Designations for spine #9 + "blindstamped"

[Gordon Neavill]

Binding 8 was used through 1962; I don't know of any 1963 printings with 
this design.  Lettering on the spine and front panel is stamped in gold, 
enclosed in a gold frame; the background within the spine and front panel 
frames is stamped in a color that contrasts with the cloth.  Binding 9, 
introduced in spring 1963, confined gold stamping to the spine, omitted the 
contrasting color, and blind stamped the oval ML device on the front panel. 
The motivation was economic, not aesthetic--omitting gold on the front panel 
and color within the frames saved a lot of money.  This design was appeared 
on new titles published through September 1963 (Euripides III).  All 
subsequent fall 1963 titles appeared in binding 11 with a new spine design 
and the hexagonal torchbearer blind stamped on the front panel.  Reprints of 
many older titles appeared in binding 10, which combines the old spine 
design with the blind-stamped hexagonal torchbearer of binding 11.  It took 
time to manufacture new dies for the spines of all of ML titles.  Until new 
dies in the style of binding 11 were made, reprints of older titles 
continued to use existing dies that characterize bindings 8-10.

I vote with B on both questions.  Blindstamping by definition doesn't use 
color or gold.  As far as spines are concerned, spines for individual titles 
may vary in terms of spacing and the number of dot, but since the spines of 
bindings 9-10 are stamped with the same dies used for binding 8, successive 
printings of the same title are likely to have identical spines.

Barry

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Scot Kamins" <kamins at dogeared.com>
To: "ML LIstServ" <modlib at algol.owu.edu>
Sent: Tuesday, December 14, 2004 9:15 PM
Subject: Designations for spine #9 + "blindstamped"


> Folks,
>
> Another ListServ member and I have been having a discussion about what 
> differentiates a spine #9 from a spine #8.
>
> _A_ holds that the #8 has a rectangular field with a gilt outline and 
> colored in some contrasting way from the rest of the binding; within that 
> colored field is the title and author's name in gold. The #9 spine is 
> distinguished by spacing elements plus a pair of dots.
>
> _B_ agrees on the #8 designation, but says that the #9's distinguishing 
> element is the lack of contrasting color in the field - the spacing and 
> the dot devices have no relevance.
>
> We also disagree about the definition of blindstamping.
>
> _A_ says that blindstamping is any impression into the binding with or 
> without color, gilding, or the like.
>
> _B_ says that blindstamping by definition has no color - it is an 
> impression into the binding without any color or gilding.
>
> What say ye?
> -- 
>      `\|||/                     Scot Kamins
>       (@@)
>   ooO_(_)_Ooo___________________________________
>   _____|_____|_____|_____|_____|_____|_____|_____|
> ___|____|_____|_____|_____|_____|_____|_____|____
>