Poll: When reading an article on a given series do you prefer...

Dennis88

To have it build on a chronological order or sorted by subject (for example, different Branch-Mints)?

I was thinking about this when writing a new article, which I have now based on chapters by subject. However, I am strongly considering to change it to be based on chronological order.

What are your thoughts?

Dennis

Longacre

Maybe I am missing it, but what is the subject of the article? I don't think I can answer without knowing, because some topics are better chronologically, while other are better based on subject matter.

Dennis88

It is an article on a certain long lived series. Highlighted are various coins from different periods and made at different Mints.

Longacre

<< <i>It is an article on a certain long lived series. Highlighted are various coins from different periods and made at different Mints. >>




In that case, I would say chronological.

Barndog

if, for example, it was an article on seated half dimes, I would like to see the topic covered mint-by-mint as the primary method of dividing into chapters (and then chronologically within each chapter, of course). This could be much more interesting to read for a specialist.

carl

If you make it chonological and discuss numerous different items such as a 1916 Mercury Dime and a 1916 Lincoln Cent, the concept or story line would make little CENTS. This is why most books on coins or anything else has the subject matter and the dating or age separate from other similar items. If your chapters are to be discussing a particular type of coin, for sure the coin to be discussed should be in chonological order. Contrary to this would be if your subject matter is to discuss a monitary value of coins, then the dates do not matter unless your comparing modern to almost modern to much older coins. If that makes no Cents then pretend your discussing swords. If your discussing Samuri Swords then the dates are important but to compare one with Excaliber, the dates are irrilavant.
I did notice your post did not stipulate coins so if your article is about Nuclear Fussion, I suggest putting it in explosive order. Start with fire crackers.

Dennis88

I have to add this is not an article on die varieties, mintages or reed counts. It mainly deals with suggestions and historical background information, where it is based on.

Dennis

Longacre

<< <i>I have to add this is not an article on die varieties, mintages or reed counts. It mainly deals with suggestions and historical background information, where it is based on.

Dennis >>





I feel like I just spent an evening at a coffee house in Amsterdam. I still don't understand what this article is about.

ziggy29

Personally I would say "generally" chronological but not necessarily entirely so if a better or more informative story can be told by grouping some events and circumstances which make logical sense to put together to "lead up" to the next portion. Many history books generally follow this approach.

Coinosaurus

Either approach can work depending on the thrust of the article. For example, if I am writing an article about "Crappy Strikes in the Liberty Seated Series," I would definitely approach it on a branch mint, not chronological, basis, since striking characteristics have strong associations with the particular mint. OTOH, if the article is about "Liberty Seated Date Sets," well, that one better be choronological.