[ModLib] Question about a copy of The Apocrypha

Jerry Karp jerry at rocketwords.com
Fri Aug 30 00:26:21 EDT 2013


"The Apocrypha was originally published by the University of Chicago Press
in 1959 and was reprinted in the ML in 1962. . . . I believe all ML
printings include the "First Printing" statement on the verso of the title
page -- it was typical of printings by offset lithography at this period to
retain "First" statements on subsequent printings."

FYI, my copy does not include the "First Printing" statement. It does
include the statement, "Copyright, 1959, by Random House, Inc." I was
guessing Random House put out a non-ML version of the book in 1959, then
added it to the ML catalog in 1962. On the other hand, it also says,
"Reprinted with the permission of the University of Chicago Press." But if
you go to abebooks and search for The Apocrypha and University of Chicago
and first edition, you'll find editions as early as 1938.

As for the inside of the dust jacket, it is blank. I had assumed that it
was not the book's original jacket.

"One explanation is that the list in the back did not get updated."

I guess this is the most likely scenario, especially given Barry's
reminder, "The list of titles at the end of volumes printed by offset
lithography typically weren't updated at this period." I'd be very
interested to learn whether anyone else with this book can add insight on
this probability. If this is the case, and if the book matches its cover,
that makes it post-1963, which means the 11 binding is unremarkable. C'est
la vie!

Thanks for the responses so far!

Best,
Jerry



On Thu, Aug 29, 2013 at 6:59 PM, Gordon Barrick Neavill
<neavill at wayne.edu>wrote:

> The Apocrypha was originally published by the University of Chicago Press
> in 1959 and was reprinted in the ML in 1962.  The ML edition was printed by
> offset lithography, which made it possible to reduce the size of the type
> page from University of Chicago Press printings. I believe all ML printings
> include the "First Printing" statement on the verso of the title page -- it
> was typical of printings by offset lithography at this period to retain
> "First" statements on subsequent printings.  Apparently whiting out the
> statement on the photographic negative was more challenging that simply
> cutting it out of letterpress plates.  The list of titles at the end of
> volumes printed by offset lithography typically weren't updated at this
> period, but it should be possible to distinguish first printings by the
> heading inside the jacket, which I believe state 408 outstanding titles.
>
> Barry
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Ron Holl" <ron at scribblemonger.com>
> To: "For collectors of Modern Library books" <modlib at thuban.owu.edu>
> Sent: Thursday, August 29, 2013 8:49:50 PM
> Subject: Re: [ModLib] Question about a copy of The Apocrypha
>
> One explanation is that the list in the back did not get updated.  Binding
> 9 came before 11, and those were not out until 1963 either, so it is
> unlikely that an 11 was being used in the Spring of 1962.
>
> If anyone has a non-first printing copy of this title in a #8 (or 9, 10)
> they can check the lists in those, as they would all be before the #11.
> Also, any other 11s can be checked for the same situation.
>
> Separate note related to this title, the paper used on my copy (which is a
> first printing) is thin and tanned like the paper used on the late 1950s
> ML paperbacks.
>
>
> ron
>
>
> > Greetings, all!
> >
> > Into my used bookstore today came a copy of The Apocrypha, ML 326.
> >
> > It is definitely a Binding Style 11, according to the images on the
> > website. In use 1963-1967.
> >
> > However, according to the dating key, the book is a Spring 1962 edition
> > (titles list at the end contains Hersey's "Hiroshima" and does not
> contain
> > Erasmus' "In Praise of Folly.")
> >
> > The notes pop-up says ML Apocrypha was in print from 1962-1970, and the
> > First copyright page text is "First Printing." My copy does not include
> > this text.
> >
> > So it seems like I have a Spring 1962 edition book in a binding style not
> > thought to have been used until 1963. Also, if the book was first
> > published
> > in 1962, is it odd that a Spring 1962 edition would not be a first
> > edition?
> > Or might there have been more than one run in Spring '62 with the "First
> > Printing" text removed from the later runs? To be clear, I don't think
> > this
> > is a first edition. I'm just trying to reconcile the different dates,
> etc.
> >
> > Or am I simply missing something basic?
> >
> > Thanks!
> > Jerry Karp
> > Mendocino County, CA
> >
> >
> > --
> > Jerry Karp
> > Village Books
> > 344 North State Street
> > Ukiah, CA 95482
> > www.villagebooks-ukiah.com
> > www.facebook.com/VillageBooksUkiah*
> > *
> > _______________________________________________
> > ModLib mailing list
> > ModLib at thuban.owu.edu
> > http://thuban.owu.edu/mailman/listinfo/modlib
> >
>
>
> --
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> ModLib mailing list
> ModLib at thuban.owu.edu
> http://thuban.owu.edu/mailman/listinfo/modlib
> _______________________________________________
> ModLib mailing list
> ModLib at thuban.owu.edu
> http://thuban.owu.edu/mailman/listinfo/modlib
>



-- 
Jerry Karp
Village Books
344 North State Street
Ukiah, CA 95482
www.villagebooks-ukiah.com
www.facebook.com/VillageBooksUkiah*
*
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://thuban.owu.edu/pipermail/modlib/attachments/20130829/4d932508/attachment.html>


More information about the ModLib mailing list