rsanger at sangerswysen.com
Thu Dec 5 23:45:06 EST 2002
How about a 4.5?
From: Sharon Biederman [mailto:sbiederm at nova.umuc.edu]
Sent: Wed 12/4/2002 8:58 AM
To: modlib at algol.owu.edu
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
> 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