Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/1933 Double Eagle

1933 Double Eagle Coin

Reason: The 1933 Double Eagle coin is a gold coin used in the United States until executive order 6102 stopped it from being legal tender. It is a very high quality public domain photo of a rare coin, whose historic value reminds us of Roosevelt's reaction the 1930's bank crisis.
Articles this image appears in: 1933 Double Eagle, Saint-Gaudens double eagle, Louis E. Eliasberg

Support as nominator -- Michael miceli (talk) 17:30, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Sorry, many photographs can “illustrate the subject really well.” But coins are a really hard subject if one wants an attractive, eye-catching image. Even this image of a hologram Canadian Maple Leaf gold coin is so-so, even though the actual coin in real life is stunning. This picture of some Krugerrands gets close to capturing the beauty of gold coins. Greg L (talk) 20:18, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- A photograph like that has almost no EV though. This has maximum EV and this is how you illustrate a coin for people interested in coins. All coins illustrated in coin books are illustrated like this. And I personally think this series of coins is one of the most beautiful US coins. — raeky t 12:03, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support I think this is very much comparable to our current Fields Medal FP [1] [2]. Both are exceedingly rare items which are well documented. Cowtowner (talk) 21:31, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
~~Oppose~~ technically good, but the specimens are too deteriorated. Even though they might be rare, better specimens like File:1933 double eagle.JPG seem to be available. Nergaal (talk) 05:21, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Can you clarify what you mean by deteriorated? As far as I can tell there are only minor scratches and some tarnish. I think that's to be expected of a coin of 77 years and not significant enough to detract from it's portrayal here. Cowtowner (talk) 01:28, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - I don't think the scratches are that minor on the female: the nose, the fingers, knee. Nergaal (talk) 05:47, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - For a 7.5 million dollar coin, I kinda doubt better photographs could be obtained. Just to few exist, and the ones that do exist are in museums and private collections, and getting the best possible specimen available for high quality photos and for those photos to be freely available for our use is a near impossibility. To make the claim that we could obtain another picture of this quality is a bit absurd, imho. — raeky t 16:19, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      - Is this THE 7.5 million coin? Or just another one of the dozens remaining? Nergaal (talk) 23:59, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        Have you read the article? It's not legal US tender, the secret service confiscates any that are found in the wild. The odds there being (a) "Dozens" in the wild, and (b) one of these people to photograph and release a picture of there illegal coin as a freely licensed image we could use, is astronomically slim. — raeky t 05:31, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        Support Nergaal (talk) 08:02, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        I just saw one on the show Pawn Kings which leads me to believe that there are quite a few out there. The original was sold for 7mil because it was thought to be the only one. Nergaal (talk) 18:01, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        You sure it was a 1933? Theres lots of the earlier years, those are legal to own, but 1933 was never released thus not official legal tender, if one did show up on that show, and I find it hard to believe an owner of one is dumb enough not to know what it is and pawn it, then you can be assured the secret service will quickly confiscate it. The 7 million dollar one was one of the legal copies given out, two coins was given out I think according to the article, those two are legal, any others are not. Then we can always fall back on the odds of someone who has one of these illegally being willing to take high quality pictures of it and posting them to be freely available for us, which is almost zero odds. — raeky t 21:36, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support for reasons above. — raeky t 16:20, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support For its EV. SMasters (talk) 03:38, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Raeky ie reasons above gazhiley.co.uk 13:00, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support High EV and the picture quality is high and as interesting as it can be without compromising the EV. Cat-five - talk 02:55, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Specimen1Obv.jpg --Makeemlighter (talk) 23:45, 1 February 2011 (UTC) Promoted File:Specimen1Rev.jpg --Makeemlighter (talk) 23:45, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As a set. Makeemlighter (talk) 23:45, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]