Talk:United States one-hundred-dollar bill

message: True or false: there are still a large number of $100 bills of a series prior to 1996 in circulation. (Generalize this to $50's, $20's, $10's, and $5's as well, and if true, make your estimate on when it will be false.) 66.32.143.38 18:32, 1 May 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Well there certaintly seems to be a lot less of them than the newer design, but yes, there are quite a few of the older ones still in existance, and many of them still see circulation.  If anything, old 100's, because they aren't used as often as lower denomination bills, are probably more common than old 5, 10, 20, and 50 dollar bills in circulation.  Most 100 dollar bills will only circulate about 5 years... but some circulate longer, and if someone holds onto a 100 dollar bill for a long time before spending it, that probably accounts for how an older bill may end up in circulation a long time after it was printed.  24.8.252.164 (talk) 04:11, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: In 2003, the Internet sites announcing the new $100 bill said it will be released in 2005. By late 2005, however, this was known that it won't be until at least 2007. Now, the article says that it will come after 2008's $5 bill, which means that the most reasonable year is 2009. Anyone who disagrees?? Georgia guy 18:08, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Date of new $100 bill 

message: It's going to be paper but with a plastic rainbow see-through area. I could say more but then I'd have to kill all of you. Smootsmoot 09:52, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Next $100 bill 

message: This is about the physical size of the notes. Please discuss at Talk:Large-sized note. --ChoChoPK (球球PK) (talk | contrib) 08:29, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Contradiction 

message: Can anyone get a scan of the old (pre-1996) $100 bill? —Scott5114↗ 05:41, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I found one, albeit the USN (not the FRNs that were commonly used by the public), and added it to the article.—Scott5114↗ 06:37, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pre-1996 note design 

message: I notice that this article uses a couple of different flavours of hyphenation for "one hundred dollar bill". The title has it "one hundred-dollar bill", but at the end of the lead it's given as "one-hundred dollar bill".
I've changed the sentence in the lead to match the hyphenation in the title, on the assumption that's the more common convention, and for the sake of consistency in this article. --Malleus Fatuarum 12:51, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You know, I was wondering about that. As far as I know, there is no hyphenation. Googling the phrase gives (as far as I can tell) mostly unhyphenated versions, and some with hyphenation between the one and hundred instead. --Cheeser1 02:00, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

text: I believe this would fall under the "compound modifiers" section of Wikipedia's own article on hyphen, which suggests that the hyphen is either not necessary, or that the article should be called "United States one-hundred-dollar bill". "Jayne Mansfield was covered in one hundred dollar bills" is ambiguous, because she could be covered in several hundred-dollar bills, or one hundred individual dollar bills, but "United States one hundred dollar bill" is unambiguous. Judging by the entries at Hundred dollar bill the imposition of standard hyphenation for currency is something for future generations to debate. -Ashley Pomeroy (talk) 20:45, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  What's correct? 

message: It is stated that the time on the clock on the back of the bill is 4:10. The high resolution image itself appears to read 2:20. The movie "National Treasure" also refers to the time as 2:20.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.113.228.212 (talk) 00:08, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Time on the clock 

message: While the colloquial name is the $100 bill, the true name is the $100 Federal Reserve note.  I would like to include this name in the article, is that acceptable?  65.121.141.34 (talk) 20:52, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Naming 

message: this statement is factually inaccurate.  do you miss the GIANT 100 on the back.  maybe we should not try to be PC and say BLIND people.. because you must be totally BLIND to miss the GIANT 100. -Tracer9999 (talk) 05:49, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: no changes to assist the visually impaired in distinguishing bill denominations? on new bills

message: It seems weird to me that the imagery in the infobox is of an unreleased bill (series 2009). Since series 2003 bills are the ones in circulation and the ones you are most likely to see, shouldn't their imagery but front-and-center?
I do think the page should feature the bell-in-the-inkwell (2009) design, maybe even as the first section discussing the controversy/problems/delays/whatever, but not as the first image. jhawkinson (talk) 22:45, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Infobox is unreleased series 2009? 

message: There have been three bills with non-presidents ( $10k bill was Salmon Chase ). So, should this be updated to reflect that, or should we leave it alone, as there are very few $10k bills remaining? Rsaxvc (talk) 18:33, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I altered it slightly so that it's consistent with the statement that it's about bills printed today. Georgia guy (talk) 18:36, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Three bills with non-presidents 

message: Under the 1991 design description it states "a metallic security strip on the left side of the bill", while the 1996 design paragraph says "...a plastic security thread [was] kept." I'm fairly certain that it was always a plastic strip, as the second statement seems to imply. I recall removing one (from a lesser bill of course) in my youth out of curiosity and it was like a mylar type film. Since there's no reference given for either statement, I wouldn't know where to look to verify it, so here's a request to nail it down. "Metallic strip" would seem to cater to the foil hat-wearers who think it's magnetic and that the government is tracking every piece of paper currency, and we wouldn't want to do that, would we? 184.167.224.119 (talk) 07:47, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Security strip 

message: I noticed that in the article it claims the $100 dollar note is the only federal reserve note to have a reverse of a building not in Washington D.C. This is false. The $2 dollar note features the Johnathan Trumbull painting of the signing of the Declaration of Independence in Liberty Hall. So the $2 and $100 notes have reverses not in Washington D.C.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.118.187.72 (talk) 19:18, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  $2 notes also feature reverse not in Washington D.C.  

message: The time on the clock is not 4:10 and is not 2:20 the correct time on the old 100$ bill is 2:22 this needs to be corrected because the original painting they use of independence hall is set at 2:22 for  a  reason I Dustinycross (talk) 11:52, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: According to this news report the current $100 shows a time of 10:30 whereas the former bill showed 16:10. The article says that 14:22 is a plot point from National Treasure, which is a work of fiction. The two images of the building are tracings of very old photographs which just happened to be taken at 14:20 and 16:10. Presumably the photographer took two hours to set up the camera in between the two shots. -Ashley Pomeroy (talk) 15:53, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  The actual time  

message: There's this sentence in the article:
:All the Federal Reserve Notes produced from Series 1928 up to before Series 1969 ... of the $100 denomination added up to $23.1708.
What does that mean? The cited source seems to be completely unrelated to this claim. How can a big pile of $100 bills add up to a mere $23? Sentences further on give the impression of similar nonsense.
If this is in-universe jargon, it needs to be reworded for lay readers. ~Anachronist (talk) 04:26, 27 April 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: The "$23.1708" part was due to a user trying to use a non-existent template parameter.  It's been fixed. - ZLEA T\C 15:37, 27 April 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nonsense sentences