[ModLib] Dust Jacket Date Range Project: Can We Deduce Unobserved
zebradlj at yahoo.com
Thu Jan 8 11:36:48 EST 2009
Scott and others,
Yes 1950 to 1955 for Little Women is almost a certainty. But 1950S or 1950F and 1955S or 1955F? If someone had a 1955F list jacket and reported it then no one else would need look to pin down the last jacket .... unless there is a rare chance that a few books got 1956S jackets ... hmmmm!
Its clear that several of these should be much easier to do than some others. But if enough people participate it should be easy to pin down those simplier ones with confirmed list checks.
--- On Wed, 1/7/09, Scot Kamins <scot.kamins at gmail.com> wrote:
From: Scot Kamins <scot.kamins at gmail.com>
Subject: [ModLib] Dust Jacket Date Range Project: Can We Deduce Unobserved Dates?
To: "ML mailing list" <modlib at owu.edu>
Date: Wednesday, January 7, 2009, 1:48 PM
I'm wondering if we can deduce certain dates with, if not metaphysical
certitude, moral certitude? [:: Ah, the sound of google searches ... ]
For example, Little Women
(http://www.modernlib.com/authors/aAuthors/alcottJackets.html) was in print 1950
- 1955. There were at least two printings of the book, but no one has ever
reported seeing a second version of the dust jacket. Surely a second version
would have appeared by now. So is it then safe to assume that the dates of the
dust jacket shown on the ML page can be listed as 1950 - 1955? I assume so, so I
have marked it as such.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the ModLib