Jump to content

Talk:United States one-dollar bill

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The printable version is no longer supported and may have rendering errors. Please update your browser bookmarks and please use the default browser print function instead.

Design

It would be interesting to learn why the current one dollar bill still features the older design.

Caption under photo on right pane says "First $1 bill issued in 1862 as a Legal Tender Note" History/Large Size notes reads "1863: The first one-dollar bill was issued as a Legal Tender Note (United States Note) with a portrait of Salmon P. Chase, the Secretary of the Treasury under President Abraham Lincoln.[4][5]" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.168.84.187 (talk) 17:23, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Live people on currency

True or false: it was legal to put live people on currency back in 1862. (This question came into my mind because it says that Salmon Chase was on the first $1 bills and he was alive in 1862. 66.32.149.224 23:17, 9 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, he put himself on a LOT of the money to further his political carreer. Rick Boatright 23:22, 11 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

It appears Chase was on the $10,000 bill (series 1918), but as he died in 1873, I haven't actually seen a $1 bill from that period.

It's not illegal now, nor has it ever been, to put live people on currency. It's just a very strong tradition not to Nik42 08:57, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
It actually is illegal (since 1873): “No portrait shall be placed upon any of the bonds, securities, notes, fractional or postal currency of the United States, while the original of such portrait is living.”[1]--Godot13 (talk) 15:50, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Masons/Illuminati

What's with the paranoid talk about the Masons and the Illuminati? This seems totally out of place and delusional at best. -Branddobbe 08:16, May 11, 2004 (UTC)

  • It's a consperacy theory that baiscly goes that the Illuminati and/or the free masons are responisible for the pyrimid on the back of the 1DB. It's not out of place, and it deserves mention.

Consperacy theory? Actually, a new book, The Secret Symbols of the Dollar Bill, by David Ovason, details the extent of Masonic symbolism on the one dollar bill. There is nothing conspiratorial about this. It is fact. http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0060530448/qid=1111984112/sr=8-1/ref=pd_csp_1/103-9777372-3472619?v=glance&s=books&n=507846

  • Actually, I noticed the US Declaration of Independence year 1776 which is written on the pyramid is also listed in the Illuminati article as the founding year, but I wasn't sure whether to include this. (It should be in the parenthesized 'The following is speculation' section, if anywhere.) --IByte 20:49, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • I suppose these comments reflect something which has been chopped out of the article entirely. A shame, as a brief mention of the conspiracy theory would be of interest to casual people, not just tin-hat wearers. -- Jon Dowland 12:40, 8 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
* I agree, that's the content I came here looking for right now.
  • i was looking for it also if that help, why on earth would the origins of one of the main features of the bill be excluded?

Kindly explain the removal of information from Eye of Providence. If anything it makes more sense at this article. Dan 05:51, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The reason why I removed it was because I believe copying and pasting large chunk of text is bad. I'm not disputing the accuracy of the text. But let's say someone find a mistake and correct it, but on one copy only. Then the two copies would contradict each other, which causes mass confusion. Now I didn't do a straight revert. I provided a link to the most appropriate place for further information. The one-dollar bill has George Washington on it. But we can't put his whole biography here, right? --ChoChoPK (球球PK) (talk | contrib) 12:54, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Like I said, it doesn't seem like the most appropriate place at all. If anything it would make more sense to move the text here, delete that passage from Eye of Providence. Dan 17:00, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So the solution that will make us both happy is to move the text here and provide a link the other direction. --ChoChoPK (球球PK) (talk | contrib) 19:04, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Is the phrase "recent separation" appropriate for something that happened over 200 years ago?

Is the phrase "recent separation" appropriate for something that happened over 200 years ago?
Bobblewik  (talk) 19:44, 21 Aug 2004 (UTC)

In archaeological terms, yes :) Sjc 19:45, 21 Aug 2004 (UTC)

The Eagle's claws

It holds an olive branch and arrows in its claws, symbolizing "we want peace, but are ready to fight".

It occurs to me that the order doesn't seem binding. It could just as well mean "we want to fight, but are ready for peace". :-) JRM 02:35, 2004 Dec 6 (UTC)

Actually, it does. In this kind of symbolism, whatever is in the right claw (or right hand if it's a person), is the preferred course. Olive branch in right claw means "peace first". Almostfm (talk) 09:47, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Seal

I'm noticing a lot of back-and-forth peddling and sneaky vandalism on the symbolism of the seal. Ideally I'd like it if we could just leave it out and refer to Great Seal of the United States, but I guess that's not going to happen. So I'd urge everyone to watch the articles and make sure they stay in sync on the matter; the content of Great Seal of the United States should get priority over what this article says, and any change should be suggested there. JRM · Talk 22:47, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Again on "Saeclorum"

Regarding the spelling of the word ("saeclum" seems to be correct, especially in poetry -- seclum a little less so), I don't see why on Earth the meaning of the phrase should change from "of the worlds" to "of the ages" just because of the U. It appears to me that both spellings are acceptable for the same meaning, which encompasses both "worlds" and "ages." Also, the dedicated page linked in this article doesn't differentiate meaning on the basis of spelling. I say that remark should be removed. Opinions? Aside 00:14, 22 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Edits

I made some significant edits to the article, which may draw some controversy due to the row over my One dollar Federal Reserve Note article. Regardless of what happens to that one, I attempted to improve this article by generalizing the introduction to the article, including information about the first U.S. $1 note, and cleaning up the explanation of the $1 FRN. Hope everyone likes it, let me know either way. Paul 09:56, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The current edition of U.S. one dollar bill (with the history) looks nice. Only suggestions I'd make right now: 1) if the pictures are thumbnails, I'd suggest increasing the size by about 50 pixels so that a little more of the detail comes through; 2) put in a few blank lines in the history for easier reading. A question: historically, is there significance in the changeover from engraved notes and offset printed notes (if I recall correctly, it was announced in 1982 or 1983)? B.Wind 03:09, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I made some changes to the lede; some cosmetic, some not. The lede claimed that the reverse was the oldest design of U.S. currency while claiming that the $2 had that distinction for its obverse. As far as I can tell, the $1 hasn't been changed since its introduction in 1963, while the $2 FRN was introduced in 1976, if I'm correct, then the lede was factually wrong. It makes little sense to mention the $2 bill at all in the lede about the $1, I think. Prior to 1963, the $1 was only issued as a USN, by definition a 'different' dollar, authorized in a different way. Please feel free to revert or correct my edits if I've blundered. Thanks.173.189.73.1 (talk) 22:03, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]


Number 13

New claim: 13 is the number of times that 13 appears in the one dollar bill !

All things considered, it seems obvious to me that the bill is indeed intended to represent exactly 13 times thirteen.
Look, we have so far already 11 of them by simple counting operations :
On reverse side:

  • 6 in the Great Seal obverse side (arrows, olives, leaves, stars, shield stripes, letters in "E pluribus unum")
  • 2 in the Great Seal reverse side (pyramid layers, letters in "Annuit coeptis")
  • 2 in the two strings of pearl

On obverse side, one more with the chevron with thirteen stars yields the 11th.
Two are still missing.

Now, still on the obverse side, consider the two small olive branches close below Washington on his both sides, they both have exactly 8 leaves and 5 fruits. By two simple sum operations we get the two missing thirteen.

I don't think this could be a coincidence, because :

  • they are identical, and placed near the centre, close to the president
  • the 13 olives and leaves in the eagle talon is a clue that we might try to count other of them
  • by counting them we get exactly 13 times 13
  • obviously you won't find other 13 by simple count or sum operations (BTW such tricks don't work with other olives and leaves in the bill), or even by more complex operations such as counting the number of times a letter appears, etc. As if the bill was carefully designed to prevent further 13.

--Wikipedist~frwiki (talk) 02:02, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Some of those symbolic 13s look more like coincidences to me - especially the last one, about the average of the number of letters in "NOVUS ORDO SECLORUM" (17) and "MDCCLXXVI" (9). Was the motto really chosen to have 17 letters, just because the date had 9 letters and the original number of states was 13? I think not. This needs a supporting reference, if there is any true significance in it. Mtford 17:37, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Really, this is just an observation on the manipulation of numbers. I have removed it.

--Kurt 05:01, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hats?

The article says there are 13 hats pictured on the note. Where? --Spblat 05:21, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

rising sun?

  • The shadow cast by the pyramid from the rising sun represents the undiscovered lands to the west. The sun, which is rising, represents that a new nation has begun.

where's the rising sun? Where's the shadow? Where's the compass thet tells us where on the picture is east and west so we can tell if the sun is rising or setting? --androl (talk) 22:40, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

other claims

  • 13 total letters/digits in both 1776 (4) and its Roman Numeral equivalent MDCCLXXVI (9)

that's too much numerology. MDCCLXXVI should have 13 letters to be interesting

  • 13 horizontal stripes at the top of the shield

I count 12 (see big image) count the white stripes!!

what about some sentences about other numbers that can be found?

  • 14 clouds around the stars
  • 12 lines at the top of the shield
  • 18 vertical lines on the shield
  • 9 tail feathers of the eagle
  • 17 long feathers on each wing of the eagle
  • 17 letters in "of the United States"
  • 12 letters in "the great seal"
  • 17 letters in "novo ordo seclorum"
  • 12 letters in "Annuit Cœptis"
  • 9 letters in "MDCCLXXVI"
  • 14 berries on the front of the bill

yes but if you add all the letters in the words they add up to 13 squared 

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.178.7.169 (talk) 20:28, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

--androl (talk) 22:40, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Contradiction

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)[reply]

Dollar Bill Game

There is absolutely no reason why this game should be present. It has been removed twice thus far because it deserves to be absent. Please delete it if you see it as part of the article, or give a good reason why it should be there if you wish to restore it.

Hidden symbols.

can someone please provide a picture of the 2 "Spiders"?

Supposedly the 2 spiders are on the bottom of the front of the bill. There is a black triangle around them.

I have to disagree with the owl. I think it looks like a spider, I don't see how it can be perceived as an owl.

I think that the 2 spiders and the owl are actually one and the same thing - part of the pattern of the bill. When you look immediately above the owl the curves look exactly the same as the curves above the spiders. The only difference is that "the owl" is hidden behind the the leaves and the frame around "1". Moreover, when you look towards the outer ends of the the bill, parts of two other "spiders" appear(the other parts of them are again hidden by the frames of the lower "1"'s).

No owl. No spider. This YouTube video shows the proof, with no verbal or written explanation. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p320Tt5Pr2s The spider/owl/whatever is actually just a part of the repeated web design that goes around the bill. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DeeJaye6 (talk • contribs) 17:35, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Look, if you can't take a magnifying glass and see the spider/hidden animal AND verify with a numismatist that currency experts agree there is a spider, ect on the bill, it shouldn't be a part of this article. After doing both, there is no spider and no owl on either side of the bill. Let's focus on factual designs on the bill.



Those don't even look like spiders; I think they are just the decoration. I do believe, however, that the owl exists (and that it is indeed an owl.)

Reptilian or alien eye

It needs to be explained why the dollar bill of the United States carries a non-human eye. There is no way in the world that is portrayed to be an human eye. It looks extraterrestrial or alien, why on earth is it on the dollar bill?? It needs to be explained, and there is no way you can say that's a human eye. The whole thing is just weird. Quite frightening that the dollar bill of the richest and most powerful nation in the world carries a picture of an alien, without any explanation to be retrieved anywhere but in conspiracy websites. 

 Actually, I believe it's been proved to be a porpoise eye. RubyQ (talk) 05:39, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]



And how is that "frightening"? Please don't panic over tiny things like that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:C5EB:99A0:A586:E6C6:AFF0:E35 (talk) 23:54, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. A bad drawing of an eye doesn't make it weird or frightening, just bad art. That drawing is decades old, who knows who the gov't got to draw/engrave it. Other artistic depictions on US currency around the same time aren't that much better, either. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Grace20 (talk • contribs) 02:27, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Illustration Style

Does anyone know the name for the illustration style used on all of the dollar bills? Does it have a specific name or is it just a type of line drawing? --Maxhawkins 20:26, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is what I was looking for: Guilloche pattern --Maxhawkins 17:19, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Informal terms

I removed a bunch of the "informal terms" that are slang for a U.S. dollar in general and not for a one-dollar bill in particular, and thus belong in the article for United States dollar and not here. A good way of testing which article it belongs in is by asking yourself whether "a bunch of [word]" means "a lot of money" or "a lot of one-dollar bills". The only words on that list that pass this test are "one" and "single". -Branddobbe (talk) 01:13, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bring format in line with other FRNs

I see how the other notes ($2-$100) have a large picture of the note. Can we bring the $1 to that format too? Wd1040 (talk) 01:21, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The large picture on the other notes is a result of a series of redesigns that began in 2003. Actually, the $2 bill uses the smaller portrait as well. The $1 and $2 bills have not been redesigned because counterfeiting isn't as serious a problem with these small notes as it is with higher-value notes. An important anti-counterfeiting feature is the note's familiarity. When a new design is introduced, it is initially more difficult for people to spot counterfeits because they don't know how the note is supposed to look. For this reason note designs generally aren't changed unless there is a compelling reason. —D. Monack talk 07:03, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Masonic Reference ala Star of David

This topic refers to the section titled "Reverse of current $1 bill."
This topic specifically refers to the following excerpt: "Furthermore, if a star of David is made on the pyramid, the letters will spell out the word "Mason" in reference to the group of Free Masonry."

Here are my observations/suggestions:
1. Different word choice and better writing may improve the clarity of this concept.
2. An illustration may also improve clarity.
3. "Mason" is a five letter word. The star of David has 6-points. An upside down 5-point star better illustrates this concept. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hardas5a (talk • contribs) 02:52, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately this is a widely held myth... it's a parlor trick that does not actually work except in very small scale (ie it seems to work when you use a very broad tiped felt pen and a very small rendition of the Seal, but not if you use fine tipped pens and a larger version).
Then we have the problem that the Star of David is a regular hexagram, ie all the angles and sides are the same (as is the 5 pointed star traditionally associated with the occult ... that is a regular pentagram)... unfortunately, if you lay a regular hexagram (or pentagram) over the seal, the trick does not work... and if you go the other way and connect the letters M-A-S-O-N you end up drawing a lopsided, irregular figure where some sides and angles end up being shorter than others (and which has no mystic symbolism at all). In short, when you examine this trick closely, it doesn't actually work. Best not to mention it.Blueboar (talk) 18:45, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Low value

Why no mentioning of its extreme low value for a note? 77.99.57.229 (talk) 00:05, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why hasn't the 1 dollar bill ever gotten the modern anti-counterfeiting features that the larger denominations use?

Is the US Treasury department just that confident that it won't matter? Will (Talk - contribs) 18:37, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pretty much. No one is going to waste a lot of time counterfeiting singles. Second, a number of vending machines accept ones and no other bills. Adding the security measures would make the machines obsolete. Schoop (talk) 18:08, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Who cares? if you are going to counterfeit, do the big notes, not the small ones. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:C5EB:99A0:A586:E6C6:AFF0:E35 (talk) 23:57, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Spider?

I'm removing the following picture from the article. It's not even mentioned in the text, and it's just ridiculous. The comment below it is: "There is a tiny figure in the upper right hand corner of the obverse that has been interpreted as a spider or an owl." With a yellow circle around what is clearly a part of the background lines. I'm going to be bold and deem it unnotable, but here's the picture if anyone has any reasonable argument for bringing it back. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:United_States_one_dollar_bill,_obverse,upper_right.JPG Salvar (talk) 05:38, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, completely agree. I was going to look to see if there were actually any reliable references about the origin of that meme before I removed it, but haven't found any yet. Basically seems to be the equivalent of a Rorschach inkblot test using the pattern of the background hatching. Carl Lindberg (talk) 22:41, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think tere is 2 OWLS in here
Yes, there is strange owl or spider in bill,
but have you looked at NOT SO RIGHT? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.236.140.13 (talk) 15:42, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Banknotes before 1923

Some of the banknotes need to switch to the "PD-US" tag, because any works released prior to January 1, 1923 automatically enter the public domain in the United States.

Added section on the U.S. one-dollar bill "conspiracy"? + General article cleanup.

I'm going to create a section in the article devoted exclusively to the conspiracy theories (or facts?) connected to the numerology and Masonic symbolism allegedly used in the U.S. $1 bill. This isn't a measure to put the conspiracy theories/facts in a small corner, but to clean up the article and only include official uses of symbolism in the main sections of the article. (In a nutshell, I'm leaving the main body of the article to facts confirmed by the U.S. Government and the Federal Reserve.) BrenMan 94 (talk) 15:13, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Most of it belongs in Great Seal of the United States, where it already is, other than a brief mention and a pointer. Unless there is stuff specific to the dollar bill. Most or all of that paragraph should be removed, agreed, and the mention in the first sentence on the reverse of the bill. Carl Lindberg (talk) 15:41, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I'll just do a general cleanup of the article until a separate section is needed. BrenMan 94 (talk) 16:15, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(Il)legality of high-resolution productions here?

I believe that at least the high-resolution scans of the current $1 bill here may be illegal. One item that points toward that conclusion is the text at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:United_States_one_dollar_bill,_reverse.jpg, which says that color reproductions of U.S. currency are legal if "All negatives, plates, positives, digitized storage medium, graphic files, magnetic medium, optical storage devices, any any other thing used in the making of the illustration that contain an image of the illustration or any part thereof are destroyed and/or deleted or erased after their final use" (emphasis mine). It can't exactly be true that the digital files used to produce high-resolution, exact-size (a trait illegal in itself), two-sided (ditto) color prints are destroyed if these files keep sitting around on Wikipedia's servers.

President Lethe (talk) 04:37, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Owl face on ONE dollar bil and all other American dollar bills are seen from a distance

Why is there no mention of the OWL that is visible when one takes the dollar a few feet away. It is pretty obvious. Take a carefui look. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.229.83.49 (talk) 03:47, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See #Spider?. Carl Lindberg (talk) 08:00, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why are you people taking away the facts?

Why is there no mention of the Owl, i agree, this is Wikipedia, and people come to it to research every aspect of things that they look up on it, we must have every single aspect of the Dollar Bill noted. As well as commentary on it, conspiracy beliefs, and other things. Every fact should be seen and read. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.21.128.205 (talk) 23:43, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There is also a REPTILIAN FACE on some — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.236.140.18 (talk) 06:04, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Star of David

If you look at the Reverse side of the bill, you will see an eagle which holds 13 arrows, and a branch with 13 leafs on it. Above this eagle are 13 stars which can be connected to form the star of david..........every time i mention this in the edit, somebody deletes it. Is my spelling off? If not, i would like an explaination as to why this should not be mentioned. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.71.65.144 (talk) 09:27, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A six-pointed star not composed of six lines is not a Star of David (study some history of heraldry, for example); your posts are pointless and unsourced. --Orange Mike | Talk 02:22, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]


Fine with me.....but it DOES form a hexagram, why shouldn't we mentioned this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.71.65.144 (talk) 05:46, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It indeed shows an unfinished Star of David. Just like the unfinished Pyramid. That is, because the USA was founded by Freemasons as the "New JerUSAlem".
When the capstone comes down, and the pyramid is complete, the Messiah emerges (out of the "New JerUSAlem").
The Eye_of_Providence is that of the Messiah. In Hebrew, the USA is called Artzot HaBrit, the "Lands of the Covenant".It is... really complex. But, always remember 2 Corinthians 11:14. 23:14, 27 October 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.201.17.154 (talk)
And when I write "Messiah" I mean the Antichrist. 178.201.17.154 (talk) 16:31, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Image

Scanning/photocopying United States currency is illegal. --138.110.206.101 (talk) 00:33, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Eye of Providence

The phrase "While the triangle was never incorporated claims continue." makes no sense. PurpleChez (talk) 01:49, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Reissue of the request. The proposed edit was approved and implemented by one editor, and then undone by another, for reasons that I believe to be ill-founded. See the discussion below. ChrisGoad (talk) 13:01, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have been working on a system for annotating images, called ImageDiver, and have used it to create an album for the one dollar bill. The annotations in the album mirror the content of the Wikipedia page.

I request that a link to this page be added to the external links section, reading perhaps:

The One Dollar Bill, Zoomable and Annotated

In my own opinion, the ImageDiver page serves as a useful complement to the narrative prose of the Wikipedia article, in that it allows image-based navigation of the descriptive material.

As the author of ImageDiver, I have a conflict of interest, but hope that other editors will agree that the link will be helpful to Wikipedia readers, on the merits.

ImageDiver is a personal, not a corporate, project. I am not representing anyone else nor any other entity in this. ImageDiver albums are hosted at Amazon's S3.

In this note, I have attempted to adhere to Wikipedia:Suggestions_for_COI_compliance.

ChrisGoad (talk) 20:06, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This amateur website, like anything hosted on Amazon's S3, does not appear to constitute a reliable source: it appears to fall more in the category of original research and synthesis. Additionally, I don't know what software it uses, but I can't see anything on that page. --Orange Mike | Talk 20:38, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The ImageDiver album takes its information almost entirely from the Wikipedia page itself - it is an alternative presentation of the content and not a matter of original research or synthesis. The only information that comes from other sources concerns the positions on the bill of plate serial numbers and note position numbers, and this comes from a reliable source: the website about one dollar bills from the Bureau of Engraving and Printing of the U.S. Treasury Department. Both of these sources are cited in the "album details" of the ImageDiver page. Even if the ImageDiver page did involve research or synthesis, is there a prohibition on linking to such pages from Wikipedia? (Just curious. As I say, it has no relevance to the current case).
Surely it is the utility to readers that should be considered here, and not where the site happens to be hosted. And it is only the published albums that are hosted at S3 (to make them as reliable as possible), not the ImageDiver site itself. There is a normal stack of technology involved in the latter, documented in the FAQ, linked to from the top bar of the dollar page. The software for annotating images, and for viewing the annotations, is my own - I am not hiding anything.
If the conclusion is that the ImageDiver dollar album would be of little use or interest to Wikipedia readers of this page, I am happy to accept that judgement. But the first of Orange Mike's points (regarding "original research and synthesis") is incorrect, and the second (regarding S3) seems irrelevant to the criterion of utility to readers. Accordingly, I am re-issuing the request for the edit, by removing the "|A" from the template. ChrisGoad (talk) 01:54, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't think the site contained anything that would require it to be a reliable source, since it's primary purpose is visualization, not information. But if other editors are having technical problems, we may want to avoid frustrating readers if the link doesn't work consistently. Orange, for reference, if the link was working, you would see an image of a dollar bill with boxes around different elements of the dollar. You can click on each item like "the heraldic shield with 13 stripes" or "13 leaves and 13 olives" and it zooms in. IMHO it's useful not as a reliable source, but basically as a complex image contribution that shows readers visually what is being described in the article. User:King4057 20:51, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree with OrangeMike's assessment on suitability as an external link. However, I do agree that the site doesn't work for me either. I can see the left half of the page, but not the right half. If it matters, I use Google Chrome with some setting (I think it's a common setting but I can't remember where it is) that prevents the browser from running Flash content by default but forces me to click to run it. I am unable to activate anything by clicking on the right side. ~Amatulić (talk) 21:34, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Works for me (and yes it requires flash), and I think that is interesting enough to be an external link -- it gives a more detailed look at the bill, including zooming ability and highlighting certain features. It's the type of thing which does not fit in the article (or we don't have the capability), so it makes sense to me as an external link. I don't think there are any requirements that external links qualify as reliable sources -- rather explicitly the opposite, as they are meant for further in-depth information which may be of interest but which is not present in our article. Original research is sometimes OK for external links (and really, the components of the dollar bill are well known enough I'm hard pressed to call that original research, just a different interface into looking at it). Carl Lindberg (talk) 00:47, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Umm... original research is irrelevant.
We have an official guideline that explicitly calls out sites that require Flash as links to be avoided. See WP:ELNO.
Not everything can use flash (in particular all mobile devices from Apple including iPhone, iPod Touch, and iPad), so any external site that requires Flash is to be avoided, because it isn't universally accessible.
Therefore, a link to that site, no matter how well intentioned and well executed, doesn't belong here. Violating an official guideline is something we shouldn't do lightly; there needs to be a more compelling reason than the fact that it's a cool site. ~Amatulić (talk) 02:38, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, that's true -- good point. Although that guideline says that only *direct* links are to be avoided; linking to pages which indirectly require it may be OK, if the requirement is noted in a parenthetical comment on the external link here. Their FAQ does say they have an HTML5 canvas implementation (maybe it's possible to force that using their service?), but they also say they may eventually start charging account holders for bandwidth used -- something to consider if you really want Wikipedia users frequenting the site. Carl Lindberg (talk) 03:10, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Flash is now gone from the site, replaced by HTML5 canvas, for all browsers which support canvas (this includes every modern browser; only IE7 and IE8 will invoke the Flash implementation). Amatulic, you may wish to revisit the site to verify that it works for you. Of course, canvas is supported by the Apple mobile devices cited above.
With regards to possible future charges for bandwidth, such charges will be asked only from people who create their own content, and only if the bandwidth associated with serving that content is very high. The site will always be free of charge to viewers. ChrisGoad (talk) 20:20, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I have no further objection to linking this in the article. Nice work. ~Amatulić (talk) 21:50, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Amatulic. The consensus seems to be in favor of including the link, now that the flash issue has been resolved. I have added it. Independent of the outcome, I have appreciated all the input. ChrisGoad (talk) 21:13, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
As the conflicted party, I had second thoughts about adding the link myself, so I took it back out. Anybody else want to add it? Thanks! ChrisGoad (talk) 21:59, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I have reinserted the link, as an uninvolved editor who sees no objection to it. DES (talk) 03:10, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

one-dollar as opposed to one dollar?

Is there a style reference that talks about this? I can't find it in the Chicago Manual of Style, but not sure how to look for it. Bombcar (talk) 01:35, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure how "official" this is, but I was always taught that "one dollar" is 100 cents, regardless of how it's configured (so four quarters would make one dollar), while the hyphenated version refers to the actual piece of currency--so my one-dollar bill is worth one dollar.Almostfm (talk) 02:10, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Right. "One-dollar" is an adjectival compound describing a note or coin; "one dollar" is a quantity. --Orange Mike | Talk 02:42, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! The above explains it concisely. Bombcar (talk) 20:33, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

ANNUIT COEPTIS(13 letters) & E PLURIBUS UNUM(13)

ANNUIT COEPTIS and E PLURIBUS UNUM both have 13 letters symbolizing the Original 13 United States. This ancient practice of counting the number of letters in a word/name/phrase and giving it symbolic meaning is Step 1 of Simple(6,74) English(7,74) Gematria(8,74). - Benjamin Franklin 75.74.157.29 (talk) 15:45, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

[citation needed] --Orange Mike | Talk 13:45, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Design Date

The info box lists the bill as having a "Design Date" of January 4, 1964. However http://www.uspapermoney.info/serials/f1963_s.html list the bills as being in the hands of the Fed by November 1963, so they obviously weren't "designed" on that date--and in any event, designing a banknote isn't done in a day. My first thought was that it was the date they were released to the public, but January 4, 1963 was a Saturday, and banks wouldn't have been opened. Does anybody know where this date came from, and what the actual release date to the public was?Almostfm (talk) 12:41, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Security Features: None

Why is this included in the infobox? All US currency includes security features[2][3] The claim no security features are on the dollar bill is unsupported.

If all US notes did not have security features we would be able to use monopoly money as currency. I have removed the security features section from the infobox. Replaceinkcartridges (talk) 16:11, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  1. ^ “Laws of the United States Relating to Loans and the Currency Including the Coinage Acts”. Treasury Department, p. 128.
  2. ^ "Security Features". http://www.moneyfactory.gov. Retrieved 30 March 2015. {{cite web}}: External link in |website= (help)
  3. ^ "How To Detect Counterfeit Money". http://www.secretservice.gov/. Retrieved 30 March 2015. {{cite web}}: External link in |website= (help)
I think that was more referring to the modern security features (watermarks, security strips), which have caused all other bills to be changed. There are security features in the $1, true, though they are from decades earlier and not as effective these days (things like the precise engraving, printing style, and the threads in the paper). I don't think it's economical to counterfeit the $1 bill though so I don't think the US Treasury has bothered to change it (it might cost too much to put those features into the $1 as well). The 1990 and 1996 security features mentioned in your links do not exist in the $1 (or the $2 for that matter), though all the measures from the 1930s or whatever are still there of course. Carl Lindberg (talk) 17:47, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Just because a one dollar doesn't have specific security features that differ from other bills, does not mean it has no security features. Every bill of us currency has security. Therefore it is inaccurate to say the one dollar bill has no security in the infobox.
Plus, the claim was uncited, therefore would warrant a removal. Replaceinkcartridges (talk) 03:45, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Size

The sizes of present US currency were stated in an info box in metric terms to six digits of precision. I doubted that the printing bureau ever stated such a precision, or that they regulated the cutters to slice the printed sheets into notes down to +/- .00005 mm for the height and .0005 mm for the width. I found the US government site https://uscurrency.gov/history-american-currency which states the dimensions as 6.14 inches by 2.61 inches, an achievable 3 digits of precision. I suggest that the dimensions of US currency in the infobox should be given in US units rather than metric units. This is not a science article, so metric units being standard for science is not convincing. I have no serious problem with leaving currency measurements metric, but I strongly object to implying the measurements are specified to 6 digits of precision, which is an artifact of mindlessly using a unit conversion program. Edison (talk) 21:34, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, if you look in the infobox source, the size is given in inches: 6 9/64" wide, 2 39/64" tall. It just happens that multiples of 1/64 occupy 6 decimal places in decimal notation. Back then, decimals were rarely used in specifications (even the US stock exchange prices were quoted in 1/32 units until just a decade or so ago).
It would be good to find a definitive government source that specifies the actual dimensions. our article Series of 1928 (United States Currency) (which is all about the current size of our dollar notes) doesn't exactly do this, which is unfortunate. ~Amatulić (talk) 20:55, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please go to what I posted: https://uscurrency.gov/history-american-currency and scroll down to "standardization of design" where it says 6.14 by 2.61. It does not state the fractions you stated. Also, the articles as I found them absolutely did not state the dimensions as "6 9/64" wide, 2 39/64" tall. Instead they gave them in millimeters to six digits. Do you have a source for "6 9/64" wide, 2 39/64" tall? Stating it that way seems very plausible for the US government in the 1920's but it is not what the US government source I found says about the current standards. Once again, we should avoid "false precision" which results from mindless unit conversion, and which implies that someone with ultra precise measuring instruments sets and tests the paper cutter to ensure they slice the printed sheets into notes with six digits of precision.( I am supposed to "transclude" this thread to the other talk pages for US currency, per a request on my talk page by User:Amatulic . I would thank any user for doing such transclusion if they know how.) Edison (talk) 01:17, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It may not state the fractions, but if you wanted to list them that way, then those numbers are correct. 9/64ths is .1406, while 39/64ths is .6093. 6 9/64ths is within .0007 of being 6.14, while 2 39/64ths is only .0006 off of 2.61. Almostfm (talk) 03:12, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
That government source is reliable for dimensions in use today, although it's written for a general audience and the writer may have wanted to keep it simple. I'm not convinced that the original specifications were like that — it's just too coincidental that they'd use these weird decimal fractions that just happen to be multiples of 1/64. I'm interested to see the original specifications. This source, for example (about bank notes rather than US currency) suggests that currency dimension specifications in those days were in 1/64 units. ~Amatulić (talk) 23:32, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
There is likely to be something in the US government published Code of Federal Regulations. Edison (talk) 12:46, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"most Americans currently use the one dollar bill rather than the dollar coin"

I'm confused by this statement, maybe as a result of not being American but I don't know. It sounds as though it's saying that, essentially, an individual either "uses the dollar bill" or "uses the dollar coin". This doesn't make sense to me - surely the notes and coins you use are whatever you receive in your change. Do you people have, and frequently exercise, choice over whether a cashier gives you $1 as a note or as a coin, and so you pick whichever one you personally prefer to carry in your wallet? Or what? — Smjg (talk) 16:29, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Not exactly... it's just that they have not become common usage. Stores tend to not have a slot for them in cash registers, so any they get tend to be placed aside, and not given in change. If you do get one in change, often it is something of a novelty and many people are more likely to leave it in a coin jar at home and not actually use it. While most do these days, not all vending machines take the dollar coins, so the dollar coins can be a little more irritating to spend -- so it never becomes habitual. These behaviors tend to reinforce each other, which effectively removes them from circulation. Some vending machines will give them out, so there is a low-level demand for them to fill those machines (the 1980 reserve of Susan B. Anthony coins ran out in 1999, prompting a new coin), but people just don't seem to have the habit of spending them the same way as $1 bills even if they do get them, so other infrastructure never really evolves to support them, etc. Half-dollar coins are similar -- those are rarely seen in day-to-day use, and dollar coins tend to follow the pattern of those. Most other countries discontinued the bill when they introduced the coin, and that may be the only approach that will work. But the $2 bill is not used either, so it may not be a bill vs. coin thing. There have been a number of theories as to why the coin has not yet succeeded, but whatever the issue, the government hasn't figured out a way to get them to be treated as "normal" money rather than a novelty thus far. Not sure how to summarize that better, but the original sentence is sort of accurate -- most people do not treat the coins as normal money really. Carl Lindberg (talk) 02:29, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Clindberg: Hmm. What you say is puzzling in itself. Discontinuing the note seems to be an obvious solution, so why haven't the government done it? This worked here in the UK nearly 30 years ago. Indeed, we have had seven coin introductions in my lifetime alone (three new demoninations, and four new sizes/shapes to existing denominations) and three coin withdrawals (and another one about to happen). Each time, retailers have had no difficulty keeping up. Though admittedly, vending machines do sometimes take a while to be updated. Just over 15 years ago, a number of European countries had something far bigger than this to do.
What you say about vending machines is interesting. Here, drink/snack vending machines generally take only coins, not notes. As such, before the introduction of the general-circulation £2 coin in 1998, one wouldn't have got a £1 coin in change from such a machine. Though on the other hand, railway ticket vending machines, for instance, do take notes, but I think most give only coins out in change. In the US, do drink/snack vending machines tend to take notes? Or do people keep loads of quarters and such around in order to use in these? — Smjg (talk) 12:13, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Smjg: Dunno on the note -- though Washington is honored on the $1 bill, so there would probably be pressure to find another way to get him on another bill, which the U.S. doesn't change all that often (to say the least). Congressmen have introduced bills to end the $1 bill on many occasions, as it would likely save the government money in the long run (there are various claims each way), but they haven't gone anywhere, which would seem to indicate that most other Congressmen they feel such a measure would be unpopular and don't want to risk any political capital on it. It was reintroduced this year -- https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/senate-bill/759 -- but the reasons why some legislation quietly dies are usually murky. That one is still pending. In general, the U.S. does not change coins or bills all that much -- there have been security changes in the bills and some new designs, but the denominations and people honored on them have not changed in decades. The nickel didn't really change from 1938 to 2004, when they had a few different reverses for a couple years, before going back to the old reverse (but a new portrait on the obverse). So, there may be more built-in resistance to changes, for whatever reason. The US has no EU standardization issue to deal with -- we had standardized long before. I guess if you make frequent changes to currency, people may be more accepting of further changes, but the U.S. has been static there for most people's entire lives (they have not changed significantly since the 1930s).
Vending machines these days often do take bills, or at least $1 bills. Many would not take the 50 cent piece, though I think most are required to accept dollar coins. However, it can take a long, long time for such things to reach all corners of the country -- rural areas tend to upgrade such things much less frequently, so in a lot of areas, it could take decades for such changes to actually get everywhere. I think the dollar coin in the 1970s was very large, and the thought was people did not use it for that reason. In 1979, the Susan B. Anthony dollar coin was released, and I think laws were passed requiring vending machines to accept them. The coin was made smaller, but looked and felt almost exactly like the quarter, and was only slightly bigger with a similar thickness, so people often confused them, and they perhaps got a stigma because of that -- but for whatever reason they were rejected by the public in that they were never really used. When the new dollar coin was introduced in 1999 or 2000, vending machine companies complained that they had been forced to make a major change at great expense which in the end never got much public use, so the new coin was required to have the same thickness and weight as the Susan B. Anthony. It was at least made a different color and with a smooth edge, but again for whatever reason, it did not get much use. Vending machines these days usually take $1 bills, and sometimes $5 bills. They will usually give change in quarters. In some cases, they can give change in bills as well. The self-checkout machines in grocery stores (which typically deal with much higher amounts) will give change in bills. A few vending machines (transit, and post office) may give dollar coins as change, but these are usually in cities and are less common in most of the rest of the country, from what I've seen. Other countries use U.S. dollars too, so it can affect areas beyond U.S. lawmakers control (though supposedly the dollar coins have proved more popular in some of those other countries than in the U.S. itself). It's hard to pinpoint the real reasons -- they may be more sociological. When doing some Google searches on this issue, I see things like "the vending machine gave me dollar coins in return -- what use do I have for those?". It may just seem like "weird" money for whatever reason. I also saw a post saying that 50-cent use was once normal, but in 1964 it changed to have JFK on it, and people hoarded them as a novelty -- at which point they ceased to be common use, and have remained that way ever since. If a coin ever proved popular, I'm sure the rest of the industry would adapt quickly, but... there has to be a demand for that first, which nobody has seemed have figured out how to create. The penny is becoming an annoyance, so that may change at some point, but it's hard to say. The habits of the public basically drive all of this, and sometimes it's hard to force change. Carl Lindberg (talk) 14:37, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Clindberg: I keep meaning to get back to this. "What use do I have for those?" is obviously a ridiculous question - the same use as you have for any coin or note. It's further puzzling that people would hoard coins of a particular value as a novelty - I would have thought once you've got a collection of identical coins you would be looking to spend some of them. Maybe the question is as much one of why we don't see the same kind of attitude to coins here in the UK.
Anyhow, have you any thoughts on how we can incorporate this information into the article? Just clarifying the original statement in a suitable way would be a good start; if we can find sources and expand on it then it would be even better. — Smjg (talk) 22:25, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
But you don't get a collection of them. Stores order what bills and coins they want from the banks. With $1 bills easily available and easily accommodated by cash register drawers, the stores order those. Customers thus do not receive the $1 coin in their change very often and perceive them as a rarity that they hold onto. Stores thus do not receive the $1 coin in payments and perceive them as rarities (and annoying ones because there is no convenient place in the cash drawer for them). The only way a $1 coin will gain traction in the American marketplace is to force its use by removing the $1 bill. Another issue is that coins are much heavier than bills. I would much rather have twenty $1 bills in my pocket than twenty $1 coins.--Khajidha (talk) 18:15, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
But the thing is, very few people actually end up with twenty dollar bills or dollar coins in their pockets. It's why we have $20 bills :-) And I've been in both Canada and the UK, where they have coins of even higher value. After a day or so, you find they don't accumulate because you spend them.Almostfm (talk) 22:23, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I often have many $1 bills in my pocket and I noticed (over many years working retail) that lots of people will spend a twenty without adding any ones to make the change come back "neater" even if they have the bills in their wallet (ie: they would hand me a $20 for a transaction of $16.74, instead og giving me $22 and getting $5.26 in change). --Khajidha (talk) 01:00, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It also needs to be kept in mind that the U.S. does not demonitize old notes and coins. Even if issuance of $1 bills ceased immediately, the existing notes would need to be removed from circulation as they reached the banks so that they did not remain in circulation as an alternative to the coins. --Khajidha (talk) 16:17, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
But presumably these same people do use their $1 coins or notes for smaller purchases? And when you say "I often have many" do you mean around 5, or around 20? — Smjg (talk) 13:58, 12 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Dollar notes are spent, but dollar coins often aren't. I can often have about ten $1 bills at a time. They are convenient for vending machines. Such machines here almost always have bill acceptance but few will handle the $1 coins. And many will actually take credit/debit cards.--Khajidha (talk) 14:54, 12 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Khajidha: Again, I've been meaning to get back to this but not remembering at the right time. I really need a means of keeping track of my Wikipedia discussions and making sure I remember to respond at the right time.
Clindberg said "people hoarded them as a novelty" – are you saying this is a lie? Furthermore, what you have said raises further questions. For instance, why are so many shops using outdated equipment? And even as long as they are, how is the same compartment into which they put $1 notes not an equally convenient place to put any $1 coins they receive from customers?
Something else that might help put the question into perspective: How often, roughly speaking, do you receive a $1 coin in your change? About once a month, once a year, or once a decade? — Smjg (talk) 13:58, 12 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Responses by paragraph: 1) When given a dollar coin many people will take it home and put it in a jar with their other change, which they then take to a coin counting machine to be redeemed for bills. Or they'll put it in a coin collecting album and never spend it. They aren't really "hoarded", as that implies great numbers, but they just don't circulate. 2) Putting coins in the same slot as bills is messy. The coins get in the way of the clasp holding the bills down. Replacing the equipment would be a huge expense and not worth it until the coins become common. 3) Roughly once a year. Maybe a few times more, but nowhere near once a month. --Khajidha (talk) 14:54, 12 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
PS: the comment about "hoarding them as a novelty" was about the JFK 50 cent piece that was issued after his assassination. Which was about the last time that a coin of that denomination was common. I've NEVER seen a vending machine that could accept them. Or the pre-Susan B. Anthony large dollar coins. They are just TOO big. --Khajidha (talk) 14:59, 12 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on United States one-dollar bill. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:12, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In Turkey possessing a 1 dollar bill can lead to a prosecution

In Turkey if someone has a 1 dollar bill (specially from the F series, but also others) he can get charged with supporting terror, because it can be seen as a connection to the Gülen movement. Currently there is also jailed a NASA scientist charged for this crime. Does anyone have an idea how to include this in the article? Is there a list of laws against possessing dollars? Best,Lean Anael (talk) 13:11, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Since no opposition came up I include it under "Collecting Federal Reserve dollar bills". I`ll add more sources though. Lean Anael (talk) 17:47, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I created a full new heading, it sort of didn`t fit in the collection part. But I am open for changes.Lean Anael (talk) 18:11, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

podcast exploring the Design of United States currency

https://99percentinvisible.org/episode/episode-54-the-colour-of-money/

Discusses a dollar redesign project. Pigkeeper (talk) 20:17, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

George Washington Image

The image of George Washington on the current one-dollar bill is based on a painting by Gilbert Stuart. The painting is oil on canvas. The image on the bill is an engraving. The creator of the engraving is not mentioned, nor the date it was created, or the medium that was used. Indexguy (talk) 19:05, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Evidently it was done by an unknown engraver at the U.S. Mint. It is a beautiful work with little tiny dots and dashes following gently curving lines. I notice the direction of the lines is somewhat arbitrary. There are many portraits of people done this way, quite brilliantly on plastic bags at Barnes & Noble bookstore. I don't know the name of the style, nor have I found a place on the Internet that has collected examples. Indexguy (talk) 10:42, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hatnote?

Is there any way we can put a hatnote explaining that the term $1 bill redirects here? Because I imagine there could be some folks looking for $1 notes from other dollar currencies (including deprecated $1 bills from Canada or Australia to name a few). Hurricane Clyde 🌀my talk page! 20:08, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not opposed to this, but the use of the term "bill" to refer to banknotes is most common in North American English, while other dialects tend to use "note". Template:Redirect would probably be best in this case. - ZLEA T\C 00:17, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It should probably be noted that the only other banknote to be known as the "$1 bill", the Canadian one-dollar banknote, does not have an article and has not been released since the end of the Scenes of Canada series in 1989. - ZLEA T\C 01:42, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It does have a redirect to the Withdrawn Canadian banknotes article. Should I link that article instead; or use the redirect? Hurricane Clyde 🌀my talk page! 01:51, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Probably the redirect. - ZLEA T\C 03:04, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:United_States_one-dollar_bill&oldid=1247161974"