NUMISMATIST CHANGE 上市 Deposited
The E-Sylum: Volume 6, Number 2, January 12, 2003, Article 11
NUMISMATIST CHANGE
Bruce Perdue writes: "I haven't read all of the "new" format
"Numismatist", but it seems to me that some of this change was
done for the advertisers ... their ads seem more intrusive than
they did in the old format. I of course agree with Greg Heim
that without David Bowers and Ken Bressett's columns it
isn't as good as it was."Ken Bressett writes: "I must second what Greg Heim had to
say about the new Numismatist. One can only hope that the
extra effort and cost that went into the renovation is on target
and of benefit to the typical ANA member. The decision to
drop the columns by Dave Bowers and myself, as well as all
the other changes, was strictly that of the ANA, and not ours."Regarding Greg's comment that "the articles were too
specialized," Martin Purdy writes: "I find that rather odd, if I
may say so. Put alongside a really academic and quite turgid
publication such as the Numismatic Chronicle, which I have
never succeeded in reading from cover to cover, the
"Numismatist" is decidedly populist and lowbrow. Maybe
that's not a good comparison, who knows.I enjoy receiving the "Numismatist" each month (I haven't
got the January 03 issue yet, so I can't make an old/new
comparison at this stage), but it's hardly a heavy read. It
also tends to let some fairly basic errors through the
editing process, which I wouldn't expect of a more
academic publication."Bill Malkmus writes: "I noted the comments about the "new"
Numismatist in last week's E-Sylum. I was compiling a list
to send to the editor, and thought I'd offer a few of my
comments.The dropping of the article I agree is a non-issue. But some
of the other changes for the sake of change are not so
innocuous. I have tried to resist my usual septuagenarian's
viewpoint that equates "change" with "bad" (however often
that may be the case).I do credit them for placing the name, date, and page number
on (almost) every page. (It's frustrating when a Xerox file
copy is found to be lacking in ID.)The typography and proofreading seem good, although I am
still checking my pocket change unsuccessfully for that
Eisenhower quarter mentioned on p.12.I agree that the dropping of Bowers and Bressett is regrettable,
but would add Sear, Fitts, and Hessler (at least) to the list.But I cannot accept the premise that the former journal was
too "erudite" or highbrow -- I don't go along with the "lowest
common denominator" theory. I can't believe that vast
numbers of readers could not cope with what David Sear had
to offer in 2 or 3 pages on ancient coins. I do not collect dog
tokens or beer tokens (and expect I never will), but I do not
feel put upon for seeing articles about them; in fact, I feel my
horizons are widened for having read them.In the "form overcoming content" category, I must remark on
one of my pet peeves, that of overlapping photos of (usually)
obverse and reverse images of a coin (the cute technical term
being, I believe, "eclipsing") when, as is usually the case, there
is no space constraint requiring it. I really get upset when what
would be the best illustration I have of some particular coin is
thus artsily mutilated, with partial obscuration of a reverse
design or legend.The use of icons ("next page" and "end") is good, although the
"end" icon should be at the very end of all text (after "learn
more"). (I am not sure what the "end" icon represents, if it
matters, and it is barely distinguishable from "next page.")Unfortunately, the introduction of the "learn more" caption
seems to imply that there will never be any sufficiently
important comment ever made which might require one of
those untidy and intimidating footnotes or endnotes."- 2003-01-12
- 6