Talk:Large denominations of United States currency

message: At Salmon P. Chase, there is a picture of a $10,000 bill. Can you copy it to this page?? User 66.245.114.181
:Its been added. Its also a fairly grainy, small image. I propose a better scan replace it. --98.232.181.201 (talk) 09:09, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  ?? -- Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 10:49, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Salmon P. Chase

message: For the denomination bills of $5 to $100, I added pre-Federal Reserve histories. But how about the $500 through $10,000?? It can be harder because this page would be about 4 times as large as the other pages. 66.245.86.115 14:52, 2 May 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pre-Federal Reserve histories of large bills 

message: Where did 1969 come from?? I always thought it was 1946 for all the bills. 66.245.110.24 13:45, 10 Jun 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: 1946 is when the government stopped printing the large bills. 1969 is when it actually started withdrawing these bills from circulation. Funnyhat 22:44, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: According to the website referenced, in the article, the large denominations were cancelled due to lack of use and not because of an executive order issued by Nixon to fight organized crime. Additionally there is no record of Richard Nixon ever issuing an executive order concerning either the Federal Reserve  or organized crime at the National Archives for the year 1969.  http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/executive-orders/1969-nixon.html
--Beowulf1978 23:12, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

text: According to http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/executive-orders/1969-nixon.html, there was no Excutive Order signed by Nixon to halt priting of bills thus I am removing the statement about Nixon issuing such an order. Trentc (talk) 16:55, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  1969 

message: It appears that some information was dropped; namely who was on the $1000 bill during the time of the large-sized notes. Is there any way this can be added back in?? Also, all the articles of today's bills have a complete history; can anyone add the complete history of the larger bills?? 66.245.14.250 00:29, 23 Jun 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Uh oh! 

message: If, conceivably, I DID  have a $1000 bill, could i cash it in at a bank? Or are they like confederate money, worthless except to collectors? Rhymeless 22:08, 22 Aug 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: But how was this recall act in 1969 supposed to combat crime? Presumably it caused some inconvenience to criminals who were forced to carry larger stacks of bills for their illicit transactions - but if the banks are still accepting the old bills, there is still plenty of opportunity to forge them? Also, if they are "legal tender", does that mean I'm personally obliged to accept one, if a friend owes me $1,000 and offers me a $1,000 bill in payment? I wouldn't have a clue how to verify that the note was genuine. Mtford 02:23, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Theoretically, you could cash a high-denomination ($500, $1000, $5000, $10,000) bill at a U.S. bank, and receive the same amount back in smaller notes. But you wouldn't want to do so because, firstly, they are worth more than their face value to collectors (i.e., you can sell them on ebay), and secondly, because the bill will be destroyed (and the bills, especially the $5000 and $10,000, are already very rare). Also, if a high-denomination bill is spent at a store, it will probably return to a bank, and be destroyed.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 118.211.76.171 (talk) 08:22, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: I would like to add a bit to this since the details are hard to find from a simple web search.  Legal Tender means something different in each jurisdiction, but in the U.S. it means that the tender is a valid way to discharge a debt if the parties that contracted the debt did not specify another means of payment.  So, if your friend owes you $1000 and you made no agreement at the time the debt was incurred that a $1000 bill was not acceptable then, in fact, you must accept the $1000 bill or risk forfeiting the debt.  (If you press your friend for repayment in another form, your friend can ask a court to extinguish the debt if you won't accept the legal tender bill.)  However, it is perfectly acceptable for a business to limit your payment options as part of the process of contracting the debt.  For example, McDonald's can say "hamburgers for sale as long as you don't pay in bills larger than $20" - the idea being that how you pay is part of the deal.  But they have to let you know at the time of the purchase that not just any form of payment is acceptable.  --LondonYoung (talk) 14:58, 31 July 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  So then.. 

message: :"the gold standard was repealed and gold was made illegal to own"
Um, what? It's illegal to own gold in the United States? No it's not. What is this sentence meant to be about? —Rory ☺ 20:54, Sep 25, 2004 (UTC)
:no, but it was from 1933 to 1975 when the ownership of bullion was re-legalized. 
see http://www.austincoins.com/confiscation.htm for a discussion. 
Rick Boatright 00:42, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Gold illegal? 

message: Who's the man on the picture of the million dollar bill at the bottom of this article?? Georgia guy 16:58, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Its now on the Fake denominations of United States currency , and the man's name is Rutherford_B._Hayes, the 19th president. The Fake currency is actually a tract given out. ( I have one! )  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.185.2.22 (talk) 06:03, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Who's that man?? 

message: I understood that US currency never expires, thus all bills could (in theory) still be used for face value. However, most old bills are move valuable as collectors items and would never actually be used as currency. This does explain why we now have THREE different "modern" $50, $20 and $10 bills and TWO different "modern" $100, and $5 bills still in circulation.
mnw2000
: This seems to make the addition of new security features rather pointless. Why would a forger waste time trying to counterfeit a "new" $10, $20 or $50 bill, when an "old" one will always remain legal tender? Mtford 02:23, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Not really as there is a process to make bills look older than they are. Trentc (talk) 17:02, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  All US Currency is "in use" 

message: If there are 300 $10,000 bills surviving, how can the survival of "most" of them be due to Benny Binion's conservation of 100 of them?  Schoen 06:02, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe it's referencing the "known" population of Federal Reserve Notes (which were the notes held by Binion) rather than other denominations from series like Gold Certificate and other series.--293.xx.xxx.xx 22:26, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Benny Binion

message: The article as is looks extremely cluttered. Propose to dump most of the pictures into a gallery format. --293.xx.xxx.xx 22:27, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Propose to add gallery 

message: Some intrepid editor may want to take note of the Secret Service seizure of the Ray Comfort million dollar bill tract. More info here:
http://worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=50495
http://www.worldviewweekend.com/secure/cwnetwork/article.php?&ArticleID=770
Done and done.  As a member of GNN, I've got somewhat of an inside track.  It's slowly being picked up by the news media, and Darrel Rundus has said he'll be interviewed on television about the incident. MessengerAtLWU (talk | contribs) 21:10, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ray Comfort and the million dollar bill 

message: This article needs a section regarding the "Grand Watermelon", which in time should probably be split off into a separate page.  See this article Collector Pays $2.3M for $1,000 Bill for brief details of the grand watermelons. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 72.240.211.151 (talk) 00:21, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Good image in that article. As noted here it's press released by the Auction house. -- Kendrick7talk 15:00, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Grand Watermelon 

message: Somebody please confirm whether this edit, saying that since 1964 there have been no restrictions on acquiring or holding the Gold Certificates, is accurate. --Mathew5000 11:36, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The edit is correct. Although most gold certificates are legal to own, the 1934 series certificates (the ones mentioned with the orange reverses) are illegal to own because they were never released to the public and only used for intra-governmental transfers.-MBK004 16:36, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Two items at issue here. The gold certificates (including the gold-backs) ARE legal to own, and even to trade (as in use to purchase) IF they have been declared at customs INBOUND to the United States. At the time of use or ownership questioning the holder must provide that customs' declaration. I struck the line, temporally, about all know items being in museums. Harris and NCS (now defunct) have both auctioned off privately held specimens over the past few years. Declarations of import (and reasoning that they were purchased or traded-for in foreign countries) were provided. Unless the author can provide referenced proof that they are now, as of this date, all in museums, the line should probably be removed. Lostinlodos 20:57, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  legal or illegal to own the orange bills? 

message: I have removed the "In popular culture" section.  It contained the following items:
* In the 1953 novel The Long Goodbye, the detective Philip Marlowe is sent a "portrait of Madison" (i.e. a $5,000 bill) by his former friend Terry Lennox.
* In the 1989 film The Mighty Quinn, the lead character uncovers a secret plan by the U.S. President to fund a revolution in Latin America with stacks of discontinued $10,000 bills, money taken from the U.S. Treasury that will not be missed.
--Andrew Kelly (talk) 00:40, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  In popular culture 

message: I think there should be a mention of the fictional trillion-dollar bill in the Simpsons episode The Trouble With Trillions.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.110.232.68 (talk) 16:41, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: There has been resistance against putting fictional instances into this article.  Look at Fake denominations of United States currency, as well as the discussion, Talk:Fake_denominations_of_United_States_currency#Simpsons_episode. -Verdatum (talk) 15:53, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Simpsons episode 

message: I'm not sure where I can find a verifiable source for this, but as late as 2005 people I know have received thousand-dollar bills as payment, and have gotten five hundreds and thousands when they cashed in their tax return checks. Could this only be limited to Texas though? 67.149.24.80 (talk) 17:32, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Its funny you should mention this -- I've heard this was going on in Texas. A friend of my family who worked in construction/carpentry occasionally carried $500 bills, as late as the early-1990s. I also seem to remember hearing you could "order" (as in a trade) $500 or $1000 bills in Texas, presumably at any major bank you had an account with? Anyone else heard about this? --98.232.181.201 (talk) 08:56, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  $500 and $1000 bills still in circulation 

message: ↓Do we really need to use the generic grainy images of large denominations?
There are many excellent scans/images of $500, $1000, $5000 and $10,000 bills available, plus a handful of scans/images of large-size large denomations. For example, a small-size $1000 gold certificate would be one of interest to show, due to its high value as a collector's item. Regular FRN $1000 bills are relatively common (just take a look at ebay) but Gold Certs are rare. Is there a rule that says we have to use the current images? --98.232.181.201 (talk) 08:56, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Images of US currency are considered public domain, so any image may be used. -Verdatum (talk) 15:02, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Lousy images

message: Two of the entries seem to be conflicting. At one point in the article it states "there are only about two hundred $5,000 bills, and three hundred $10,000 bills known, of all series since 1861". The next paragraph goes on to state "as of May 30, 2009, there were only 336 of the $10,000 bills in circulation; 342 remaining $5,000 bills; and 165,372 $1,000 bills still being used". If these numbers are referencing something different, it does not appear to be clear. Can someone clarify? Dohhh22 (talk) 15:12, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Confusion content

message: Is it worthwhile to mention this amount (e.g. $100,000 bill now worth $1.6 mil etc.)? The simple fact is that currency redemption is not adjusted for inflation. If you presented any of these bills for deposit at any bank you would be given face value, just as if I presented a $5 bill issued in the mid 1970s I wouldn't be given its inflation adjusted value. There maybe function in quoting appraised value to collectors, but purchasing power equivalent is kind of a red herring. Also this 'value' is mentioned twice in the article, first as a stand alone section and then again with each individual note's section. If it truly is of educational value and more than just trivia it should be consolidated, having it mentioned more than once seems inappropriate. Also, where does this value come from? If it is of serious value its source should be listed.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dougboyle (talk • contribs) 20:48, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I am going to remove the inflation adjusted numbers. The biggest problem I see with it is the question of from what date the inflation is done from. The $10,000 bill was used for many years. Are you inflation adjusting from the first bill that was printed (say 1919) or the last one or one in the middle? Even if we inflation adjusted from the first bill that was printed, this information is not really pertinant to this article. Cshay (talk) 06:53, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Current Equivalent Values 

message: Hello!
I came here to learn about something I saw in the final scenes of "How to Marry a Millionaire" that I saw Thursday morning. However as I've been reading your various articles, it came to my mind that I should mention the prop currency seen in the Eddie Murphy movie, in which he played the title character, "Pluto Nash". They used a type of paper money with Hillary Rodham Clinton's portrait on it, and it was said she had been a U.S. President. If I'm not mistaken, her version replaced Benjamin Franklin on the $100.00 bill/note. I include this "movie trivia" as an afterthought, I suppose.
Now here is what I really want to write about and/or ask about. The $1,000.00 bill/note that I saw in Marilyn Monroe's movie! I took a screenshot of that scene. What I want to know is, is it genuine, or just a movie prop? It doesn't seem to match the example that you all ready have though. But after hearing the commentary for Sarah Michelle Gellar's movie, uh, whose name I can't recall for now, the director said that he was annoyed when he saw obviously fake money being used in movies, so he kept real cash in a safe, for use in such scenes as when SMG's character is rolling around in the cash. So with that in mind, I wonder if the director for MM's movie might have done the same thing with that wad of cash the millionaire was shown using in the diner. Or was it all fake?
I don't know how to insert the screenshot here! But anyway, any help would be appreciated. Plus, I hope that if I can share my screenshot, that it could be helpful to this article. LeoStarDragon1 (talk) 14:02, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  "The Adventures of Pluto Nash" & "How To Marry A Millionaire"! 

message: I couldn't figure out how to add a citation without messing up the formatting. Here is an official .gov page noting that private ownership of the $100,000 bill is illegal: http://www.moneyfactory.gov/100000goldcertificate.html   Fredirc (talk) 08:37, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Citation for $100,000 bill 

message: This paper (with references) confirms that Treasury notes with very high nominations HAVE indeed been issued by the US Treasury:
http://www.ehs.org.uk/ehs/conference2005/Assets/NollFullPaper.doc
–::–
A Paper for Presentation at the 2005 Annual Conference of the Economic History Society at the University of Leicester, 8-10 April 2005
By Dr. Franklin Noll
Introduction
For most of their history after World War II, Treasury notes have been issued with denominations never rising above a high of $1 million. Yet, from 1955 to 1969, the Treasury issued Treasury notes with the added denominations of $100 million and $500 million. The purpose of this study is to determine why the Treasury issued these very-high-denomination Treasury notes and why it stopped doing so.
–::–
This guy also has more interesting papers:
http://franklinnoll.com/Treasury-Securities-Knowledgebase.html
This pdf, for example, shows that there multiple treasury notes with very high nominations were issued:
http://franklinnoll.com/Vol_10.pdf
For example (page 5):
–::–
Treasury Notes: Series A-1947
Description:
Authorizing Act (s):
24 September 1917, amended
Liability:
Public Debt
Issued for:
United States Treasury
Instrument Type:
Note
Conditions:
Interest: 1.50%
Maturity: 4 years
Redeemable: on maturity [15 September 1947]
Callable: n/a
Sold at: par
Denominations:
Negotiable:
Coupon: $$500, $1,000, $5,000, $10,000, $100,000, $1,000,000
Non-Negotiable: n/a
Issues:
Series A-1947 [12 July 1943]
Source(s):
Annual Report of the Secretary of the Treasury, 1943: 327.
–::–
The Annual Reports of the Secretary of the Treasury can be found at archive.org:
http://www.archive.org/search.php?query=creator:%22United+States.+Dept.+of+the+Treasury%22
This one should be very interesting. The one from 1934:
http://www.archive.org/details/annualreportofse1934unit
And 1935:
http://www.archive.org/details/annualreportofse1935unit
http://www.archive.org/stream/annualreportofse1935unit/annualreportofse1935unit_djvu.txt
Very interesting that here you find the proof that bonds with attached interest coupons WERE issued and with nominations as high as $100,000 as well:
–::–
[Treasury notes, series D-1936. Department Circular No. 522]
Treasury Department,
Washington, September 10, 1934.
EXCHANGE OFFERING OF NOTES
The Secretary of the Treasury, pursuant to the authority of the Second Lib-
erty Bond Act, approved September 24, 1917, as amended, offers for subscrip-
tion, at par, 1% percent notes of the United States, designated Treasury notes
of series D-1936, in payment of which only Treasury certificates of indebted-
ness of series TS-1934, maturing September 15, 1934, may be tendered. The
amount of the offering is limited to the amount of Treasury certificates of
indebtedness of series TS-1934 tendered and accepted.
DESCRIPTION OF NOTES
The notes will be dated September 15, 1934, and will bear interest from that
date at the rate of 1^^ percent per annum, payable semiannually on March 15
and September 15 in each year. They will mature September 15, 1936, and
will not be subject to call for redemption prior to maturity.
The notes shall be exempt, both as to principal and interest, from all taxa-
tion (except estate or inheritance taxes) now or hereafter imposed by the
United States, any State, or any of the possessions of the United States, or by
any local taxing authority.
The notes will be accepted at par during such time and under such rules and
regulations as shall be prescribed or approved by the Secretary of the Treasury
in payment of income and profits taxes payable at the maturity of the notes.
The notes will be acceptable to secure deposits of public moneys, but will
not bear the circulation privilege.
Bearer notes with interest coupons attached will be issued in denominations
of $100, $500, $1,000, $5,000, $10,000, and $100,000. The notes will not be
issued in registered form.
–::–
Googling for “series of 1934″ (with the “” also in the google search bar), like for example:
http://www.highdenomination.com/Gold_Details.asp?id=904
–::–
This listing, of a $100,000 Gold Certificate, is intended for educational purposes only. I do not own this note, nor have I ever owned it in the past. The description and the scan were uploaded in response to the many people who claim they have a genuine $100,000 Gold Certificate, and would like to know a little more about their note. This then is for you.
The $100,000 Gold Certificate is the highest denomination ever printed for all Federal paper money in the United States. The notes were dated Series of 1934 and a total of 42,000 units were printed. Depicted on the front of the note is Woodrow Wilson, 28th President of the United States. He served as President from 1913 to 1921.
It is important to understand that $100,000 Gold Certificates (like the one pictured) were intended for use in FISCAL CHANNELS ONLY. They were never issued for general circulation. The notes are strictly government property and are not legal to collect or own.
Of the 42,000 notes printed, there are no notes outstanding. In other words, all the notes that were printed are accounted for.
–::–
Interesting contradiction. How can you have “many people who claim” when “all the notes that were printed are accounted for”?
Well, they were “accounted for” by wiping “approximately $100 million in gold, silver, and other assets as security for this old currency” under the carpet in 1961:
http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/docs/historical/senate/senate_frdp_old1960.pdf
–::–
BILLS TO EXTEND AUTHORITY OF FEDERAL RESERVE BANKS TO PURCHASE TREASURY OBLIGATIONS AND TO AUTHORIZE ADJUSTMENTS IN ACCOUNTS OF OUTSTANDING OLD SERIES CURRENCY
JUNE 24, 1960
COMPTROLLER GENERAL OF THE UNITED STATES,
Washington, March 9, 1959.
Hon. A. WILLIS ROBERTSON, Chairman, Committee on Banking and Currency, U.S. Senate.
DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: Your letter of February 27, 1959, acknowledged March 2, requests our comments on S. 1177.
The bill would authorize adjustments in the accounts of paper currency issues of the United States issued prior to July 1, 1929, and gold certificates issued prior to January 30, 1934, and the writing off the Treasury statements and accounts of the amount of each denomination of each kind of old large-size currency now outstanding that has been destroyed or irretrievably lost and which in the judgment of the Secretary of the Treasury will never be presented for redemption. The effect of the proposal would be to improve the cash position of the Treasury by more than $100 million.
We believe that the purpose of S. 1177 is meritorious and would have no objections to its enactment.
Sincerely yours,
JOSEPH CAMPBELL, Comptroller General of the United States.
The CHAIRMAN. S. 3714 would authorize the Treasury to adjust its accounts with respect to the large size currency issued by the Government prior to 1929 and with respect to about $12 million of gold certificates issued between 1929 and 1934.
The Treasury and the Federal Reserve System are holding approximately $100 million in gold, silver, and other assets as security for this old currency. This includes about $61 million in gold and silver reserves held by the Treasury and about $37 million in reserves held by the Federal Reserve banks to secure Federal Reserve notes.
The bill would authorize the Treasury to transfer the amounts of this old currency from its currency accounts to the outstanding public debt, to be reported as part of the outstanding public debt, in the same manner as Federal Reserve bank notes, national bank notes, and U.S. notes are now reported. The Federal Reserve banks would pay to the Treasury an amount sufficient to discharge their liabilities for outstanding Federal Reserve notes. This action would make available to the Treasury for current use approximately $3 to $4 million a year. Any of the old notes presented for redemption would be redeemed in regular course from the general fund of the Treasury.
The bill would also permit the Secretary of the Treasury to determine the amount of the old currency which has been destroyed or irretrievably lost and to reduce amounts of this old currency outstanding on the records of the Treasury. This action would not impair the redeemability of any currency subsequently presented to the Treasury.
The Treasury would be authorized to withhold from destruction one piece of each currency issue to provide a historical collection of the paper currency of the United States.
The chairman would state that that appears to be a rather technical provision, but he understands it just boils down to this, that a very substantial amount of paper money has been lost or destroyed and the backing for it in gold and gold certificates is still kept for its ultimate redemption. This proposal is that instead of keeping all of those assets locked up for a contingency that may never happen, the Treasury wants the privilege of saving about $3 to $4 million a year in interest on outstanding debt by using those assets to retire the debt to that extent, with a clear provision that if any of these old notes should later show up, they will be fully redeemed.
–::–
This act appears to have been enacted, but it may have been changed:
http://www.federalreserve.gov/aboutthefed/section16.htm
“The act of June 30, 1961, is the Old Series Currency Adjustment Act”
Also a very interesting detail can be found in several Treasury bulletins, like this one:
http://www.archive.org/stream/treasurybulletin1967unitaug/treasurybulletin1967unitaug_djvu.txt
“Excludes gold certificates, Series of 1934, which are issued only to Federal Reserve banks and do not appear in circulation.”
How can you have “gold certificates, Series of 1934″ which are “issued only to Federal Reserve banks and do not appear in circulation” that have been DESTROYED or IRRETRIEVABLY LOST?
I mean, if these things were really only used by Federal Reserve banks, why on earth would you need an act to “authorize adjustments in the accounts of paper currency [..] and writing off [...]old large-size currency now outstanding that has been destroyed or irretrievably lost”???
L4m4re (talk) 18:53, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: There were 100m and 500m notes, with Ulysses Grant on 100m and Grover Cleveland on 500m. These were to be sent to Chiang Kai Shek to fight of the commies, but the plane carrying the notes crashed in a filipino jungle.  and  --Tamara Johnson (talk) 20:05, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Even bigger denominations? 

message: In this video at around 1:45 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_eExucI3IWs) a member of the Federal Reserve says that the Federal Reserve still holds around $11 billion in gold certificates.  This seems to be somewhere around the amount that was originally printed in series 1934 gold certificates, which makes me think that a large number of $100,000 bills are still held and counted as legal tender by the treasury.  This might be original research on my part but I found it interesting and maybe something could be added to the page. :P  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.121.105.94 (talk) 17:26, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  $100,000 gold certificates still used/held? 

message: Trivialist, I believe you showed a measure of bad faith in your recent edit to remove content I had added. You treated the edit almost as if it was vandalism, and I disagree with your assertions. Perhaps consensus will support your actions, but you've quite a ways to go to convince me.--My76Strat (talk) 05:56, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: It's not really constructive to accuse someone of bad faith, especially for something as simple as disagreeing and reverting your edit with a reasonable edit summary.  It would be more helpful if you used the talk page to explain your rationale for why the content should be included and to comment on the content, not the contributor.  The article in question only mentions $1,000 bills in passing, but says nothing that would indicate that it's an important use of the denomination in any way. - SudoGhost 06:06, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Deconstructing an article is not constructive. I stand by my comment and it goes much deeper than the simple revert that you are suggesting. Nevertheless you are welcome to call things what you like. Cheers.--My76Strat (talk) 06:19, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Recent reversions

message: I took out the mentions of the $500,000,000 bill references.  I've seen pictures of that supposed "bill" which is obviously a crudely edited version of a $1,000 bill.  The object in the photo is a fake bond from a Philippine scam claiming to have trillions in unaccounted for bonds and such.  It obviously isn't real. -- ChameleonXVX
:Exactly!. Other versions have $500's, $100's, $50's, $20's, and even $1's edited and coupons added, same case for this, a person put a picture of a $1,000 note into paint, added coupons, and changed the denomination and such. Also, this was allegedly issued during the 30's, but if you look closely, the seal is in English (English seal was introduced in 1966), and the obligation does not moention "Lawful money". The Fed writes:
Over the past several years, the Federal Reserve has issued various advisories relating to bogus investment schemes involving phony "prime bank" notes, letters of credit, and guarantees, and other financial instruments. In May 2002, in SR letter 02-13 the Federal Reserve once again highlighted the dangers associated with investment schemes that promise very high rates of interest that are, among other things, supposedly generated through secret trading programs involving financial instruments. That SR letter listed the general characteristics or "red flags" of illicit financial instrument investment scams.
Since the issuance of the Federal Reserve's last pronouncement about fraudulent investment schemes in 2002, Board staff has become aware of the growing use of altered Federal Reserve Notes as part of illicit investment schemes. The notes are in face amounts of $1 billion, $500 million, $100 million, or $50 million or some other astronomically large amount and have "coupons" attached to them. They often look like the picture to the right.
Except for coins, U.S. currency is in the form of "Federal Reserve Notes." The notes are designed and printed by the Bureau of Engraving and Printing of the U.S. Department of the Treasury and are circulated through the 12 Federal Reserve Banks in the United States. These notes are familiar – they are the money in our pockets – and are in general circulation in this country and abroad in $1, $2, $5, $10, $20, $50, and $100 denominations. It would appear that there should be no confusion between the phony notes and legitimate U.S. currency. However, fraudsters often falsely claim that the altered Federal Reserve Notes that they hold are somehow very special (for example, they are part of a secret trove of notes issued by the Federal Reserve under unusual circumstances that have been hidden for decades in secret locations abroad) and are not known to the public because they are so secret. The fraudulent notes – one example of which is set forth above – are worthless.2
Board staff is also aware that wrongdoers have been falsely claiming that the "notes" can be taken to banks and other financial institutions to be used to collateralize loans or traded as part of an investment program. They cannot be used for any purpose whatsoever because they are entirely bogus.3
Federal law enforcement authorities have asked the Federal Reserve to advise individuals, banking organizations, and other entities who have been contacted regarding the phony Federal Reserve Notes to contact the local offices of the agencies. This includes the field offices of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, U.S. Secret Service, U.S. Bureau of Immigration and Enforcement, or Internal Revenue Service's Criminal Investigation Division.
Reserve Banks are asked to distribute this SR letter to the domestic and foreign banking organizations supervised by the Federal Reserve in their districts. Questions concerning this matter should be directed to a senior special investigator in the Special Investigations Section of the Division of Banking Supervision and Regulation at (202) 452-6488 or (202) 452-228.http://www.federalreserve.gov/boarddocs/SRletters/2003/sr0314.htm
I removed Tamara's $500M section. --Yang Long (talk) 23:58, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  $500,000,000 bill removed 

message: Serial numbers 2 and 3 also still exist. As of the mid 1990's they were together with #1 at the Bureau of Engraving and Printing. The #1 is now part of the Smithsonian collection.-Godot13 (talk) 06:04, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, according to the Treasury, c. 1980 there were 66 1934 Gold certificates amounting to $2,166,600. Looking at the amount/number of notes received by different Federal Reserve Banks and the Smithsonian, and those retained by the Treasury, there are likely about 20 $100,000 notes in existence.-Godot13 (talk) 20:29, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  $100,000 census 

message: Would there be any objection if this article were converted into a more tradition list-format article. I could supply high resolution scans from the Smithsonian which would allow for a nearly complete typeset. Just curious about the general reaction... Thanks-Godot13 (talk) 03:04, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: If there is no objection I will start working on the table off line and have it ready in a few weeks.-Godot13 (talk) 05:29, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Close to making significant edits and import table. Current section leads will be deleted as they focus only on the Series of 1928 notes and later whereas the new table/images represent 1862 through and including the small size issues.--Godot13 (talk) 01:07, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Conversion to list-format 

message: http://americanhistory.si.edu/collections/search/object/nmah_742353
This page has high quality scans of the $100,000 bill, much higher than the ones in the article.  Maybe they could be cropped and added?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by ChameleonXVX (talk • contribs) 03:31, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  High resolution scans of the $100,000 note 

message: :::Could there be a section a the page showing the uses of these larger US Large Denominations in Popular Culture? It would be a good expansion for the page. --24.147.1.197 (talk) 22:08, 10 May 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Uses in Pop Culture / Edit Request 5/10/14

message: Sections removed. Each one ($500, $1000, $5000, and $10000) focused solely on small-size note issuance and people depicted despite illustrating large-size notes. Numerous errors were also noted. For example, the $500 and $1,000 sections described small-size Federal Reserve Notes issued in 1918, there was no such issue. The $500 section contains the only reference (unsourced) I was able to find on the internet to a small-size $500 note nicknamed a “watermelon note.” Correct use would be for the $100 1890 and $1,000 1890 Treasury notes (Watermelon and Grand Watermelon, respectively). The $1,000 section states that exactly 165,372 notes were known to exist in 2009. This is an impossible figure to confirm (from a somewhat questionable source to begin with).
One part of the $10,000 section comes very close to a copyvio (despite being sourced) when talking about the Binion’s hoard of notes.
Will add additional information, citations and images over the next 24-48 hours.--Godot13 (talk) 07:28, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article reorganization 

message: "Since then, the U.S. dollar has only been issued in seven denominations: $1, $2, $5, $10, $20, $50, and $100."
How are the 1¢, 5¢, 10¢, 25¢ and 50¢ coins not denominations in which the US dollar is issued?  If the claim is that they're denominations of the cent rather than the dollar, then I don't think you can claim this about the 25¢ and 50¢ coins, which according to Coins of the United States dollar are marked "QUARTER DOLLAR" and "HALF DOLLAR" respectively. — Smjg (talk) 19:30, 2 September 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: I have tried to fix this LondonYoung (talk) 21:43, 2 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Only denominations? 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Large denominations of United States currency. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140625074516/http://moneyfactory.gov/uscurrency/largedenominations.html to http://www.moneyfactory.gov/uscurrency/largedenominations.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:43, 17 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: It might be nice if the table heading "Fr." were explained in the body of the article or in a table note, rather than requiring the reader to sort through the notes and references to realize that it refers to the "Friedberg number" and then sort further to find out that the Friedbergs created a guide to US bank notes. This is a somewhat obscure piece of arcana that requires a bit of expansion. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 12:46, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: - ZLEA T\C 12:46, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fr. ??? 

message: Some, but not all, and probably not most, of the images of currency will take a reader to a page with the image and some text, but, on that page, a click of the image does NOT take the reader to a stand-alone FULL-SIZED image of the currency front-and-back. ("Full-sized" means in terms of the original image, not the currency. The full-sized images are MUCH larger than the currencies of which they are photos.) But on many other images you do get to the full-sized unframed stand-alone image in two clicks. Please fix for all those that are broken.204.155.230.3 (talk) 05:40, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: You're confusing "full sized" with "life sized".  A full sized image is the largest resolution of the image, while a life sized image is one that depicts an object in terms of its actual size.  We can't "fix" the image to show at actual size, as different screens will resize the page and change the resolution of the images to non-actual size. - ZLEA T\C 12:44, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
thread_title: Some links to images are busted