129 NGM Index(-ices) for 1911 -1926 on eBay !

[Scott T. Shier]

Has anyone else seen this? I see there's 5 "watchers" - 1  is me since I am curious to see a final sale on these. 

I have not thus far, delved into the NGM index pamphlets.

Listing here ---> 

http://www.ebay.com/itm/LOT-OF-129-NATIONAL-GEOGRAPHIC-INDEXES-1911... 

[George Thomas Wilson]

Scott,

I am one of the watchers.  I only need 2 of them and am not interested in buying the batch.  I have a request in to purchase those 2 if and when the seller takes the batch off the market.  I only need 5 more per-volume indexes to replace table-of-content only versions and 1 annual index for 2009 to complete this portion of my collection.

Tom

[Melvin L. De Vilbiss]

Tom,

I might be able to help you with the indexes.

After 1993 the only extras I have are '99 through 2002; missing '31 through '33; and also missing everything from the 1st half of '14 and earlier (except 1911 - I have that).

I should have extras of everything else (please note I haven't opened those boxes since my move last year).

Mel

[George Thomas Wilson]

Thanks Mel,

My index needs are 1910, 1911, 1912, Jan-Jun 1914, Jul-Dec 1914, and 2009.  If I read correctly, you have two in which I'd be interested.  Let me know if I'm correct (1911 & Jul-Dec 1914).  If so, also let me know how you'd like to arrange this.

BTW, those are the same two I need from the eBay lot sale.

Tom

[Melvin L. De Vilbiss]

Tom,

Based on my paper inventory, you are correct (1911 & Jul-Dec 1914).

Can you give me a couple of weeks to find the box and pull them out to verify (my parents are visiting for a week beginning this Thursday)?

One thing I want to make sure of is that the 1911 is the complete index, and not just the Title page and List of Contents (a very confusing partial supplement the NGS also produced along with the index during the teen years).

Mel

[Scott T. Shier]

Mel, Tom, 

do either of you have a separate & full Index for the Volume 1900 ? My bound volume does not have one, even though the other bound volume/year that didn't have one originally did have one included when they did the reprint/bound sets FIFTY years ago. 

1964 ~ 2014 

I thank heaven's all the time they did the reprint set!

I have nothing in front of me and my random thoughts are fuzzy, but I'm referring to the 2 volumes that didn't have the volume index for some reason I forget right this minute. 

[Melvin L. De Vilbiss]

Scott,

I do not have an extra 1900 index - but Nick Koopman may have one (check the dealer's directory).

Officially, according to Nathan, the 1900 and 1905 volume indexes (loose issues) were not published with the December issue, but were published as loose supplements.

The paper I was working on (and had to put on hold for personal reasons a few months ago) will (when I do get it out) indicate that actually 1898, 1899, 1900 and 1905 were all published as loose supplements.

I have never seen an 1898 or 1899 that is undamaged, i.e. still bound and complete, that includes the index. I have seen several with the covers separated that include the supplement in their offering/listing/sale. Was the magazine being offered simply a damaged but complete issue, or was the supplement added to the issue in an attempt to make it appear complete IAW Nathan? I don't really know the answer to that question.

Anyone out there have a complete and well bound Dec 1898 and/or Dec 1899 with the index bound within? Nathan's check list shows the index was published within the December issue, but again, I've never seen an undamaged issue with one in it.

Now for 1900 - Nathan shows it to published only as a loose supplement. I have one for each of my collections (loose and bound). I have never observed a complete Dec issue with an index in it, but have observed several without it.

Finally 1905: Nathan says it was published as a loose supplement. I have a loose supplement and an undamaged December issue with NO index in it. But, I also have a few December issues WITH the index bound within. The formatting, i.e. where the index pages fall within the undamaged bound issue would indicate an "after-thought" binding for publication (you'll have to wait for my paper to see the lengthy explanation for this), i.e. they fall in a different position within the December issue relative to 1904 and 1906 Dec issues.

Hope this sufficiently confuses you Scott - enjoy!

Mel

[Scott T. Shier]

So one could surmise then that this original "after-thought" for 1905 is the sole reason that the Index made it into the bound 1964 reprint editions . . . and here I've always leaned towards the notion that they made a conscious effort to get an Index into each volume/year of the reprints for --consistency & thoroughness.

Then I need to ask for those w/ loose copies of the December 1905 // 1964 reprint copy, if it has the Index in it. My 1905 bound has the volume index bound in the rear, after the close of the December issue.

This is always fun. Who has another curveball to toss us? LOL.

[Melvin L. De Vilbiss]

I do not have a loose Dec 1905 reprint.

If someone does have a copy (Scott?, Phil?), and can confirm it includes the index, then I would surmise the inclusion of the index in the bound volume reprint was because the NGS copied that particular version of the original, i.e. the one with the index.

(note: I mentioned this some time ago, but Buxbaum did some real detective work to discover the 1964 reprints actually copied the 1922 reprints of Vol. I, No.'s 2 & 4 instead of the originals.)

On the other hand, the bound reprint volume 11, 1900, does not contain an index - probably because there never was an index published in the December issue (to the best of my knowledge).

I have observed only one loose Dec 1900 reprint, and it did not have the index in it either.

But this brings me back to the 1898 and 1899 volume reprints and Dec "originals." I've yet to discover (not like I've witnessed more than a handful) any complete Dec original for either of these years with an index in them. Yet the bound reprint volumes for each was reproduced with the index.

I have not observed copies of the loose individual Dec reprint issues for these years. Can anyone confirm the inclusion of the index for these loose reprints?

This brings us back to the 1905 reprints and the consistently inconsistent action by the NGS:

If the bound 1898, 1899 and 1905 reprints contain indexes - why doesn't the 1900? Original loose indexes were produced for all four years (I have copies of each).

And the beat goes on, and the beat goes on...

[Jeffry Persons]

Mel,

I finally found and update of Nathan's book copyright 2000, but it has nothing posted later than 1994.  He gave me this on one of my last visits to see him before he died.  I think he was hoping that I would continue with his work and publish another book.  His updated manuscript (around 110 pages) includes corrections, additions, clarifications, etc; pre 1982 and post 1982 for every section of his book.  He does make one correction regarding the 1898 and 1899 index supplements.  He states that they were issued as separate supplements.  He makes no mention of any other year in this paragraph.  I have numerous 1898, 1899 and 1900 index supplements, but have never run across and 1905 supplement.

Jeff

[Melvin L. De Vilbiss]

Jeff,

Thank you for sharing this information.

This is very good news - that a man's dedicated work still survives his passing.

Have you considered continuing his work and if so would you like collaboration on it? I am willing to assist as I'm certain several others on this site would dedicate time and energy to such an enterprise.

Regards,

Mel

P.S. I do have an original copy of the 1905 supplement as well as the other three you listed - so they do exist.

[George Thomas Wilson]

Scott,

Unfortunately, due to space constraints I only keep one copy of any issue/index.  This not only means I don't have any extras but also limits me to only being able to contribute one data point per issue/index for studies such as Mel's. (Looking forward to reading it when it's ready Mel.)  The only exception to this "one per" rule is for maps & supplements, on the advice of Philip Riviere who recommends up to three copies.

Tom

[Scott T. Shier]

Thanks for the reply Tom, no problem!

I am much like you, I have had tendencies to dump duplicates post-haste not only for space-saving, but for a long time I didn't want all the extra "clutter". It was only later on that I started wishing I had hung on to dupes and triplicates, and more! until I at least had compared and collated a la what Mel's been doing with the volume Indexes, and reprint variants, and you with the Map Indexes more recently.

As for the maps, yes I think a bit like Phil too, his magic number is 3, I've been operating on a 2 qty. basis per each map/supplement, and the pictorial supps. I like a really nice copy for the collection, and a nice copy that I am happy to handle and look at.

The only time I personally maintain 3 is either for a particular map that is of special personal interest to me (space, oceans, environment, cultural history, N.C. Wyeth mural prints), and once I have a Map Index booklet, I always want that 3rd copy to keep separate w/ Index in my Map File books; this is the copy that usually don't care if it's only "reference" condition. I want it nice, but I just mean I won't make much of an effort to buy another pristine copy for the Index set.


_______

After-thought: my last comment there is a moot point, really. Because of all the times I 've had to cycle new bulk lots of map stock through (I always cull best condition), overall, all of my Map Index maps themselves are all Good, Very Good or better by now too. When I started my Index maps set was "ratty" -- whereas I only have 2-3 now that are ratty, the other 90+ are by now very nice copies. 

And I refuse to sell "ratty" copies of the general NGM supplements, unless it was something like Wrangell, etc. Sometimes I've sent piles of 1950s+ maps en masse for free to certain eBay sellers just so I don't have to bother with the selling, and I only ask them the shipping to send them to them.