Re: Lousy terminology
- In all fairness, I should emphasize that Alan Herbert's book is still
the best general reference on error coins, IMHO.
--- In firstname.lastname@example.org, "Mike Diamond"
> It's quite possible that IMDP is used in more than one context. Ifthe
> it has been applied to totally unrelated errors, then that would
> render its use problematic. It sort of reminds me of what happened
> to the term "extra metal". This term was applied to so many
> different and unrelated errors (at least half a dozen) that it
> eventually sank beneath the weight of them and was expunged from
> hobby lexicon. No loss, though. "Extra metal" was a lousy term inIMDP.
> ALL its applications.
> There are indeed many flaws in Herbert's book, not the least being
> the unwieldy terminology and classification numbers. Some errors,
> like "jam strikes", and "inside die abrasion doubling" don't even
> exist. In the 6th edition, he transfers all the former planchet
> errors to the "striking errors" category. Makes no sense at all.
> And you're right that Spadone's book is the worst offender.
> --- In email@example.com, "mrlindy2000"
> <adkinstone@e...> wrote:
> > A few years back I believe Pilliod wrote a Coneca article on
> I hadn't read Herbert's definition concerning IMDP. I know mya
> > earlier copy had numerous typos and wrong pix. Maybe his IMDP
> definition is a typo as it isn't what I read on the subject. I had
> > freind locally years ago who cut his teeth on Herbert. It wasrealized
> amazing just how wrong the earlier edtion is if its your only error
> > reference. I got annoyed with all my error collector friend's
> mistatments and we, together sat through Herbert and I then
> > where all his incorrect error info came from.
> > The most blatent offender is Spadone.
> > So many altered errors pictured.
> > Sandwich brockages that continue to plague ebay.
> > Not by Spadone as he was deceived by contributors.
> > Once in print though, its impossible to correct.
> > Lindy