Picked up mine today... more out of habit than anything else, though I like getting one every year to see the trends on coin values from year to year. Most interesting new feature is Apendix B: American Arts Medals. These were gold medals originally designed to compete with the South African Krugerrand and other bullion pieces. They were medals, not coins, and largely due to that they didn't sell well. They were 90% gold and either one ounce or half ounce (total gold ocntent, not medal weight). They honored misc. American artists (including painters, singers, authors, etc.) In 1984 they were discontinued... the American Gold Eagle that was first minted in 1986 was essentially the replacement for them, proving to be more popular because they had a legal tender status and were thus coins, not just medals. The Red Book places the chapter on them just after errors and restrikes, and before the Red and Blue book as collectible chapter. I think it's a great addition; they're at least as notable as the Alaska tokens and a historically interesting apsect of Mint products, as it was the precursor to gold bullion coins. There's already mention in this Red book about the DC & Territorial quarters and the new Lincoln cent reverses, though no pictures yet as the designs haven't been finalized as of the time the book went to press. Everything else is just updates, pretty much. The Bald Eagle commems are listed but the NASA commemoratives expected this year aren't. Think they did a reasonable job. Other minor note, I noticed the Whitman logo is a little smaller on the spine of the hardcover edition than it was the last few years, for people who take note of that kind of thing, lol...
I hate how its already out... I mean, 2008 isnt finished! Its not even half way done! I dont know why they even print it this early.
Nobody ever compalins when cars have model years a year ahead of the actual calendar year lol... never got why people make such an issue of the red book. The first red book by the way, dated 1947, was actually released in 1946. So it's not like this is something new! Yet every year, people comment on this phenomenon as if nobody's noticed it until now, always found that strange... I mean it's not hard to understand the nominal date on the book is just to show it as the most current one, rather than to be taken literally as the year it was published for. They've been doing it for 62 years and counting now, and they're not the only pubilsher of dated books that does it. Anyway, anyone have any comments about the new book? Other than "It's dated 2009 even though it's only April 2008" that is?
lol! I was actually going to rant about that too, but I figured I'd stick to the Redbook, instead of going on a tangent.
2009 is just a number which tracks editions of the redbook. Nothing to get excited about. It is important only if you let it be important.
