Fwd: ISSUE WITH DUST JACKETS NUMBERS INDICATING AGE OF JACKET ....

John Krygier jbkrygie at owu.edu
Sun Sep 12 21:03:48 EDT 2004



Begin forwarded message:

> From: "John" <jwol at fast.net>
> To: <modlib at algol.owu.edu>
> Subject: ISSUE WITH DUST JACKETS NUMBERS INDICATING AGE OF JACKET ....
> Date: Sun, 12 Sep 2004 20:59:28 -0400

> As I sit hear gloating over my just acquired pristine copy of
> Clausewitz' On War, G022.2 I noticed something unusual.  My copy has 
> the
> requisite total of 294 prescribed by Toledano.  The detail of titles
> included and excluded for both Giants and the regular series per Mr.
> Neavill's Dating Key dates the jacket to fall of 1943.  I am happy.
>
>
>
> As I relocate my non-first copy of On War to the For Sale bin, I notice
> this:  The total at the top of the inverse of the jacket is 284 and the
> Giants run to G60!  This dates the inverse of the jacket to fall of
> 1942.  Was this noted in Scott's updates to the guide?  Scott?
>
>
>
> Examining both jackets, I noticed that the rear flap and rear of the
> jacket of the non-first with 284 titles spoke to 299 titles and listed
> to G61, while the first with 294 titles indicated 292 titles on the
> back panel and rear flap and listed to G59.  This dates the outside of
> the non-first jacket to spring 1944, no? To summarize:
>
>
>
>                         First      Non-first
>
>
>
> Top inverse        294       284
>
> G inverse           G63      G60
>
> Back panel        292       299
>
> Rear flap           G59      G61
>
>
>
> It appears to me that the jackets were printed in two steps.  First, 
> the
> inverse is printed in bulk, then, as needed, used for a variety of
> titles as the outside of the jackets are printed.  Consequently, if a
> box of earlier "inverses" were found in the back of the warehouse with 
> a
> lower total, they could really have been used in a later run.  If
> someone has a better explanation, please share.
>
>
>
> What does this mean in practical terms?  Are any of the corrected 
> firsts
> reported to Scott really the result of this printing process?  Were 
> some
> of the higher numbers listed in Toledano really correct?  My
> recollection is that relying on the back of the jacket is discouraged 
> in
> favor of the inverse total for dating a jacket, but perhaps both need 
> to
> be taken into account.
>
>
>
> John Wolansky
>
> jwol at fast.net




More information about the ModLib mailing list