Talk:Golden Rose

This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Christianity: Catholicism Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Christianity, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Christianity 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.ChristianityWikipedia:WikiProject ChristianityTemplate:WikiProject ChristianityChristianity Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject Catholicism (assessed as Low-importance).

Why is the value of the rose denominated in dollars? Surely the Vatican didn't actually pay for the gold and the workmanship in dollars. Presumably it's a dollar equivalent, used for the benefit of North American readers, but then which dollar is it using? Certainly not present-day dollars, since an 8-pound rose would be worth far more than a thousand or two dollars. Can anyone make sense of what is really meant? Keno (talk) 00:55, 29 June 2010 (UTC)Reply

I agree. And giving the 19th century amount isn't very beneficial. Could someone convert these to modern dollars? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.74.231.239 (talk) 18:42, 3 April 2011 (UTC)Reply

Rock in the CE wrote "dollars" for scudi d'oro. This should have been verified before converting based on the value of a US dollar in 1909 (which makes no sense as Baldassari wrote in 1709, when the US dollar didn't even exist). Rock also bungled a few numbers from his source (including *"Innocent IX" for Innocent XI). He appears to add on his own authority that some 19th-century roses cost "2000 dollars". Right after a paragraph using "dollars" for écus, I suppose we are to assume these are also écus(?) Since Rock clearly isn't a reliable source we might want to verify this. --dab (𒁳) 19:37, 5 December 2016 (UTC)Reply

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Golden Rose. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20151114043455/http://www.fotopro.com.pl/jasna_gora_en.html to http://www.fotopro.com.pl/jasna_gora_en.html
• Added archive https://archive.is/20130415204732/http://www.ssvmusa.org/about/lujan/papalhonors.shtm to http://www.ssvmusa.org/about/lujan/papalhonors.shtm

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) 19:16, 20 October 2017 (UTC)Reply