[ModLib] Question about a copy of The Apocrypha

jwol jwol at fast.net
Fri Aug 30 08:17:34 EDT 2013


I have two copies of this title, both in an 8 binding with First Printing on
the copyright page.  The lists at the end of the books include Hersey but
omit Erasmus dating it to spring 1962.   Both jackets refer to 415 titles
and include Erasmus but exclude Hesse, dating it to fall 1962.

 

Since Jerry has a copy that does not state First Printing, we now know at
some point FP was pulled from the copyright page.  But,  the listing at the
end of the book did not change.

 

Barry points out  "but it should be possible to distinguish first printings
by the heading inside the jacket, which I believe state 408 outstanding
titles".   This suggests despite his extensive research and studying
numerous volumes of the ML, he may not have seen a jacket which refers to
408.

 

So, I have this question:   Can someone confirm they have a jacket for this
title that refers to 408 titles?

 

John

 

From: modlib-bounces at thuban.owu.edu [mailto:modlib-bounces at thuban.owu.edu]
On Behalf Of Jerry Karp
Sent: Friday, August 30, 2013 12:26 AM
To: Gordon Barriick Neavill; For collectors of Modern Library books
Subject: Re: [ModLib] Question about a copy of The Apocrypha

 

"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





-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://thuban.owu.edu/pipermail/modlib/attachments/20130830/9c512ee3/attachment-0001.html>


More information about the ModLib mailing list