Scott Conove rscconove at
Wed Dec 4 15:07:28 EST 2002

>>>I vote for recognition of these short lived covers, >>>particularly where
there are a number of them issued, >>>like the oversized #7's<<<

    I agree.  I don't agree with renumbering, however, I think assigning
these transitions with "4a" as Sharon suggested would be a good idea.
Assigning a number decimal is essentially the same idea (and a good one at
that) but may cause some confusion with the number decimal system already in
use for the various editions and number changes we now see in Henry's guide.
I don't think assigning a transitional binding its own sub-category (4a, 7a,
or whatever) will hurt, instead, it will enable us ML collectors to better
classify, identify, and organize our collections.  Also, when referring to
these transitions its much easier to say "4a" than it is to say "the
transition between spines 4 and 5."  That's my take on the issue.
    -Scott Conove
----- Original Message -----
From: "John M. Wolansky" <jwol at>
To: <modlib at>
Sent: Wednesday, December 04, 2002 11:34 AM
Subject: Re: Salammbo

> I agree about renumbering.  It would require changing the inventory code
> many of the books I own.  I own a lot of ML books.  Would using a decimal
> for stages in cover evolution be practical?  For example, if there is an
> intermediary cover between #4 and #5 could it be assigned 4.1?  A balloon
> cloth with #4 markings would be assigned 4.1.  Or the "oversized" #7's
> preceding the introduction of #8 could be 7.1.  This would minimize the
> number of adjustments to my inventory, having only to contend with the
> transitional bindings.  I currently use a ? for those not identified in
> Henry's book.
> I vote for recognition of these short lived covers, particularly where
> are a number of them issued, like the oversized #7's.
> By the way, I have oversized copies of 128.1, The Rainbow by Lawrence.  I
> not recall any reference being made to there being an oversized cover #4.
> Both copies I have are stated firsts and are clearly 1/4" taller than the
> standard #4.  The type on the pages make full use of the extra height,
> nominal top and bottom margins.  Suggests to me that the Modern Library
> the covers to accommodate whatever larger plates were used in this edition
> rather than this being a transitional cover.  Anyone else notice this?
> John Wolansky
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Sharon Biederman <sbiederm at>
> To: <modlib at>
> Sent: Wednesday, December 04, 2002 11:58 AM
> Subject: Re: Salammbo
> > John and Scott,
> >
> >    Deciding which bindings were permanent and which were "oddballs" can
> > difficult.  I agree that the 1929 transitional bindings are a midpoint
> > 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
> > stages.  The real problem is that we are all familiar with spine #5 as
> > grape leaves and renumbering to accommodate intermediate stages could be
> > very disconcerting, much like renumbering a street because of the
> > of a new house.  What do others think?
> >
> >                            Sharon
> >

More information about the ModLib mailing list