Scot Kamins kamins at
Wed Dec 4 14:24:54 EST 2002

At 11:58 AM -0500 12/4/02, Sharon Biederman wrote:
>    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?
I agree with Sharon's position on this.  Henry created ML's taxonomy 
(metaphorically speaking) as a convenience in sorting through the 
major (and I stress major) sets of identifiers for different ML 
periods. Adding new and separate categories to handle anomalous 
situations (such as the transitional bindings, gift sets, etc.) would 
be, I think,  redundant and unnecessarily complex.

Keeping in mind that our listServ host John Krygier doesn't like us 
naming names when it comes to those folks doing a disservice to the 
ML collecting community, I think that the lazy web master of should be bludgeoned into updating the "Transitional 
Bindings" page to include info on the Fujita transitionals, and to 
create a "Gift Sets" page to handle these situations. It's clear to 
me that we're getting into these problems because he isn't doing his 

- Scot Kamins

More information about the ModLib mailing list