Robert Sanger rsanger at
Thu Dec 5 23:45:06 EST 2002

How about a 4.5?

	-----Original Message----- 
	From: Sharon Biederman [mailto:sbiederm at] 
	Sent: Wed 12/4/2002 8:58 AM 
	To: modlib at 
	Subject: Re: Salammbo

	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