Message:

<p>[QUOTE=&quot;dougsmit, post: 2943430, member: 19463&quot;]I agree with benhur767&#039;s 20th century definition of &#039;plate&#039; except for the matter of the plate having to be better.&nbsp; For example, plates in Dattari-Savio show pencil rubbings gathered together on separate pages but no one will accuse them of being more than they are - marginal at best - but they are &#039;plates&#039;.&nbsp; Today we have new options that require new definitions mostly caused by the Internet.&nbsp; The big question is not so much &#039;plate&#039; but &#039;published&#039;.&nbsp; When we show a coin never before seen by anyone online, does that revelation stop it from being &#039;unpublished&#039;?&nbsp; Does it matter if that online revelation is on Coin Talk, a specialized web site like the new RIC V replacement or the British Museum online catalog of their collection?&nbsp; Does an online publication of a coin &#039;count&#039; if made in an obscure scholarly web-journal seen only by members of the in-crowd but not if it was made in a dot-com vanity page not blessed by a university?&nbsp; These new questions will have to be addressed but probably will not be as universally agreed upon in this new era when much of the study is done and funded by non-public/non-professional entities.&nbsp; Language requires regular updating to remain pertinent and current.&nbsp; &#039;Plate&#039; is a word which may need a critical reappraisal in the near future.[/QUOTE]</p><p><br /></p>

Your name or email address:

Do you already have an account?

• No, create an account now.
• Yes, my password is:
• Forgot your password?

Stay logged in