Talk:Double eagle

message: Suggest adding an image of the 2009 High Relief version from an angle that displays the drastic concave nature of the new versions   —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.100.104.17 (talk) 22:19, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  2009 High Relief Image 

message: Seems like two articles describing the same coin. I believe there is a Liberty Double Eagle (1877-1907) and a St. Gaudens Double Eagle (1907-1933). However, I doubt that two (or three) articles are required to describe Double Eagles. nirvana2013 11:36, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It seems the St. Gaudens Double Eagle has sufficient info to warrant an article on it's own, and being the highest priced and one of the most well known coins around doesn't hurt.  Joe I 19:24, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Damnit, ther's also 1933 Double Eagle, shouldn't that be merged with St. Gaudens Double Eagle, unless I'm missing something.  But yes, if no merge, definatly a disambiguation page.  Joe I 00:00, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge [[St. Gaudens Double Eagle]] into [[Double Eagle]] 

message: Hmmm... I don't know that the mint ever actually "said" that they intended to save the coins for display, but this photo was taken in Atlanta in April at the ANA show. So it would seem their display is a result, but maybe not an intention. Bobby I'm Here, Are You There? 01:58, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Citation for 1933's for display 

message: I've put these two up for merge again because it seems like the information is duplicated in both articles. Although St. Gaudens Double Eagle only deals with the St. Gaudens coins, Double Eagle is for all double eagles, and the information available there on the St. Gaudens' era coins is considerably less. I know this argument was shot down before, and I'd like to suggest an alternative. Make Double Eagle a disambig page with minimal info and consolidate the info about each era (Liberty Head and St. Gaudens) into their own articles.-MBK004 21:32, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: How is it handled with other denominations of coinage?  I think we have too much specific info in this article to merge well into Double Eagle.  In addition, as I pointed out in the original debate, Lincoln cent and many other specific types of coinage have their own articles, as do specific denominations.  I just don't see that it would be worth doing.--Wehwalt 21:37, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If there is too much specific info, then wouldn't Double Eagle have not enough specific information? What about the pre-St. Gaudens Double Eagles, they deserve their own article, don't they? I agree that there does exist a large amount of information, but between these two and 1933 Double Eagle, there seems to be information repeated several times over when it really doesn't need to be because of the interwiki linking we use. You're right, many specific types of coins have their own articles, along with the denominations, but in this case, there is a visible gap in the amount of information available for the earlier double eagles compared to the later (St. Gaudens). I started this merge suggestion as a way to provoke discussion on ways of rectifying this. I would be perfectly content to see the articles remain separate. I'm just asking for opinions and ways to improve the articles.-MBK004 21:42, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think a better answer is improving the Double Eagle article, for example, putting in the reasons for starting to coin the denomination (territorial gold, other California gold interests), fictional references.  And there should probably be an article on Liberty Double Eagle, as you said.--Wehwalt 11:11, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge Suggested Part 2 

message: This coin wasmoney and made in a time when the weight of gold money, and its purity was absolutely vital. Debts were denominated in gold by weight. So, how much did a double eagle weigh and how pure was it?
This article also needs a lot of cleaning up.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.111.71.197 (talk) 20:42, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: St. Gaudens Double Eagle says 
# Weight: 33.436 grams (516 grains) (1.075 troy ounces)
# Composition: 90% gold, 10% copper
# Gold Content: ~30.093 grams (464.4 grains) (0.9675 troy ounces)
Hence the gold content was worth $20 at the then official price of $20.67/oz. Rod57 (talk) 18:17, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: How much does a Double Eagle Weigh?

message: The intro could say that at the time the DEs were issued (1849 to 1933) the official price of gold was $20.67/troy oz (Gold Reserve Act).
Rod57 (talk) 12:45, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Intro - Value of gold content 

message: Counterfeit, full gold-weight double eagle coins still plague U.S. gold coin collectors. Full-weight fake gold coins exist; they were created by the millions in Europe during the early-to-mid twentieth century, not to defraud collectors but because gold coins issued by a nation were worth a premium over gold bullion ingots, when sold to banks. Some experts estimate the problem may affect as many as 10% to 15% of all U.S. gold Double Eagles currently on the market, and that surely most are undetected by the average collector and dealer because the weight, diameter, thickness, color, and gold purity of the coins are all correct.
...and...
2
Is there any source for this? It sounds extremely dubious.
Wlmg (talk) 20:48, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Counterfeit - Double Eagles 

message: Is there some objective form of measurement for deciding which designs are "less desirable?" If so, a specialist needs to add the cite. Otherwise this sounds like someone's subjective opinion based only on which design they find more appealing.
One would expect the older design to be rarer -- particularly in higher grades -- but perhaps that is not true. Can any coin experts provide documentation? (71.22.47.232 (talk) 10:35, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Who says the Liberty Head coins have "less desirable artwork?"   

message: In the second paragraph of the 1933 Double Eagle section, there's a discussion of the cost of the one legally sold double eagle and what it would cost to assemble a set with or without it.  First of all, this is all subjective, since values of coins to collectors change over time based on many factors, including rarity, inherent metal value, quality, and what someone will pay for it then, now, or later.  Secondly, even if this is all taken into account, the section has no basis in time:  "Without the rare pattern, the set would be less than $750,000."  In today's dollars?  U. S. dollars?  U. S. dollars as they were valued when the 1933 coin was sold for $7.6 million?  And will this amount be true in the future?  This is definitely a problem IMHO.
01:13, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Values of current coins 

message: Can someone explain why the article says that the value should show as "Twenty D." through 1876 and the lede image is an 1875 coin that says "Twenty Dollars" (which should not appear until 1877)? Obviously NOT a huge deal, just curious. 159.53.110.140 (talk) 20:44, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Image Contradicts Article? 

message: What is the physical size of these coins?
None of the pictures show anything other than the coins themself, so there is no scale to compare them to.  Some indication of their size, say in comparison to a current coin, would be helpful. T bonham (talk) 22:07, 11 September 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Size?