Talk:Trade dollar (United States coin)/Archive 1

Archive 1

Comment

There seem to be discrepancies between sources as to how well the coins circulated in China.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:45, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

What does it say? Bowers says that they were relatively popular in some parts of China, but not in the north.-RHM22 (talk) 14:51, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

I've forgotten. I will have to look for the sources. I think you should stress that this was the only opportunity at the time for silver depositors to have their bullion made into US coins. It wasn't like they were doing this in preference to smaller coins (which would make no sense as the dollar was over-weight).--Wehwalt (talk) 17:34, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

I think my sources say that, but I'll check to make sure.-RHM22 (talk) 17:50, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

redeemed?

The United States Trade Dollar officially was terminated in 1887 and all, non-mutilated outstanding Trade Dollars were redeemed by the United States Treasury.

What does this mean? Redeemed? Obviously not all of them were taken away by the Treasury if that's what it's supposed to mean. Tempshill 04:43, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

It means that the Treasury gave another form of coins/currency as payment for turning in these coins. --Kurt 06:07, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the typo fixes, Rjwilmsi. :) Timber72 (talk) 21:42, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Untitled

Feature Article Error

Someone needs to read over the front page run of this article and the article itself, the front page exert says "minted to compete with other large silver coins" and the article says "minted to compete with other small silver coins", emphasis on contradicting large and small. I suggest someone change this quickly, it's a rather embarrassing mistake to be found on the front page of the site.

182.239.157.110 (talk) 07:37, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Kim.

Images

Pretty impressive update.

A quick note on the images - the two lead ones are unfortunately quite indistinct, though I'm not sure if it's through the age of the picture or simply due to them being worn when photographed. There's a sharper picture here, though unfortunately it's dated 1884 rather than 1873, or an engraving of the 1873 version here (both have matching images of the other side) - neither are conceptually as good as a photo of the original minting, but both are a bit clearer. (I uploaded the engravings years ago, but somehow forgot to add them to the article then!) Shimgray | talk | 19:24, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the note! I agree that the photos aren't great, but they're the only free use ones I was able to find (they're from 1914, so the copyright has expired). The 1884 picture you linked to is quite a bit better, but there's no indication that the original uploader had any right to use it in the Wikipedia article. For that reason, it can't be use, as that would probably constitute a copyright violation. The engraving is ok, since it's from 1874, but I prefer to use photographs when possible, even if they are older ones. Unfortunately, the most difficult part of writing coin articles is finding good photographs.-RHM22 (talk) 19:31, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

A photograph that is solely of a public domain image is considered to be in the public domain also, in the United States. Comet Tuttle (talk) 15:12, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

External links

Not wanting to tinker with this fascinating article, I'm posting here. Of the two external links, the first currently redirects to a subscription-only site and the second is "not found". I can't find alternatives. Haploidavey (talk) 10:52, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Do you mean the two Google Books links? They work for me, but I know that Europeans sometimes have trouble viewing them.-RHM22 (talk) 16:13, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the response. I mean the second external link, "ANACS warns of counterfeit Trade dollars". Someone's fixed the first one. (And yes, we multinational googlers don't always get the same previews). Haploidavey (talk) 16:44, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

I see what you mean now! I have removed that link, since it doesn't really seem important anyway.-RHM22 (talk) 18:43, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Is "Orient" really the best term to use in the introduction ?

I see in the introduction to this page that the term "Orient" has been applied in reference to Eastern Asia. Surely the term "Eastern Asia" would be better ? I appreciate that at the time that the trade dollars were originally produced, the term "Orient" was probably widely used, but in the 21st century it is hardly an accurate term to be using, having patronising and racist overtones that many East Asians have a problem with. (Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:57, 14 July 2011 (UTC))

I've substituted East Asia for "Orient" in the lede. However the article at present lacks explanation as to where other than China is relevant. If it was a much wider area, possibly something like "Far East" should be used? Really, I think we should be more specific if we can be. If there was significant use of these Trade Dollars in Asia outside of China, where was this the case? -- Infrogmation (talk) 12:47, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

I actually think the term "Orient" was the best term to use here, because it is referring to what happened in the 1860s. That's what they called it back then, and personally I think it actually sounds better when referring to what happened in the 1860s to refer to it as the Orient. It's like saying that "Custer's Last Stand was an 1876 battle between 700 U.S. troops and 3000 Native Americans" (rather than Indians). It just sounds strange to use modern terms rather than the time appropriate terms when referring to what happened in a certain time period. Rreagan007 (talk) 14:22, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

I have no preference either way. I never heard of "Orient" being considered offensive in any way (not that it would matter, as Wikipedia is not politically correct). Further, I think the term is accurate. However, like I said, I have no preference either way. As for use of the trade dollar, it was certainly not limited to China, even though that's where it would have been most widely used. I also don't think substituting simply "China" would work, because many of the areas in which the coins would have been used were likely not actually part of China at the time, or were at the time but are not now.-RHM22 (talk) 16:11, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

The term "Orient" is not considered offensive. The adjective form "Oriental" used to refer to Asian people is sometimes considered offensive to some people. Rreagan007 (talk) 17:08, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

With all due respect Rreagan007, I really can't understand your argument that antiquated terms should be preferable on Wikipedia, for aesthetic reasons or otherwise. As an archaeologist, I've done quite a bit of work on Wikipedia articles about the past, and there are many, many terms that I simply think should no longer be used when referring to ethnic groups or their regions - "nigger" in place of Africans, "Indians" in place of Native Americans etc etc. I appreciate that these terms are not in quite the same league as the term "Orient", but it still carries with it an extremely Eurocentric, colonialist connotations that many would argue is tantamount to a form of paternalistic racism. The term "East Africa" is not only more geographically accurate, but it is free from these negative connotations. (Midnightblueowl (talk) 17:21, 14 July 2011 (UTC))

I think it is important to note that Wikipedia uses the most common terminology, no matter if said terminology is offensive or not. If "nigger" were the most commonly used adjective, that's what we would use, no matter if that group finds it offensive. That said, I would agree that "East Asian" is likely more common now than "Orient", so that is probably an acceptable replacement. As such, I have changed the TFA blurb to reflect the changes made to the article.-RHM22 (talk) 18:42, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

With all due respect, I completely disagree with trying to lump in the term "nigger" with the term "Indian". The term "Indian" to refer to the indigenous peoples of North America is preferred by a majority of those people today and is the reason that in 2004 the National Museum of the American Indian in Washington, D.C. was not named the National Museum of the Native American. Rreagan007 (talk) 19:43, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Point taken, it is a bit of a stretch to lump the two together. The term "Indian" still is a hugely contenscious issue, embraced by some Native Americans and reviled by others (but that's a whole other argument and not relevent here)... (Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:53, 14 July 2011 (UTC))

Britianna

This is the "Britannia" penny from the pre-decimal age. Figure that I'd add it for comparison. Cheers!

I'm so surprised nobody has remarked on the close similarity between this coin and the "seated Britannia" which used to feature on British coins (within living memory I believe she was on the obverse of all British coin, but I could be wrong about that). The earliest free image I can find on this is here on a 1797 penny. L0ngpar1sh (talk) 12:44, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

That's no coincidence. The obverse of the coin used prior to this, the Seated Liberty dollar (as well as the Gobrecht dollar), was likely influenced by the design. In fact, Thomas Sully, who designed the Seated Liberty obverse (which is very similar to that of the trade dollar) was sent a case of British coins as inspiration.-RHM22 (talk) 16:05, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Wow! That's pretty scholarly I'd say. Thank you sir! L0ngpar1sh (talk) 20:37, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

1884-1885 Trade Dollars

I think you might add a paragraph about the 1884-1885 Trade Dollars, which were made illegally at the mint for a couple years after the series had officially ended, somewhat like (I suppose) the 1913 Liberty Head Nickel. See Don Taxay: Counterfeit, Mis-struck, and Unofficial U.S. Coins, chapter titled Famous Forgeries of the US Mint. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.159.232.121 (talk) 06:00, 2 March 2018 (UTC)