Talk:Number One Dime/@comment-1416077-20150405221518/@comment-1416077-20150406140251

1)	The issue is that Carl Barks’ timeline has what can charitably be called “issues”; Don Rosa presented a well-researched, concise timeline based primarily on Carl Barks’s own stories, which are in places contradictory with other Carl Barks stories. Rosa then wrote official, canon stories, published by Disney that addressed these contradictions. His “hard timeline” may be unofficial, but it is the guide he (and those who followed) use to maintain continuity and consistency. His input simply can’t be ignored. I’m not alone in my opinion.

2)	No. The author is factually incorrect. To repeat my points (for convenience):


 * a.	"Until 1891 all dimes bore the portrait of the Goddess of Liberty". This is not true; the portrait on the obverse of the Barber dime and the later "Mercury" dime both feature the portrait of the "goddess of Liberty".


 * b.	"Eagles on dimes were discontinued 100 years earlier!" Also factually untrue; 1837 is only 54 years, little over half the century cited.


 * c.	"So we shall never know neither the look nor the year of Scrooge's Number One Dime!" Patently untrue since it is unequivocally established that it is an 1873 Seated Liberty. Of course, if the author completely dismisses Don Rosa’s stories and accepts ONLY Carl Barks’ stories as “official canon” then, to him (and others with like beliefs), it will be true, but from an objective view (including yours, since you accept that other official authors have equal standing regarding canon).

3)	His verbal statement is not considered confirmation. The cited image shows the 1873 Seated Liberty prominently and clearly; the image of the giant coin is definitely unclear; no numismatist would accept that the two coins are one and the same. That being said, it can be easily understood that the image of the giant coin may have been intentionally left vague in so that the image could be used unedited in other countries, while the 1873 could be easily replaced by a local or “generic” coin… but that is beside the point; until a proper reference is provided, it is unconfirmed.

I want to make it clear that it is not that I believe there is “one true dime” and the others are not; it is simply that the best documentation shows the 1873 Seated Liberty, so all others (with less clarity and/or documentation) fall under the catch-all: “it has also been seen as.”

I am also not doubting the “authenticity” of the giant dime, but scholastically and objectively speaking, it is unconfirmed; the images show “a” giant dime with no context; without this confirmation, the information should not be included in the article.

Note that I specifically copied the text in question in the comments section, after I made minor corrections and formatting to make it easier to insert as its own paragraph. If you can include the reference to the McGreal 1857 dime, it will also be included as its own paragraph.