This is for the simple reason that they are written by ordinary people with ordinary concerns, as opposed to the highfalutin nature of so much of the rest of the paper.
I suggest more space for letters and some very lively and interesting correspondence will result.
Niall Milligan
Penzance
Niall: We agree on a key point you make, editor Noelle McElhatton writes.
1. Regarding our letters page, we concur that even in the digital age, the traditional letters page, where grass roots issues get discussed, is hard to beat.
In the past two years we have made a concerted effort to boost our letters content and widen the range of subjects discussed.
So we now do round tables on topics such as antique ivory and antiques TV. An even more recent feature is ‘Soapbox’ where we solicit opinions on issues big and small affecting the antiques business.
The net result is our letters content has increased by a third since 2015 and if readers (hopefully) heed your clarion call, we’ll continue to expand this section.
2. We don’t apologise for getting ‘highfalutin’ at times – after all, the art and antiques world is full of wonderous objects. A paper focusing only on the generic would not be worth reading. It’s inevitable that we cover the high end of the market but, hopefully, never in a dull way.
In choosing items to write about our guiding light is the interesting stories behind them. At the same time, we aim to cover a range of price points in sections such as Fairs and Markets, Dealer’s Diary and Previews. To make our market coverage more accessible, we’re about to introduce a ‘value selection’ element to our features, so watch this space.
