Talk:United States one-hundred-dollar bill

	United States portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Numismatics: American currency High‑importance

	Numismatics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Numismatics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of numismatics and currencies on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.NumismaticsWikipedia:WikiProject NumismaticsTemplate:WikiProject Numismaticsnumismatic articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the American currency task force (assessed as Top-importance).

Untitled

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

The role of US $100 bills in international markets, especially during financial instability after the collapse of the USSR, is the major interest at this entry. It's also the reason for the flood of counterfeits that hasn't been mentioned. Wetman 18:45, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Is the "new" 100 USD note going to help secure our currency outside the borders? Does the current design ever re-enter or re-circulate inside the US? Or does it stay outside the country as a stable replacement to weaker local currencies? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.57.64.79 (talk) 16:36, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Date of new $100 bill

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)[reply]

I agree, either late 2008 or early 2009, based on release schedules of current issues. Bjd — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bjd (talk • contribs) 21:09, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Next $100 bill

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)[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]

Pre-1996 note design

Can anyone get a scan of the old (pre-1996) $100 bill? —Scott5114 ↗ 05:41, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

--

One-hundred dollar bills are delivered by Federal Reserve Banks in mustard-colored straps binding 100 notes or $10,000. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.80.112.221 (talk) 07:19, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nicknames Section

A user 65.222.185.2 has proposed that this section be summarily removed. I do not see the logic in just removing the section. Comments?-MBK004 17:08, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I concur. There needs to be more justification than "this is cruft." Everything is "cruft" by that sort of loose definition. Bold edits like that require consensus, per WP:CONS/WP:BRD. The continued removal, without discussion towards consensus, constitutes edit warring and may violate the three revert rule. I see no reason to remove it - it's not trivia or cruft, it's perfectly good content - nicknames of people, groups, objects, etc generally merit inclusion. --Cheeser1 20:45, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My reasons for suggested removal are as follow: It is loosely based items, like I previosly stated anyone may claim that the nickname "horseshit" is reasonable.... Now we all know that that's notthe case, but it may happen. Perhaps if you listed the nickname, along with reasons as to why it is called so, then it should stay. For example, if you explain that it is called a "Franklin" because of Benjamin Franklin, then that is plausible, but if the list only contains, slang words, and no background information, then I see no purpose for the section to exist at all. I hope this can follow suit on the other US bill articles as well.

I also suggest that you only add the ones with logical info.

If you have no info, it is not encyclopedic. 65.222.185.2 15:06, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please be civil. Your language is inappropriate, and your reasoning appears to be inconsistent. All of those terms, except one, already have "reasons as to why it is called so." And yet you removed the section. Furthermore, the term that has no explanation is obvious: "100 Bones" because "bones" is slang for "dollar."[1] --Cheeser1 17:34, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"OOOO he cursed".....Just because I said a swear word does not mean that I'm not civil. Fuck it, keep the section, you got me. By the way, why is bones slang for dollar. I'm curious and I've never heard of it before. Please disregard my changed IP. I'm not a sock, I'm on a wireless router connection. 68.44.175.59 23:20, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

When someone asks you to be civil, it is not customary to mock them. Wikipedia is not censored does not mean you have free license to swear at other users. Bones is slang for a unit of currency in North America, and stems I believe from the use of bones as currency by some Native Americans. I can't source that right now though - I could be wrong. --Cheeser1 01:46, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, I was wrong. Please forgive me, I went to far. Anyways, thanks for your wisdom. I did not know that! 65.222.185.2 12:28, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have red stamped 100 dollor bil and want to know how much it is worth today? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.254.235.130 (talk) 14:19, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'll give you $50 for it. 153.42.170.64 (talk) 14:02, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What's correct?

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Time on the clock

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)[reply]

While the movie "National Treasure" may be a valid source for movie trivia and superstition, it's probably better to defer to an official government website for more factual data.

From the US Bureau of Engraving and Printing "Money Facts" website:

"There is no record that the man and woman standing in front of the hall close to the building are embracing. The hands of the clock on the hall are set at approximately 4:10. There are no records explaining why that particular time was chosen." http://www.moneyfactory.gov/document.cfm/18/2232 130.76.32.19 (talk) 20:28, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The bit about the clock face, in the first paragraph of the article, really is minutiae that belongs farther down in the article if anywhere at all. I don't have a hundred dollar bill on me to check, but I read on another site that the clock face isn't even visible without the aid of a magnifying glass. Also, I tagged the sentence about the "100th date" as original research because it contradicts the official statement posted above. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.135.189.179 (talk) 21:31, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If you look closer at the time and at the painting that they used you will see the correct time is 2:22 this needs to be corrected Dustinycross (talk) 11:44, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Naming

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)[reply]

no changes to assist the visually impaired in distinguishing bill denominations? on new bills

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)[reply]

Infobox is unreleased series 2009?

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)[reply]

The Series 2006A is replacing the Series 2009 UNTIL the creasing problem is solved. By the informations that I have, there is now a Series 2009A, that is considered a new production cycle of colorized notes. The creasing problem is, at least mitigated. O530Fn942012A (talk) 06:04, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Three bills with non-presidents

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Security strip

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)[reply]

$2 notes also feature reverse not in Washington D.C.

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)[reply]

The actual time

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Nonsense sentences

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)[reply]

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)[reply]