Layout and design

[william 0]

sorry to go off topic here, but i have notised that instead of member, me and the others who visit the forum regularly are now in the numismatic group...is this because of this book?

This is because of the book, it shows that we are allowed in the new Rotographic research forum!

[custard1966 1]

I think there's an argument for separating currency and non-currency coins

Patterns & proofs (except for a few jubilee/coronation years and such) tend to be pretty rare & expensive beasties & I find they interrupt the flow/layout of the currency coins.

[Chris Perkins 228]

That had crossed my mind too, especially when I looked at the entire page of Victorian decimal patterns, milles and so on! I wondered if any of the 13,000 people that own this edition, actually own any Victorian decimal patterns?

So how do we feel about leaving out the mega rare pattern/proof coins? In a way I'd like to put them for completeness but I do understand that they are not the relevant, certainly most of them. Plus the fact that the higher value and the rarer the coin is, the more difficult it is to put a price on.

I'm not sure.

[Emperor Oli 0]

You could always separate them from the main body and just have an appendix at the back for them, as you say, most people don't have them. It would be a nice thing to have though to refer to and all!

[Geoff T 3]

I feel that, however many illustrations you go for in the end, it's important to caption them so that it's clear which captions relate to which pictures. At the moment there are instances of captions referring to illustrations over on another page, which is confusing, Similarly, the placing of the little snippets of information within boxes appears at the moment to be fairly arbitrary. It would make more sense to place the more general ones (like the two on p.4 of the 2004 edition) in a decent glossary, which is something the book currently lacks.

I'm in favour of keeping the information on rare patterns and proofs, although maybe not necessarily in the manner they appear at the moment. It's useful to have this information in a convenient reference tool because it's not always readily available elsewhere in such a portable form. What I wouldn't miss if it were to be omitted is the stuff about Edward VIII retropatterns.

I also think the layout by denomination rather than by reign as in Spink is something which must be retained.

Incidentally, the book starts with 1820, not 1821.

[kuhli 0]

I have the 1999 edition, so I am familiar with the general format of book, although it appears to have undergone some major changes in the last 5 years, already. My edition is in a horizontal format as opposed to the current vertical format (which I think is a big improvement). Looking at the photo caption on this site, it also appears that the layout has apparently been spread out considerably. (the photo shows the half-crowns on page 57, whereas the 1999 edition only has 56 pages). BTW, the 1999 edition had a price of £2.50.

#1. the cover. I think we all agree that something should be done to improve the appearance of the cover. it is now up to Chris to decide what those improvements will be, based on the equipment/technology available and within budget allowances.

#2. the listings. 1820 seems like a strange place to start, other than the obvious point of starting with Geo IV. I think you should consider (and this is just a suggestion) starting with the 1816 recoinage. In reality, this only adds 21 more coins (6p - crown) and 3 Maundy sets.

#3. the format. I agree with the others that the division by denomination is definitely preferable to the division by monarch. I also agree that the rare patterns and such should be seperated into an appendix. I think the Maundy sets should also be moved to an appendix. I think the decimal coinage needs to remain, if not for the pricing, but at least for the reference use. I am constantly using mine to determine which dates are available from circulation, and also the various changing coinage, such as the £1 and £2.

One thought I had that I think might be useful for you to consider: you have stated that for the most part, the 2005 edition will not be modified, yet it hasn't been done yet. Perhaps you could print a loose questionaire/poll/survey to be included with each copy sold, to get some feedback from the customers who are actually buying the book. Some demographics of your client base will help dictate the direction to proceed on this venture.

[custard1966 1]

One thought I had that I think might be useful for you to consider:  you have stated that for the most part, the 2005 edition will not be modified, yet it hasn't been done yet.  Perhaps you could print a loose questionaire/poll/survey to be included with each copy sold, to get some feedback from the customers who are actually buying the book.  Some demographics of your client base will help dictate the direction to proceed on this venture.

Also, provide a web form for feedback

If you're using a reply paid card for feedback from the book it'll save you money

If you're not using reply paid you'll probably get more feedback if it's free

Why not have a facility on the web for people to report prices that have been fetched for coins?

If you set it up soon we could all start logging results.

[Emperor Oli 0]

Why not have a facility on the web for people to report prices that have been fetched for coins?

That's one of the best ideas I've heard. Setting it to calculate the mean would also save you a helluva lot of work. Plus if you could set it to log the highest and lowest that would be interesting for us but you couldn't put it in the book.

[william 0]

Also, provide a web form for feedback

If you're using a reply paid card for feedback from the book it'll save you money

If you're not using reply paid you'll probably get more feedback if it's free

Why not have a facility on the web for people to report prices that have been fetched for coins?

If you set it up soon we could all start logging results.

Your ideas are very good Custard!

[Master Jmd 80]

i know this isnt to do with the book layout, but; as we are getting a free copy of the book after it is published, are we getting a '1st edition' copy that is signed by you?

[Chris Perkins 228]

Master JMD,

It will be the first edition that I was involved in, but it will actually be the 32nd edition of the book. I don't mind signing them all for fun if you want me to deface them!

[Half Penny Jon 0]

It may become valuable one day. I may auction my copy off in 50 years time for a million pounds!

[Emperor Oli 0]

It's not actually Chris' book though, it's been compiled by many people

[Master Jmd 80]

It will be the first edition that I was involved in, but it will actually be the 32nd edition of the book.

that is what i meant (1st edition print, not yearbook)

I don't mind signing them all for fun if you want me to deface them!

signing of books is usually done on the inside of the front cover...and yes, i would like mine signed

[Half Penny Jon 0]

Thanks Chris for the dedication on the website:

"The Rotographic titles are produced to the highest standards, and always have been. None of this would be possible, without these authors, researchers and general contributors."

[Chris Perkins 228]

No problem,

I'll sign all the 1st editions that I have acted as editor for. Unless you specify otherwise.

[mint_mark 9]

Wow, I spend a little time away and all this happens!

This used to be my reference book of choice when I started collecting coins... I'm looking at my 1987 edition now. Going back to Kuhli's original message, here are my thoughts.

"So what do you think?" - I think Chris has a fantastic spirit of entrepreneurship! I think it's great that he has asked us to contribute.

"What do you like about the book?" - I like the small size and the cheaper price. It's pocketable and good value. I like the "home-made" feel of the book... it makes me feel like it's not just propaganda for the big dealers. Other books can easily have a vested interest I think, but this one always seems more independent. I like the attempt to be comprehensive... mintage figures and lots of varieties listed.

"What do you dislike?" - The layout is haphazard... there are often references to notes on other pages and the only reason the note is there is because there was a tiny gap to put it in. The pictures are sometimes indistinct and often it is not clear which coins go with which pictures.

Here are the things I would change (I realise many have been mentioned already)

The patterns and proofs get in the way of the main listings. I agree with the suggestion to move them to another section. Same with the novelty issues like silver piedforts and presentation wallets.

I agree with the suggestion to have clearer captions on the pictures. For each major type there should be no ambiguity as to which obverse and which reverse design it has, and these should refer to an illustration somewhere. For obverses the pictures need not be repeated everywhere... maybe a "heads" reference page could be referred to?

My copy already has useful pictures for identifying varieties... more of these! Things like modified effigy, low tide, mint marks, tridents. Stuff that you pick up over the years but you wish was explicitly shown somewhere!

I know this one is tricky, but examples of obverses in different grades. Spinks has a go, but not with common designs. If there was something like this readily available then maybe it could help control the overgrading that goes on, and the number of collectors feeling disappointment later.

Finally, and maybe a bit off the wall... how about an online edition? You could have a more ambitious layout, better quality and colour pictures. You could sell an annual subscription to gain access to the current prices. It could be done as a web site or as a pdf booklet... the same software could help to generate both.

OK, that's enough for now...

[Chris Perkins 228]

Thanks for the feedback Mint_Mark, my oldest edition is 1989, so you go back further than I do!

It will probably stay the A5 size with 80 pages or less that it has been for the last 10 years. The price is the hottest issue I think. The current owners told me that it was due a price rise because the last was for the 2002 issue. I disagree with this because the price rise is 2002 was from £3 to £4.50! The main reason for this price rise was because the number of pages jumped from 57 to 80 due to the change in format from landscape to portrait.

I think it looks much better as a portrait book, but wish I could somehow get it down to around 60 pages again and, even lower the price.

What may end up happening is that the content will increase (back a few years, at least to 1816) with perhaps the patterns and extreme rarities moving to an appendix. I will probably decrease the font size a little to fit more in and am hoping to produce the title with its first ever proper spine!

The spine will cost more but I'm determined not to put the price up, and I think it could pay off by it being more visible in book shop shelves, instead of just plain white with 2 staples.

I'll try to improve the layout, and the pictures can certainly be improved. I will be getting black and white photographs of the coins that were used, and am hoping to be able to scan those and provide images of the same kind of quality that are in Spink (and other lesser competitors ). The main reason they are so crap at the moment is due to the very dated software that the autor uses.

Captions on the pictures will be done too.

The thing with showing more variety pictures is a good idea, but the question is can I squeeze it all in and still keep the costs down. When I receive the authors finished 2005 issue I will play around with it a lot and see if I can do all these things. It doesn't help that every year at least 3 'money making' commemorative coins are issued!

Quality pictures of every coin type in every collectable grade would be enough for a whole other book! I would really love to do this one day, and have been tossing ideas about it with others for a while now. I have to concentrate on the CCGB2005 first, and get that out of the way.

An online edition is something I thought about, it would make it more accessible to people that didn't want or need the printed version. I would be a little concerned that if I produced a pdf that it would just be copied and distributed illegally (I know coin collectors are an honest lot, but you never know).

Something for the future though, what about an online subscription version that was updated with coins sold weekly....In fact that could turn out to be the main earner, and the annual book would be a yearly snapshot of the figures in the online database but in a printed form.

If enough people add coin data (see the existing www.rotographic.co.uk website), and if I can subscribe to receive every dealers selling results (and if I had time to input it!) then wouldn't it be fabulous to create a massive live database of what sells, where, and for how much.

[Half Penny Jon 0]

Thanks for the feedback Mint_Mark, my oldest edition is 1989, so you go back further than I do!

It will probably stay the A5 size with 80 pages or less that it has been for the last 10 years. The price is the hottest issue I think. The current owners told me that it was due a price rise because the last was for the 2002 issue. I disagree with this because the price rise is 2002 was from £3 to £4.50! The main reason for this price rise was because the number of pages jumped from 57 to 80 due to the change in format from landscape to portrait.

I think it looks much better as a portrait book, but wish I could somehow get it down to around 60 pages again and, even lower the price.

What may end up happening is that the content will increase (back a few years, at least to 1816) with perhaps the patterns and extreme rarities moving to an appendix. I will probably decrease the font size a little to fit more in and am hoping to produce the title with its first ever proper spine!

The spine will cost more but I'm determined not to put the price up, and I think it could pay off by it being more visible in book shop shelves, instead of just plain white with 2 staples.

I'll try to improve the layout, and the pictures can certainly be improved. I will be getting black and white photographs of the coins that were used, and am hoping to be able to scan those and provide images of the same kind of quality that are in Spink (and other lesser competitors ). The main reason they are so crap at the moment is due to the very dated software that the autor uses.

Captions on the pictures will be done too.

The thing with showing more variety pictures is a good idea, but the question is can I squeeze it all in and still keep the costs down. When I receive the authors finished 2005 issue I will play around with it a lot and see if I can do all these things. It doesn't help that every year at least 3 'money making' commemorative coins are issued!

Quality pictures of every coin type in every collectable grade would be enough for a whole other book! I would really love to do this one day, and have been tossing ideas about it with others for a while now. I have to concentrate on the CCGB2005 first, and get that out of the way.

An online edition is something I thought about, it would make it more accessible to people that didn't want or need the printed version. I would be a little concerned that if I produced a pdf that it would just be copied and distributed illegally (I know coin collectors are an honest lot, but you never know).

Something for the future though, what about an online subscription version that was updated with coins sold weekly....In fact that could turn out to be the main earner, and the annual book would be a yearly snapshot of the figures in the online database but in a printed form.

If enough people add coin data (see the existing www.rotographic.co.uk website), and if I can subscribe to receive every dealers selling results (and if I had time to input it!) then wouldn't it be fabulous to create a massive live database of what sells, where, and for how much.

I only have one edition, the 2002 one which was sold to me by a dealer when I purchased a coin. I like the detail it goes into about certain varieties for both decimal and predecimal.

[Emperor Oli 0]

Well the forums have been akin to a morgue for the past couple of days so I thought I might as well give my views on Collectors Coins 2004 and ways it could be improved:

1) I've raised the issue with the cover previously - it is terribly dated and laid out in an atrocious fashion! For example, the "n" of Britain touches a coin whilst the "G" of Great is oceans away from it. Just a imple thing like tht reflects badly on the book as it makes it appear as an amateur publication. With just a little time spent on it, the book would look far better and would maybe boost the reader number. Oh, and I know this is nitpicking (one of my favourite pastimes ) but it says "183 years of non-gold coinage from 1820". I would prefer it to say "Over 180 years etc" but that's just me.

2) The list of reigns is wrong; Edward VII belonged to the house of Saxe-Coburg-Gotha but again this is nitpicking.

3) Pictures. Frankly terrible but Chris has explained that the technology used belongs with Noah's Ark. A thing which I have noticed is that there are little rings around the coins obviously so the typesetters etc know where to place them but I feel this makes the coin appear as though it has a thicker rim. These should be removed (by-the-by, what's going on with page 73?! Just lots of rings!). If the pictures could be Spinkl quality, that would be super.

4) Patterns and decimal. I would prefer this to go in an appendix as I suggested earlier as not many people have/will have them and so are irrelevant to most of us. If somebody does have them, they can always find the values in the appendix. Plus the Edward VIII retropatterns etc should be moved - it just clutters up and disjoints the whole catalogue.

5) Starting date. I feel this is perfectly fine, as it is the start of a new reign however from an aesthetical point, there was a major shift from the quality of coins produced pre-1816 and post-1816. This, in my opinion, would be the only reason to pull back the date.

6) Text. I personally abhor the font. Something sanserif (for all those who don't know, without the little pointless bits on the letters - look on Times New Roman for examples) like Arial I think would be preferable in my eyes.

7) Size. I think if Chris wants to attempt to shrink the number of pages down, the irrelevant information should be first to go. The things on Maundy money and the chemical makeup of the one pound coin is superfluous and should go really.

That's all I have to say - now you've all got something to chew on!

[Chris Perkins 228]

Yes it has been awfully quiet lately...

You're right of course the cover and the font are very dated. Mr Marles, bless him, seems to really like the font for some reason. Just you wait until he sees what Adobe Pagemaker can do! (the software I shall be using to create the all new books).

Yes, the rings around the pictures are silly aren't they, and it was indeed because the software it was written in could not handle more shades than 16, so the scanned photos where stuck where the author put the circles (the either too large or too small circles). I shall be getting the original photos and sorting that out. In fact today I was experimenting creating pdf files with sharp greyscale pictures in them, and I have it down to an art now.

I will be creating a seperate section for non circulating coinage, this will include maundy, patterns, proofs and those modern crappy repro EDVIII coins (If I must include them at all).

What I am doing right now in fact is slowly but surely converting the 2004 edition into a quality pdf format. When Mr Marles sends me his updated copy I will simply incorporate the prices he provides with the prices from personal experience and the database etc, to create the 2005 edition. I am also trying to explain things more clearly in the new version, and will probably have a breif 'how to use this book' paragraph. I have also changed the grades at the tops of the columns. The 2005 edition will have UNC/BU instead of UNC/AFDC. I just feel more comfortable with UNC being completely without wear, and BU being without wear with full lustre. What on earth is 'About Fleur de Coin' anyway?? Do you agree that readers will relate more to UNC/BU?

I will also change the grade descriptions to that effect.

So, it's all go.

[Sylvester 15]

Can't you swap it around and start with the crowns first and work down to the fractional stuff, instead of having the copper first, just never looked right to me.

[Sylvester 15]

I think i'd dump all the pattern coinage and i'd definately dump all the Edward VIII stuff.

[Chris Perkins 228]

Can't you swap it around and start with the crowns first and work down to the fractional stuff, instead of having the copper first, just never looked right to me.

That's not a bad idea! But i've started it now, and I'm currently on page 9!

I'll look into it, but I think it may be akward, perhaps something for the 2006.

[Sylvester 15]

That's not a bad idea! But i've started it now, and I'm currently on page 9!

I'll look into it, but I think it may be akward, perhaps something for the 2006.

Well it's a thought to bear in mind, i just figured that crowns would be more popular than quarter farthings, and you know what first impressions can do to a book.