As a translator, I can tell you that I highly favour the serial comma because it takes away any ambiguity there might be.

Regarding the "Oxford comma", since we're talking about the Oxford Numismatic Society's list - rules are good but sometimes they need to be handled flexibly when the sense demands it, or when sticking too firmly to them might result in ambiguity. The examples you quote cover the ground nicely...

One of my personal grammar issues is the placement of minor punctuation (meaning periods and commas) and quotation marks. In American use the minor punctuation always goes inside the quotation marks. British use, in order for the punctuation to be inside the quotation marks, the punctuation has to be part of the quote. This is a logical approach but it creates the unsightly ""Oxford comma"," situation. By the way, I am entirely uncertain about the use of quotation marks in that last sentence. Anyway, to me the humor to me was the incorrect American use not only in a discussion of punctuation use, but also in a phrase with the word Oxford!

Thanks for your great service and Happy New Year to you and the entire E-Sylum staff!

Anyone who was listening back then knows that use of the last serial comma is correct, because there is the same pause after B as there is after A. (in the example of A, B, and C) This obviates the need for books, complicated rules and PhD's. (I don't mean to insult any complicated PhD's.)

I see another grammatical example in this issue – Is it “1930s” or “1930’s? “ Even the grammarians may be reaching for their manuals to check that sentence!