Jan.10th is already indexed in the databases as #4721 so my issues are
marked as they were printed so patrons can find their articles.  I have
a note that #4723 was skipped due to a numbering problem.

-----Original Message-----
From: Lynne Weaver [mailto:lweaver@RMWC.EDU]
Sent: Thursday, February 10, 2005 10:40 AM
To: SERIALST@LIST.UVM.EDU
Subject: [SERIALST] New Statesman numbering revisited

Having been thoroughly confused by the previous messages, I sent Stephen
Brasher (New Statesman Subscriber Services) the following:

        But the issues I have received are:

        Dec 13   4718
        Jan  1    4719/4720
        Jan 10    4721
        Jan 17    4722

        Why, then, is "Jan 10th actually 4722 and January 17th ...
4723"?  What issue am I missing that was supposed to be 4721?

He responded almost immediately with the following:

        From: Stephen Brasher [mailto:sbrasher@newstatesman.co.uk]
        Sent: Thursday, February 10, 2005 9:11 AM
        To: Lynne Weaver
        Subject: RE: Issue numbering

        Dear Lynne,

        Thanks for your e-mail.

        This is because I had assumed that the person who changes the
issue numbers had done a double number for both Dec13th/20th (which
should therefore be 4718/4719) and the double new year edition (which
should be 4720/4721). But he hadn't thus confusing the issue even
further.

        so the numbering after that should be:

        Jan 10th (4722)
        Jan 17th (4723)
        Jan 24th (4724)

        The last of these is the first in which the sequence has
actually been corrected.

        Apologies once again for this. Not that it is any consolation
but it has made my life a misery too.......

        best wishes,

        stephen brasher

Thanks, Stephen, for your prompt response.  We serials folk do like it
when things make sense!

Lynne N. Weaver
Serials Coordinator
Lipscomb Library
Randolph-Macon Woman's College
2500 Rivermont Avenue
Lynchburg, VA  24503
434 947-8396
434 947-8134 (FAX)
lweaver@rmwc.edu