics. Mom2jandk 19:15, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

There are some style inconsistencies in existing articles and categories. We should pick a style to use, "coins of France", "French coinage", or "French coins". Also, we should pick between "banknote" and "paper money". As in, "French banknotes" or "French paper money". I don't personally have a preference as far as coins go. I prefer "banknotes" to "paper money", but don't really care. Mom2jandk 05:15, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

My vote goes for French banknotes and French coins; banknotes is stilistically nicer than paper money, IMO, and the equivalent to French banknotes is clearly French coins. ナイトスタリオン ✉ 06:47, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

I just noticed that there's already a style page for the project. I'm moving this discussion there (I don't know the etiquette of moving someone else's text, so I'm copying it there but also leaving it here; I hope that's okay). Please follow up on the style page.

We now have a complex situation with a couple of articles, and I was wondering if an admin, or just someone with more wiki-experience could help. There was an article, Gulden (historical denomination) that needed to be split into two articles, South German gulden and Austro-Hungarian gulden. The split was done by cut and paste, so the article history was lost, which as I understand it, violates the GFDL. So, is there an easy way to fix that? Or do we have to delete the new articles then somehow split the existing article? Then, South German gulden needs to be merged with Austrian florin. Anyone want to volunteer to see it through (can you tell I'd rather not mess with it)? Mom2jandk 05:53, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

I just found another weird one at Aruban florin. When I click discussion, I'm taken to a redirect page, titled Talk:Aruban guilder and pointing to Talk:Aruban gulden. I guess something got messed up in a rename. Anyone know how to fix it? Mom2jandk 06:19, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

We'll have to ask an admin to move Talk:Aruban gulden to Talk:Aruban florin, it was somehow messed up in the moving madness that took place. And regarding the South German/Austro-Hungarian gulden mess - am I glad I'm not an admin yet. ;) ナイトスタリオン ✉ 11:17, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

I would take a crack at trying to sort it out if I weren't heading out - if it's still unresolved later I'll try to fix it...in the meantime I added some categories to the South German and Austro-Hungarian gulden...as they say, it's the least I could do (and I always do the least! yuk yuk!) Paul 15:14, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Something just reminded me - regarding the categorization of coinage-related laws - I'm also working on subcategorizing the fairly large amount of U.S. federal laws - the format I've been using is generally along the lines of Category:United States federal banking legislation, for example. However, Category:United States federal coinage/currency legislation doesn't quite work...perhaps "monetary" or something like that? I hate when I mess up on categories, so I need feedback. Paul 15:17, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Why would Category:United States federal currency legislation not work? Ingrid 00:49, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

It would work and it's probably what we'd end up using, although "currency legislation" isn't a term that I've ever heard before Paul 03:19, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

I agree with Ingrid. It should be Category:United States federal currency legislation. Category:United States federal monetary legislation is not correct because it includes legislation about the Federal Reserve system, interest rates, etc. "Currency legislation" says exactly what we want it so say: laws about the printing of notes and minting of coins, and related topics. Markkawika 06:30, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Would an admin be volunteer Rhodesian Dollar to Rhodesian dollar without having to go through any formal process? I don't know why it's not working for me. Rhodesian dollar exists, but it's just a redirect. Ingrid 00:49, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Done. You couldn't move it because it wasn't just a redirect to the other page, it had content in its history. Titoxd^{(?!? - did you read this?)} 03:39, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

I noticed that Wehwalt (whom I've notified of this discussion) moved the Double Eagle article to Double eagle, with the summary "Should properly be lower case per MOS". However, related articles (including Quarter Eagle and Half Eagle) were not moved.
Upon noticing this, I moved Double eagle back to Double Eagle. I don't know which style is correct. (The prose seems to indicate that the "Eagle" nomenclature comprises a series of proper names formally established by the U.S. Congress, but it's possible that I've misunderstood.) Either way, I'm fairly certain that we should be using one style or the other.
Note that Wehwalt also moved 1933 double eagle and Saint-Gaudens double eagle to their current titles and created Liberty Head double eagle. —David Levy 09:22, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

I moved it because I was working on the denomination, haven't gotten around to the quarter eagle and so forth. Most of the numismatic articles give the denomination (dollar, cent, nickel) in lower case and the descriptor (Liberty Head, Saint-Gaudens) in caps. However, I have made no effort to work ahead.--Wehwalt (talk) 09:41, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

Okay, so we're agreed that consistent styling across the "eagle"/"Eagle" coin articles is desirable. The question is whether the capitalized or uncapitalized style is called for.

My layperson understanding is that the various "Eagle" designations refer not to generic denominations, but to specific U.S. coins formally assigned these proper names. But I'm far from certain of this. Hopefully, others can help us to arrive at an informed consensus (ideally one backed by reliable sources). —David Levy 10:14, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

If it says "quarter eagle", that is the name of the $2.50 piece. If it is Indian Head quarter eagle, that is the name of a specific type of quarter eagle. Project Numismatics has over 30 FAs, all of which follow this convention, and I didn't write them all (RHM22 wrote several, but he's not very active these days). I would suggest that you look to major non-wiki sources of numismatic information, such as the US Mint, the American Numismatic Association, Coin World, and so forth. Regrettably, we have very few coin collectors. I wish we had some.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:51, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Many sources cited in the relevant articles are print publications to which I lack access. Those that exist online include inconsistent styling.

This page from the United States Mint, cited in the Double Eagle article, contains the capitalized "Double Eagle". A site-specific Google search appears to show predominance (but not exclusive use) of that form. Switching to "quarter eagle" or "half eagle" results in a more even mix. In all cases, the inclusion/omission of a hyphen also varies.

Are you aware of any reliable sources (online or not) that address this issue explicitly (as opposed to silently favoring a particular style)? —David Levy 08:06, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Not offhand.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:03, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

A Guide Book of United States Coins is a well-known reference, and should be fairly readily available. The Numismatist presumably has a style guide, and when they published my article in October, they accepted that way of doing things without comment I could ask the editor who worked over my article.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:38, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Glancing at the page you link, the term that is capitalized is "2009 Ultra High Relief Double Eagle Gold Coin", the name of a one-year product that the Mint marketed. That product is covered in Saint-Gaudens double eagle, but we don't give it the long name like that, which is proper as it doesn't seem to get much use off the Mint's website. I don't think that's much guidance. I note the Mint uses the term with the proper capping here. Coin World, if you look at the articles (some are online free) you will see they cap the way I do (just do a search). You probably can't access the current issue of The Numismatist but I'd be glad to send you screenshots of some of the pages if you send me an email.

I think the bottom line is that given that upwards of 30 numismatic FA's follow this formatting, not just in titles but also in prose, it would be more than a pain in the ass to switch to capitalization of denominations, i.e. Lincoln Cent, some fairly strong convincing would have to be in order. The obvious thing to do is to switch over those articles you mention above that I've told you I haven't gotten to yet. And the major reason I haven't gotten to Quarter Eagle and Half Eagle is that the Coronet series, which lasted from about 1838 to 1908, isn't terribly well written about, I don't have images of all major types, and so it waits. I don't tend to do work in advance, so I haven't been motivated to switch it to lower case. That seems the obvious thing to do now, so that the next person who notices that doesn't have to be referred to this discussion.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:22, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Glancing at the page you link, the term that is capitalized is "2009 Ultra High Relief Double Eagle Gold Coin", the name of a one-year product that the Mint marketed.

The page also contains the phrase "1907 Double Eagle".

I note the Mint uses the term with the proper capping here.

As I mentioned, usmint.gov-specific Google searches for the relevant terms ("quarter eagle", "half eagle" and "double eagle") yield highly inconsistent results. For this reason, I agree that it doesn't amount to much guidance.

Coin World, if you look at the articles (some are online free) you will see they cap the way I do (just do a search). You probably can't access the current issue of The Numismatist but I'd be glad to send you screenshots of some of the pages if you send me an email.

I trust you. If that style predominates among reliable sources, it seems sensible to use it at Wikipedia.

I think the bottom line is that given that upwards of 30 numismatic FA's follow this formatting, not just in titles but also in prose, it would be more than a pain in the ass to switch to capitalization of denominations, i.e. Lincoln Cent, some fairly strong convincing would have to be in order.

Oh, I certainly don't advocate that generic terms like "cent" and "dollar" be capitalized in this context. I've questioned whether the "eagle" terminology is considered equivalent. If it's customarily treated as such, that's fine by me. —David Levy 13:15, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

It should be, because it is no different than a cent, or a dollar, in theory, it's just a denomination of coin, but as we don't use the terminology outside numismatics, I think error has crept in. Those of our ancestors who were in the US in the 1920s would have known what it meant immediately. I'm not fully satisfied because I don't like to tell people "take my word for it". I will be at the American Numismatic Association library in April and will enquire of the librarian. Sorry I overlooked "Double Eagle".--Wehwalt (talk) 20:44, 13 January 2014 (UTC)