National Geographic's Collectors Corner

Collaborative site for collectors, dealers, & anyone interested in our history.

October Issue, 3rd ad page, re: Robert Louis Stevenson

            “original” – “HALF PRICE – ONLY 65 SETS REMAIN”

            “reprint” – “HALF PRICE – ONLY 36 SETS REMAIN”


Note that the November Issue has the same ad with 36 sets in both the original and reprint versions.


December Issue, 2nd ad page, re: different bottom half advertisement

            “original” – “Security Storage Company”

            “reprint” – “Bowling Green Storage ¼ ad and Van Company ¼ ad”


Any thoughts?

Views: 117

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Well that's a lovely discrepancy!

They went from 65 to 36 sets in the same ad/issue? ! Wow, amazing. Since they were copied from the originals, its hard to account for that particular difference. We can't say a page got inverted or skipped or something else common sense to explain that one....

Is every other aspect of 3rd ad page, October 1907 identical? Is this a case of the printer using November's ad page in the October issue (reprint) press run?
Everything is exactly the same, except the number...

Hi Mel,

Just browsing through old threads and came across this of yours. Could you please clarify that when you say "reprint" you mean the 1964 NGS reprints?

The reason I ask is whether the variations you have found are due to an error in the 1964 reprint process or, perhaps more likely, a second print run of these issues in 1907 between which the ads changed. In any case, how do you spot this kind of thing????

Geez Dale!

I forgot all about this and had to go back and refresh my aging memory.

To be very specific: The reprints I am referring to are the NGS Bound Reprint Volumes 1 thru 18.

My bound reprint set was purchased complete from a dealer who acquired the set from an estate sale of the original owner who purchased them directly from the NGS.

When I acquire a new (better) issue for my loose issue collection, I collate it with the issue I'm replacing AND the bound reprints. I think I do this because I chanced upon a find where the advertisements in the reprint set were exactly the same as the original I was inspecting, but in a different order. So now I've developed this little ritual to give me "more" to do.

I find all kinds of interesting little things and jot them down for posterity - but somehow I still lost my notes on the Buxbaum discrepancies we talked about recently (still trying to figure that out).

Have you by chance validated this anomaly?


You are correct on the difference in the October 1907 original and the reprint. Curious.

Regarding the December 1907 issue I find that whole page is different between the original and the reprint. In the reprint, the page is identical to the 6th page of the November issue, while the original has American Security and Trust ad at the top half (different photo from November ad, while bottom half of that page is all for the Security Storage Company.

We can only speculate how this occurred, either:

1. In 1964, having scanned similar pages from magazines in adjacent months, the producers just used one version across the months, perhaps to save cost, or.

2. The original magazine had different print runs and used different or updated ads between runs.

However, neither of these possibilities explains why your version of the December reprint and mine would differ.

Curiouser and curiouser......


First to assuage your concern about our different reprint versions, I believe we have the same format – I did not describe it very well when I threw it up on the board over a year ago.

Your description of your reprint page fits mine exactly, making the “entire page” different than the original – though careful reading shows all advertisements are for the same companies.

I believe this pretty much supports this particular curiosity in accordance with your second possibility of “a different print run.”

Buxbaum did write of this in his reprint chapter, noting (especially in the great year of expansion – 1905, especially the April issue) the NGS found demand outstripping their anticipations requiring additional print runs for several of their issues. He also identified that most records of these additional print runs (and quantity thereof) had never been located.

He went on to state this had little to no effect on the value of the older issues as they were, for all intents and purposes, original issues.

One other difference you might enjoy is the BOUND REPRINT Vol. I, No’s 2 and 4:

Buxbaum describes in detail how he determined the master copies used for the 1964 reprint versions, were in fact, copies of the 1922 reprints and not originals. It had to do with a smudged number 6 on one of the page numbers for one of the issues, and plate number (picture) put in upside down missing the artist’s signature in the other issue.

I don’t have the originals, but I do have the 1922 reprints – and the discrepancies Buxbaum listed match my bound reprint volumes exactly.

Now that’s attention to detail!




I read that section in Buxbaum and see that he was correct. The only minor issue is that in the Leon Cathedral' plate that has the missing signature, turns out not to be a signature but the printed name of the artist 'Julius Bien & Co', which is also missing from the River San Juan plate. What is interesting is that I initially checked against my CD set of NGM (The Complete National Geographic 112 Years), since I prefer not to handle the originals. In this case, there was no 'artist signature' either, on either plate, although the plates were in the correct position. Similarly, page 107 (issue #2) in the original was not of a noticibly heavy typeset, whereas it is in the 1922 version and the CD version.

I am surprised, because I know that Koopman contributed original copies when the CD set was originally developed. The scanning process (at that time) would basically destroy the binding of the magazine, so I suspect that in making the CD set, the NGS chose to use the 1922 reprints for the contents and the originals for the covers, but corrected for the plate positions.



Very interesting bits of information. Thanks Dale!



Legal notice about this site

Note: Any sales or trade arrangements are solely between users of this site; The National Geographic Society is not a party to and does not endorse or promote any particular sales or trade arrangements between collectors, dealers, or others. Due to the immediate nature of this medium, National Geographic Online also does not review, censor, approve, edit or endorse information placed on this forum. Discussion boards on National Geographic Online are intended to be appropriate for family members of all ages. Posting of indecent material is strictly prohibited. The placement of advertisements or solicitations unrelated to National Geographic also is prohibited. National Geographic Online shall review information placed on this forum from time to time and delete inappropriate material that comes to its attention as soon as it is practicable, but cannot guarantee that such material will not be found on the forum. By posting material on this discussion board you agree to adhere to this policy prohibiting indecent, offensive or extraneous advertising material, and to legally assume full and sole responsibility for your posting.

© 2022   Created by Cathy Hunter.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service