Talk:Dime (United States coin)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).
Featured article star Dime (United States coin) is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. If you can update or improve it, please do.
This article is part of the WikiProject Numismatics, which is an attempt to facilitate the categorization and creation of accurate and formal Numismatism-related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate please visit the project page, where you can join and see a list of open tasks to help with.
Featured article FA This article has been rated as FA-Class on the quality scale.
Top This article has been rated as top-importance on the importance scale.

A tiny little American coin, worth one-tenth of a dollar, or ten cents. The smallest coin, with a diameter slightly smaller than a penny. A silver color, though I don't recall which metals it is minted from. Like all American currency, contains the phrase "In God We Trust".

Contents

[edit] Symbolism

Does anyone know the symbolism of the oak branch, olive branch and torch?

It's actually Laurel, oak, and torch, representing Victory, Strength, and Freedom
No. See below. There is no laurel on the current dime.--chris.lawson 03:01, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
According to the Mint:
The Roosevelt dime torch, olive branch, and oak branch portray liberty, peace, and strength and independence.
I'll add this to the page somewhere. -Chris Lawson 07:34, 25 Dec 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Why is the dime the smallest US coin?

Why is the dime the smallest US coin?

--Historical reasons, mostly. Even in the 1790s, making a one-cent piece that contained one cent worth of silver would have been highly impractical, as the coin would have been tiny. Even the half-disme (the original US five-cent piece) was almost impractically small. When the half-dime (as it was then spelled) was phased out in 1873, the dime was the smallest-denomination precious-metal coin remaining in circulation. As silver prices rose over the years, the dime (and other US silver coinage) got marginally lighter to prevent intrinsic value from exceeding face value. In the early 1960s, with silver prices on the rise yet again, the Mint could no longer keep producing the coins (dimes, quarters, and half dollars) in their then-current form and maintain the value relationship. When "coin silver" (.900 fine) was removed from circulating US coinage in 1964 (half dollars remained silver-clad for another six years), the coins then in circulation all remained the same size so as to avoid confusion. This is why the dime has retained its historical size, and why it's historically the smallest US coin.

Incidentally, the one-cent piece underwent a similar transformation in 1982. Copper prices had risen to the point where the intrinsic value of a copper one-cent piece approached one cent, and the Mint decided it would be more economical to use copper-plated zinc planchets. Modern cents are less than 10 percent copper, but have retained their historical (since 1856) size and appearance. --clawson

some mention of the 'dyme' tithe ought to be referenced here, as i believe that led to the name of the coin.

The article is quite clear about the origin of the name. It has nothing to do with the tithe, though the tithe and the coin likely share a common root ("one-tenth").—chris.lawson (talk) 03:29, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)

From the US Mint, http://www.usmint.gov/faqs/circulating_coins/index.cfm?action=Body:

Why is the one-cent coin (the penny) larger than the ten-cent coin (the dime)? What determines the sizes of our coins?

The sizes of United States coins can help you to identify each one, but have nothing to do with their value. The first U.S. five-cent coins (nickels) were made of silver, and were smaller than the ten-cent coins (dimes) in circulation today. You may be interested to know that our coinage system, to a certain extent, has grown out of custom or, in other words, out of daily use. When United States coins were first produced in 1793, our standard coin was the silver dollar. The United States Mint produced the rest of our coins (except the one-cent coin) in a proportionate metallic content to the dollar, with the sizes regulated accordingly. The half-dime (or five-cent denomination) had 1/20th the amount of silver contained in the dollar. Our 10-cent coin contained 1/10th the amount of silver, the quarter-dollar coin (the quarter) contained 1/4th the amount, and the half-dollar coin contained 1/2 the amount. Mint officials recognized the need for a larger five-cent coin because the half-dime was exactly half the size of the dime. This proved to be too small for convenient handling by the public. Adoption of the five-cent coin as we know it today occurred in 1866. The Mint increased the coin's size and changed its metallic content from silver and copper to a combination of copper and nickel.

Sholom 13:48, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Mass change with new composition (1965)

The passage in question:

This composition was selected because it gave similar mass (now 2.27 grams, the ratio to the old size is the same as the ratio of 2 lb to 1 kg, or of a short ton to a metric ton)

How it formerly appeared:

This composition was selected because it gave similar mass (now 2.27 grams)

I can assure you that the new mass was not chosen because it matches the ratio of a short ton to a metric ton, nor because it matches the ratio of two pounds to a kilogram. It had nothing whatsoever to do with the metric system, and everything to do with coincidence. The dime planchet of the proper thickness, made of cupro-nickel clad, just so happens to weigh 2.27 grams. The composition was chosen for its electrical properties and thickness, not its mass. That its mass is fairly close is a nice side effect (one of the reasons aluminum has never been used in U.S. coinage is its light weight, which causes serious problems in vending machines) but was not the primary reason for the compositional choice.

Unless you can cite sources that prove the above assertions wrong, the horribly awkward wording is getting reverted back to its original form.—chris.lawson (talk) 03:16, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

Of course it has something to do with the metric system. From 1873 through 1964, all of the U.S. dimes, 20-cent pieces, quarters and halves were, by design, worth $40.00 per kilogram. Of course, our 5-cent nickels have been, by design, 5 grams, ever since they were introduced in 1866. Of course, you express even those measurements not based on the metric system in metric units, to make the comparison easier.
With the adoption of the sandwich dimes and quarters. the U.S. mint wasn't satisfied with the two different systems they had been using in the past, troy and metric. They made these sandwich dimes and quarters worth $20.00 per avoirdupois pound. Why that odd number, 2.27 grams? Because that dime was by design 1/200 of a pound avoirdupois, or 0.08 oz avoirdupois. (1/200 lb)(453.59237 g/lb) = 2.26796185 g, but coins aren't so precisely made that even the third figure is really significant.
The design ratio is exactly the same as the ratio of a short ton to a metric ton; it is a ratio many people are have a pretty good feel for, something fairly easy to understand. The old dimes were 10.2% heavier than the new ones, but saying that doesn't make the point as clearly as saying it's like a short ton to a metric ton.. That's not really all that similar, if you are going to use the weight of the coins as part of the validation for use in vending machines. Gene Nygaard 05:06, 7 August 2005 (UTC)
  • As it has been nearly a year, and no reference has been provided, I removed the debated text. --cholmes75 (chit chat) 17:10, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] More pix?

OK, I'm new at this, and so this may have previously been discussed and/or discussed elsewhere. My question is: why aren't there pix of older dimes (Mercury, etc.)? -- Sholom 13:42, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Good question. Im not really sure, I would assume no one either has old ones, or cant take a pic. I have a few mrecurys and barbers I can try to do pics from, if no one else does. But last time I tried pics my sliver eagle looked gold :( Joe I 21:13, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
I have some advice to anyone who might try this. Use a scanner, rather than a camera. I've had great success with using a scanner for circuit boards and I much prefer it to a camera. You can get better resolution with a scanner in most cases, too. (Unless you're one of those guys who has a $5000 digital camera and a photography studio.)--chris.lawson 04:13, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
Well, so, the main answer is that if pix are available, there's no problem putting pix of older coins on all these coin pages -- at least that's how I'm understanding this. -- Sholom 04:19, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, I learned the scanner trick a couple weeks ago :). Anyways, no problem with the old pics. Please don't clutter the page, and check to see if the seris coin has it's own page, such as United States Seated Liberty coinage, mercury and barbers should have thier own page as well, but don't. But this article sure could use some pics.  :) Joe I 04:23, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
OK, so I found a Mercury Dime image on a US Mint Page, uploaded it to commons (but it has the file name as the name -- can I rename it), and then linked to it here. Success. (But it took too much work! ;) ) Sholom 14:16, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
And I messed up. I accidentally uploaded another obverse image to the reverse image name. I didn't know how to delete it. So then I uploaded the reverse image to yet another name. Oy! Sholom 14:22, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
I'm sure you can rename it between the download and upload, or on the upload, not sure. If you can/do, please make it something recognizable, like 1905MerceryDimeRev or something like that. THNX :) Joe I 21:42, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
The question is: now that it's already there, how do I rename it? Or delete it and start again? -- Sholom 21:50, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
Damn, lots of colons, hehe. Anyways, Im pretty sure can't remane once it's on the servers, have to reupload. Joe I 22:30, 8 February 2006 (UTC).

[edit] Failed GA

I failed this article for WP:GA for several reasons

  • Lack of references
  • Nothing much in content, like importance, etc, only explains it's history
  • Should the List of designs section go on the bottom?

Thanks Jaranda wat's sup 21:52, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

I've addressed the issues. Have another look? Joe I 07:41, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Roosevelt section

I cleaned up the text in this section a bit. One of the things I did was remove the bit about Roosevelt being afflicted with polio, as this apparently was an incorrect diagnosis. --cholmes75 (chit chat) 16:37, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] US not first with decimal coinage?

OK, I'll bite. Who was first to decimalise their coinage?--chris.lawson 00:43, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Decimalisation --Chochopk 03:02, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, I read that about five minutes after I posted the query here. Thanks. :) --chris.lawson 03:20, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Image request

If anyone can find a picture of the Roosevelt bust designed by Selma Burke, I think it would be a great addition to the article. --cholmes75 (chit chat) 14:49, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

The original plaque is still in the Recorder of Deeds Building at 515 D Street, NW, in Washington, DC. Perhaps a DC-area Wikipedian with a digicam could be convinced to stop by and photograph it. Don't we have a page somewhere for this sort of thing? (If not, we should.)--chris.lawson 16:10, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
I will keep an eye here. I'm waiting for a date for tax court in DC, if we don't have a pic by the time I go, I'll stop by and snap off a real good one. Bobby 19:55, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Mercury dime

Regarding the passage - "Although most commonly referred to as the "Mercury" dime, the coin does not depict the Roman messenger god, nor does it contain any mercury."

I have never heard of anyone thinking that the dime contained mercury, which is why I removed the text in the first place. Are there any references available that indicate that this was actually an issue? --cholmes75 (chit chat) 20:00, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

I've personally been asked a few times by non-numismatists if it did include any mercury. It's not really hurting anything, I don't think.--chris.lawson 22:18, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
Fair enough. When this does get put for review as a Featured Article, I was just thinking that they might ask that very question. --cholmes75 (chit chat) 22:35, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
As a "non-numismatist(?)" I wondered that very thing, so I'm glad I read it here. I think it's also interesting how some of my foreign friends have been confused as to the coin's value, since it says nowhere on its face or back "10 cents".--Jd147703 15:16, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Collaboration

Dime is the Numismatic Collaboration for the month of August. This article is very close to FA, with only a few minor technical things to be fixed(I believe). You can find a peer review here. Joe I 11:57, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Good article review

I'm currently (at this moment) reviewing the dime article for a good article status. There are some issues with the lead section (see WP:Lead section) as well as some other minor details that need to be changed. I am currently working to fix these issues (as a reviewer, I am allowed to make non-significant contributions to the article). --Kurt 00:22, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

I rewrote the lead section of the basis of WP:Lead section which states "The lead should be capable of standing alone as a concise overview of the article", and also added some silver dime date freeze info as well. The article is well written and well referenced but the General History is section is a bit repetitive. I can see that it was somewhat intended to do what a lead section is supposed to do. The only thing IMO that is preventing this article from being a good article is what to do about the General history section. I will post this on the Numismatics talk page as well. --Kurt 05:42, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
Failed again, issues not resolved. Rlevse 19:53, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
Can you please elaborate on these issues. List them out, so they can be addressed and crossed out as they're worked on. And with all the particapation we have on this page, could you please allow us a week lead time, to fix these issues. Most GA nominees(especially long ones) are placed on hold for curtesy reasons, and really trying to improve this page instead of just shooting it down, which has happened twice now. We would appreciate it, and we will work on any and all issues. Joe I 23:21, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] I came here to edit

because I thought that I saw that this was a serious article and I thought I might have a couple of small points to add. Oaky, I added them, but, you got to be kidding! There are sentences in here with 3 and another with 4 footnotes or references or WHATEVER - - for one sentence. What sort of BS is that? If anyone wants this article to be seriously considered for anything except for printing and recycling through the outhouse, those footnotes have to be . . . . slashed and burned. The preceeding is a drunken opinion by Carptrash 06:44, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Fixed the one sentence with four refs(moved two to another sentence). I don't three viable refs on one sentence is to much. Thanks for your edits tho. Joe I 16:22, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Nice work all!

It seems the Featured Article reviewers have seen fit to promote this article, which makes the rejections by the Good Article reviewers that much more baffling. Anyway, congrats to all who helped! --cholmes75 (chit chat) 14:20, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

The article was top notch for a long time. I'm just glad it's all over with minimum fuss. Thanks for all your help.  :) Joe I 05:40, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] COST?

I cant find the cost of production

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../d/i/m/Talk%7EDime_%28United_States_coin%29_af97.html"