2013 Maccas Book Corrections

[Bigfellani5]

Hi guys

This thread is designed for corrections that are needed to the Maccas book. It is not designed for criticism or discussion of pricing etc. It is for factual mistakes, typing, imaging or formatting errors,  or mistakes in pricing. When making a suggestion to correct a price please show at least one or more confirmed sales that can be verified (whether this be auction prices, a number of ebay sales or dealer websites or catalogues).

Other discussions outside the idea of this thread should be discussed elsewhere on this forum.

It would be appreciated if the moderators could police the intention of this thread.

[gnome]

Just a quick one, the price for Unc Coombs/Wilson general prefixes at  $1000, could that have been a typo with  an extra zero. The a/unc is $40, last year it [2012 19th ed.] it was at $85.
Just an inquiry,  only.

[enworb]

Page 91
1954 6d
Price for Gem: 6230
Price for Proof: 09i00

[Mister T]

On page 291 there is a section about the large and small head George V sovereigns. It should probably be in the sovereign section rather than the Perth Mint bullion coins section.

[Steveqld]

p 123 the mintages for the 2010, 2011 and 2012 10 cent mintages are all 20,000,000 with same prices.  Looks like a copy and paste.

[enworb]

The 1977 10c mintage is shown as 10,940,000 which reflects the figure on the RAM website. This would make 1977 one of the lower mintage years which is not consistent with what one can find in circulation. On CCF various older catalogues quoted the mitage at around 24 million. I understand if you would like to keep it consistent with the RAM website but i am fairly confident that the figure is incorrect.

[Mister T]

On page 129 there is a heading describing the 2001 Bradman 20c as "1995 SIR DONALD TRIBUTE". It should probably be "2001 SIR DONALD BRADMAN TRIBUTE".
On page 137 footnote b cuts off mid-sentence.
On page 154 (top) the Fine Silver composition is given as 999% but should probably be 99.9%
On page 360 there are some typographical errors: "Bank or New South Wales" should be "Bank of New South Wales", "runs fro 1 to 21" should be "runs from 1 to 21" and "No all these issues" should probably be "Not all these issues"

[markn]

This thread is locked until matters raised elsewhere on this site are resolved.  If you have corrections you can communicate them directly to the author of the book via email: greg.mcdonald@optusnet.com.au

You never know, if you make a significant contribution he might even give you a free copy.

If it really bugs you why don't list the corrections and I can promise you they will be in the next edition.  If you do it I will be happy to send you a free copy of the hardbound book which is limited to just 500 copies a year.  I will also make the same offer to anyone else who makes a substantial contribution to improving the book.

[markn]

The matters have now been resolved and this thread is now unlocked.

[trout]

The matters have now been resolved and this thread is now unlocked.

Great news Mark, Good to see that everything is sorted out:yahoo:

[ausjack]

Sorry for going :off_topic: but I think it was on CCF that there was a thread like this and they said they make these so called printing errors on purpose so it easier to claim plagiarism if you take stuff from their books, sounds like it could be right other wise why so many mistakes..no spell check or proof reading etc but that seem to be the way these days and the papers are a prime example :off_topic:

[MobOfRoos]

they make these so called printing errors on purpose so it easier to claim plagiarism if you take stuff from their books.

I don't think thats true. You will find a lot of these type of books which have lots of statistics end up with typos. I dont know the exact process of how it gets into print but it seems that somewhere along the chain the odd gremlin sneaks in.

For me the most glaring error in the book relates to the 1994 Year of the Family 50c on page 139. It states that in circulation the "narrow" date is rare and the "wide" date is common. It also gives higher prices for the "narrow" date. In fact the opposite is true. In circulation it is the "narrow" date which is common. It certainly caused me some confusion while noodling when I kept getting narrow dates.

It wasn't until I read this

http://reviews.ebay.com.au/1994-50-cent-coin-Wide-Date-Variety-identification?ugid=10000000004643806

that I realised what was happening

[ausjack]

Yeah Rennik's seems better going off that roo

I realised what was happening

:scratch_one-s_head: so what is actually happening?
:dash1: I get it now sorry it's the other way around..you change the odd thing here and there and say it's yours so you don't get done  :good:

[Greg McDonald]

Hi everyone,

Firstly my sincere thanks to Shane for starting this thread and especially for his comments about keeping the content good humoured and constructive. I'm not against criticism I just want to learn from my mistakes and work to improving the guide.  Already some really good information has been posted and I'm grateful for that.  All corrections will be attended to so please don't think you are wasting your time by adding your comments and suggestions. Please keep it up.

Much appreciated.  Regards to all

Greg

[JeffH]

Page 157 (twentieth edition) 2001, Navy 90th Anniversary. Second price column is headed "Security Roll". I think that should be "Retail Price" (as per Army and RAAF listings).

Jeff