Sharon Biederman sbiederm at
Wed Dec 4 11:58:34 EST 2002

John and Scott,

   Deciding which bindings were permanent and which were "oddballs" can be
difficult.  I agree that the 1929 transitional bindings are a midpoint in
the evolution from leatherette/Bernhard to balloon cloth/Kent, but I see
binding #12 as a similar case where the new Fujita style was rolled out in
stages.  The real problem is that we are all familiar with spine #5 as the
grape leaves and renumbering to accommodate intermediate stages could be
very disconcerting, much like renumbering a street because of the addition
of a new house.  What do others think?


 On Wed, 4 Dec 2002, j b krygier wrote:

> 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
> material.
> 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