[ModLib] More First Edition Points Needed For Many Titles
kamins at modernlib.com
Mon Jul 2 13:41:38 EDT 2007
Long-time Dogeared/ModenLib member and supporter Barry Miller sent me
the following well thought out comments. He's given me permission to
post them here for discussion. I'll post my reply to him in a follow-
In the past few months I've checked specific ML titles for first
edition points, possibly eight or ten times. Don't claim to be` an
authority on the fine job you and others have done with this new
addition to your webpage. But in every case, as I recall, I've gotten
the impression that the indicated points may be insufficient for
pinning down whether a book is indeed a first edition.
For example, in no instance did I see (so far as I can remember) you
use the dating guide. In a way that suits me fine because I find the
dating guide highly suspect, especially for later years (late 60s).
Sometimes those book catalogs are as much as five years old. I'm
delighted to think that a handful of my books from that period which
defy accurate dating via the dating guide may be firsts after all.
Only yesterday, a friend and fellow ML collector asked me to verify
whether two late sixties MLs in his collection are firsts. One of
them, The Buddhist Tradition, #205 has a catalog. But that`catalog is
way out of whack. So in both cases I fell back on your description
whether it's sufficient or not-- stated ML edition on copyright page
and #14 binding.
You also do not appear to use what might be called secondary issues
like DJ back panel style and flyleaf price. Sometimes, I think, those
factors help establish the validity of a first; sometimes they cast
doubt on it.
"Let 'em all go to hell except Cave 76" -- the very first national
More information about the ModLib