j b krygier jbkrygie at
Wed Dec 4 10:33:56 EST 2002

Scott Conove wrote:

> So is this book considered to have type 4 spn or type 5 spn?  Why doesn't
> this sort of spine have its own type?

I consider the transitional bindings to be type 4,
the markings taking precedence over the binding

It seems reasonable to exclude transitional bindings
as their own type: you would then have to also have
a type for the mixed Boni/early Cerf/Klopfer bindings
in the mid 20s, the few 1939/40 unusual bindings (Dinesen,
Stone) as well as some of the odd hybrids in the late
60s.  All these transitional bindings are interesting,
but oddballs - they were not intended as a permanent
type of binding, but were based on the MLs need to
keep printing books as binding styles evolved.

john k.

More information about the ModLib mailing list