The Numismatist--Just Another Coin Rag?

Along with the third grade art school reject for the logo, the ANA
redesigned the Numismatist, to get it updated to the times.

In an effort to get away from its reputation as a bunch of stodgy articles
of very limited interest, it's now taken the "hip" road and become much more
like a newsstand coin magazine.

And just like its newsstand brethren, it puts style before substance.

For example, in the July issue is an article by Michael E. Marotta about
proof coins with such statements as "The program was resumed in 1936, only
to be halted after 1943..." (gee, I wonder how much a 1943 proof set goes
for?), "As the price is silver rose in the 1970s, proof coins...were melted
for their precious metal content." (there was no great rise in silver
prices until late in 1979) and "Similarly, if planchets were not perfectly
dried, millions of pounds of pressure per square inch impressed water
droplets into the surface."

When I learned a little about coins, I heard they were struck under 40-170
tons of pressure. That's 80,000-340,000 pounds, nowhere near "millions of
pounds"

Now this is not a "bash Marotta" thread. Yes, he should have checked his
facts a little better. But I thought the Numismatist had a paid editor?
Isn't it the editor's job to check on what goes into print? It was when I
was an editor.

Another example of this new "pop numismatics" was the article a couple
months ago about Lewis and Clark. Page after page of story, and not a
mention anywhere of the Sacagawea dollar, even though over a billion of
these coins were made in honor of the woman who went on the trip with them.

There is one advantage to the new format. Since it's now just another rag,
it doesn't seem like such a big deal to just throw it away once it's glanced
through.

--

Outgoing mail is certified ********

"Fred A. Murphy" spoke thusly:
Along with the third grade art school reject for the logo, the ANA
redesigned the Numismatist,
... it's now taken the "hip" road and become much more
like a newsstand coin magazine.
And just like its newsstand brethren, it puts style before substance.
There is one advantage to the new format. Since it's now just another
rag,
it doesn't seem like such a big deal to just throw it away once it's
glanced
through.

How do you *really* feel about the new look of the magazine, Fred?

Larry
'a relatively new ANA member'

Aside from sharing your thoughts here about the Numismatist, have you taken
proactive steps to reinvigourate the magazine, such as contributing articles
etc?

Not trying to shoot you down, you just may have some good ideas that can
come forth to improve the Numismatist. Now that my life is getting back to
some semblance of normal, I am pondering writing an article on one of my
collecting interest, probably not Scottish though

Dave

-
Tir nam Beann, nan Gleann, s'nan Gaisgeach - Saor Alba A-Nis!
"Fred A. Murphy" wrote in message
...
Along with the third grade art school reject for the logo, the ANA
redesigned the Numismatist, to get it updated to the times.

In an effort to get away from its reputation as a bunch of stodgy articles
of very limited interest, it's now taken the "hip" road and become much
more
like a newsstand coin magazine.

And just like its newsstand brethren, it puts style before substance.

For example, in the July issue is an article by Michael E. Marotta about
proof coins with such statements as "The program was resumed in 1936, only
to be halted after 1943..." (gee, I wonder how much a 1943 proof set goes
for?), "As the price is silver rose in the 1970s, proof coins...were
melted
for their precious metal content." (there was no great rise in silver
prices until late in 1979) and "Similarly, if planchets were not perfectly
dried, millions of pounds of pressure per square inch impressed water
droplets into the surface."

When I learned a little about coins, I heard they were struck under 40-170
tons of pressure. That's 80,000-340,000 pounds, nowhere near "millions of
pounds"

Now this is not a "bash Marotta" thread. Yes, he should have checked his
facts a little better. But I thought the Numismatist had a paid editor?
Isn't it the editor's job to check on what goes into print? It was when I
was an editor.

Another example of this new "pop numismatics" was the article a couple
months ago about Lewis and Clark. Page after page of story, and not a
mention anywhere of the Sacagawea dollar, even though over a billion of
these coins were made in honor of the woman who went on the trip with
them.

There is one advantage to the new format. Since it's now just another
rag,
it doesn't seem like such a big deal to just throw it away once it's
glanced
through.

--

Outgoing mail is certified ********


---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.712 / Virus Database: 468 - Release Date: 6/27/04

On 14-Jul-2004, "Scottishmoney" wrote:

Aside from sharing your thoughts here about the Numismatist, have you
taken proactive steps to reinvigourate the magazine, such as contributing
articles etc?

The ANA is not interested in good ideas. That's why they proceeded with a
logo that was universally decried, and why they refuse to respond in this
forum to the many, many complaints their members have. They prefer private
communication where they can sweep everything under the rug, then deny
having ever said anything.

--

Outgoing mail is certified ********

"Fred A. Murphy" wrote in message ...
Along with the third grade art school reject for the logo, the ANA
redesigned the Numismatist, to get it updated to the times.

In an effort to get away from its reputation as a bunch of stodgy articles
of very limited interest, it's now taken the "hip" road and become much more
like a newsstand coin magazine.

And just like its newsstand brethren, it puts style before substance.

For example, in the July issue is an article by Michael E. Marotta about
proof coins with such statements as "The program was resumed in 1936, only
to be halted after 1943..." (gee, I wonder how much a 1943 proof set goes
for?), "As the price is silver rose in the 1970s, proof coins...were melted
for their precious metal content." (there was no great rise in silver
prices until late in 1979) and "Similarly, if planchets were not perfectly
dried, millions of pounds of pressure per square inch impressed water
droplets into the surface."

When I learned a little about coins, I heard they were struck under 40-170
tons of pressure. That's 80,000-340,000 pounds, nowhere near "millions of
pounds"

Now this is not a "bash Marotta" thread. Yes, he should have checked his
facts a little better. But I thought the Numismatist had a paid editor?
Isn't it the editor's job to check on what goes into print? It was when I
was an editor.

Another example of this new "pop numismatics" was the article a couple
months ago about Lewis and Clark. Page after page of story, and not a
mention anywhere of the Sacagawea dollar, even though over a billion of
these coins were made in honor of the woman who went on the trip with them.

There is one advantage to the new format. Since it's now just another rag,
it doesn't seem like such a big deal to just throw it away once it's glanced
through.



I think its an "OK" magazine. Some articles are of more interest to me than
others, just like all the other coin mags and weekly papers out there. They
are trying to get away from being too "stodgy" in their approach and I think
that is a good thing. Finding just the right balance is not always easy to do.

On 14 Jul 2004 07:15:06 -0700, (John Stone)
wrote:

I think its an "OK" magazine. Some articles are of more interest to me than
others, just like all the other coin mags and weekly papers out there. They
are trying to get away from being too "stodgy" in their approach and I think
that is a good thing. Finding just the right balance is not always easy to do.

I'd agree that not being stodgy is a good thing -- but neither should
it "dumb itself down" to the same old weekly/monthly publications out
there.

And while I don't think most of the material in it should be too dry
and advanced for most readers, I do think it should remain more of a
scholarly journal than most of the mainstream numismatic press.

--
Tim Irvin, ziggy29 at mac.com

On 14-Jul-2004, Tim Irvin wrote:

I'd agree that not being stodgy is a good thing -- but neither should
it "dumb itself down" to the same old weekly/monthly publications out
there.

And while I don't think most of the material in it should be too dry
and advanced for most readers, I do think it should remain more of a
scholarly journal than most of the mainstream numismatic press.

Above all, I think that a magazine put out by the world's largest numismatic
organization should not have inaccurate info. It's bad enough the
mainstream press has errors when presenting coin coverage, at least they
have the excuse that it's a specialized field and they don't know any
better.

When information is available in something as accessible as a copy of the
Redbook, it should be accurate.

--

Outgoing mail is certified ********

On Wed, 14 Jul 2004 07:19:53 GMT, "Fred A. Murphy" is
alleged to have written:

Along with the third grade art school reject for the logo, the ANA
redesigned the Numismatist, to get it updated to the times.


I hate the new logo. Outside of the ANAHQ, I have heard no positive comments
about it.

In an effort to get away from its reputation as a bunch of stodgy articles
of very limited interest, it's now taken the "hip" road and become much more
like a newsstand coin magazine.

And just like its newsstand brethren, it puts style before substance.


I haven't read the latest issue...ro the one before that. I'll have to go see.

For example, in the July issue is an article by Michael E. Marotta about
proof coins with such statements as "The program was resumed in 1936, only
to be halted after 1943..." (gee, I wonder how much a 1943 proof set goes
for?), "As the price is silver rose in the 1970s, proof coins...were melted
for their precious metal content." (there was no great rise in silver
prices until late in 1979) and "Similarly, if planchets were not perfectly
dried, millions of pounds of pressure per square inch impressed water
droplets into the surface."


Geez, Mike. How in the world did that happen, did you forget your editor or did
your editor forget you?


When I learned a little about coins, I heard they were struck under 40-170
tons of pressure. That's 80,000-340,000 pounds, nowhere near "millions of
pounds"

Now this is not a "bash Marotta" thread. Yes, he should have checked his
facts a little better. But I thought the Numismatist had a paid editor?
Isn't it the editor's job to check on what goes into print? It was when I
was an editor.


Yah. Waiting for Mike to comment. If it was an editing error, his comment will
be pretty interesting. If it's not an editing error, well, I wonder how a red
face appears in a usenet post. :-)


Another example of this new "pop numismatics" was the article a couple
months ago about Lewis and Clark. Page after page of story, and not a
mention anywhere of the Sacagawea dollar, even though over a billion of
these coins were made in honor of the woman who went on the trip with them.


The author may never have seen one. :-) Certainly I've never received one in
normal commerce unless I saw it in the drawer and asked.


Welcome back Fredd! GLad you're feeling better, we've missed you.

Bruce (Well, most of us :-) )

"Fred A. Murphy" wrote in message
...
Along with the third grade art school reject for the logo, the ANA
redesigned the Numismatist, to get it updated to the times.

In an effort to get away from its reputation as a bunch of stodgy articles
of very limited interest, it's now taken the "hip" road and become much
more
like a newsstand coin magazine.

And just like its newsstand brethren, it puts style before substance.

For example, in the July issue is an article by Michael E. Marotta about
proof coins with such statements as "The program was resumed in 1936, only
to be halted after 1943..." (gee, I wonder how much a 1943 proof set goes
for?), "As the price is silver rose in the 1970s, proof coins...were
melted
for their precious metal content." (there was no great rise in silver
prices until late in 1979) and "Similarly, if planchets were not perfectly
dried, millions of pounds of pressure per square inch impressed water
droplets into the surface."

Well, hate to say it but I read Marotta's article and let each inaccuracy
fly over my head, although I know the facts in each instance. I feel I
should stand in the corner along with Michael and the editor. Bill

Fred A. Murphy wrote:
Along with the third grade art school reject for the logo, the ANA
redesigned the Numismatist, to get it updated to the times.

Welcome back, Fred. We missed ya.*




*Guess we'll just have to aim better next time...

--
Bob