kamins at dogeared.com
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