Thread Name: Another late '60s anomaly binding From: John Krygier <jbkrygie@removed> Date: Mon, 3 Jan 2005 18:06:12 -0800 Awhile back I found a copy of Shaw's "Selected Short Stories" with a peculiar mix of binding style 10 - the spine (early 1960s) & 14 - the front (late 1960s): http://go.owu.edu/~jbkrygie/ml_shaw/ml_shaw.html I just found another binding like this, on a copy of Hardy's "Mayor of Casterbridge" (17.2). http://makingmaps.owu.edu/modernlibrary/hardymayor.jpg The book is in the tall, late '60s binding with the redesigned dust jacket. Curious if anyone else has this particular edition, and if it has the odd binding. I think Gordon said these were post 1970 printings. Also, I found a binding 14 tall version of Capote's "Selected Writings." The DJ is a minor variant, with the stylized ML, not at dogeared, so I sent it along to Scot. For the Guide, then, there should be an "=" in the 67 column for this title. ------------------------------------- From: Scot Kamins <kamins@removed> Date: Mon, 3 Jan 2005 21:06:12 -0800 Boy, those are so strange! I wonder how that combination happened? Could stamping have been a two-step process, so that the spine got stamped in the early 60's with the whole binding stored for 10 years or so until needed and then blind-stamped on the front panel? ------------------------------------- From: GORDON NEAVILL <aa3401@removed> Date: Tue, 4 Jan 2005 08:57:20 -0500 There were separate dies for stamping the spine and front panel of ML bindings. The "ml" front panel design was introduced in 1967; any ML book that has this front panel is 1967 or later. The dies used for stamping the spines of these bindings date from 1961 (Shaw's Short Stories) and around 1940 (Mayor of Casterbridge). There are two possible explanations for the use of the older spine dies for these titles: (1) the ML hadn't got round to making new spine dies for these titles, or (2) the binder used the old dies by mistake. ------------------------------------- From: 20 Ants <archetype@removed> Date: Tue, 04 Jan 2005 19:11:06 -0500 It may not have been a mistake at all. Die sets required maintenance, their small radii wore down and they lost their definition, sometimes they just broke: likely the bindery did whatever was expedient to get the job out the door. Also it wouldn't surprise me to find that the bindry stored an overrun of piece parts for a long term. Back then there wasn't the burning desire to have absolutely no stock or inventory like there is now. -------------------------------------