Tracking anomalies

Scot Kamins kamins at
Mon Dec 6 12:47:03 EST 2004

At 10:04 AM -0500 12/6/04, 20 Ants wrote:
>This Emily Dickinson has the #9/10 spine shown in the lower left of 
>p.79, but the cover has the blind stamp shown at the upper right of 
>p.78. Or I'm simply confused on how to interpret these pages.

No, I think the confusion is mine. First, a matter of definition:

The logos on page 79 were blind-stamped - that is, impressed into the 
front cover of the binding without any color added. The logo on the 
#8 binding's front cover was stamped in gold enclosed in a 
gold-stamped rectangle to the lower right of a field that within it 
had yet another field, this one colored in contrast to the binding, 
with gold-stamped lettering. As far as I know, the #8 logos were 
never blind-stamped but always had gold coloring.

Second, I had forgotten that the #9 & #10 spines were different from 
the #8. The difference was, once again, color. The spines in the #8 
binding had a colored rectangular field contrasting with the color of 
the binding;  within that field the title appeared in gold 
contrasting the field color. But the #9 & 10 fields had no color 

This lack of color in the early 1960's was the beginning of the ML 
austerity period. ( As Senator Everett Dirksen used to say before he 
died, "A billion here, a billion there. Soon you're talking real 
money." After he died he said very little.)

But back to your original point:
>>I've got a Selected Poems of Emily Dickinson with a #9 or #10 
>>spine, but the same blind cover stamp as the earlier printing with 
>>the #8 spine.

I'm betting it dates to early 1963 and is in fact a transtional 
piece. Does it have the #9 logo? And is it that it has the #8 logo 
and field outlines, but no color at all?

      `\|||/                     Scot Kamins

More information about the ModLib mailing list