Reply to Thread

Message:: [QUOTE="benhur767, post: 2943472, member: 36818"]I doesn't "have" to be better. Often it is better, especially for older publications. Remember that printing and imaging technology are vastly improved since the 70s. Books that are pre-1960s often reserved better quality paper for illustrations so that they would reproduce better. This required the production of separate printing plates. Certainly the term "plate" can be expanded and used more loosely than it's original definition, but "illustration" is a more appropriate term. I think if anyone is "wrong" in using the word "plate" when referring to a coin illustrated in a book or web site, it is only in a very technical sense and not particularly important. Everyone knows that what is really meant is that the coin is illustrated — it is shown, there is a picture of it — regardless of the specific production process. The usage of the word "plate" has been expanded beyond its original meaning, similarly to the word "font." Font means a particular point size of a typeface. 12 point is a font. 14 point is a font. Arial and Times are typefaces. Now people refer to Arial and Times as fonts. Technically wrong, but everyone knows what is meant. So not very important, not worth correcting. It's part the natural evolution of language.[/QUOTE]