1964 Reprint numbers

[Jeffry Persons]

Hi All,

Hope everyone had a great weekend.  I spent my weekend organizing my NGS materials that had not been catalogued.  I came across this letter from July 13, 1989 that has the numbers of Reprints that were printed.  The letter does not say who it is to, but most likely it is a member.

The numbers are self explanatory.  I was surprised at how many Vol 1 No 1 that were printed as compared to the others.  I also wondered why there was less issues printed for the second ten years as compared to the first ten years.  It was probably a money issue due to the fact they didn't know how well they would sell.  They probably felt that the first ten years would sell better, because of lack of availability, than the latter ten years.

Have a great week!

Jeff

[George Thomas Wilson]

Jeff,

Awesome letter.  If I read it correctly, there seems to be far fewer individual Reprint issues opposed to bound volumes than I originally thought.  Thanks again for sharing this find.

Tom

[Philip Riviere]

Jeff,

Wow, never thought I'd find out a definite number from the society in both individual reprint issues AND bound volumes. Thanks for sharing...

Phil

[Melvin L. De Vilbiss]

Jeff,

An absolutely amazing find – thanks for sharing this with us.

In Buxbaum’s last edition on page 82 he makes the only reference to quantities published. Of course, he is simply referring to NGS advertising which claims 1,000 loose issues were printed with no accounting of the actual number of bound volumes.

Until now, this is all I’ve had to go on.

Here’s the breakdown (please check my math):

Volume 1 through Volume 7 (1888 – 1897):

            1,400 copies per loose issue per year + 1,600 complete bound volumes per year + 2,000 extra Volume 1, No. 1 loose issues.

Volume 8 through Volume 18 (1898 - 1907):

            500 copies per loose issue per year + 1,500 complete bound volumes per year.

These facts “INSTANTLY” makes the second ten years of loose reprints nearly 3 times rarer than the first ten years; and the bound copies of complete volumes for the second ten years just slightly more scarce.

This actually makes sense if you take into consideration there were more individual “original” copies available in the later ten years of the reprints than the first ten years. If one believes the primary purpose was to assist libraries, and perhaps collectors, at “completing” their collections – this makes perfect sense.

But then, as I’ve discovered time and again, just when I think I’ve got it figured out – somebody comes up with a letter of provenance on NGS letterhead to change the entire picture.

Truly, this is quite a revelation you have just provided us.

Thanks again!

Mel

P.S. Who would have thought the 1975 reprint (issued in 1976) of Volume 1, No. 1 would actually be more scarce/rare than the 1964 reprint?

[Melvin L. De Vilbiss]

Jeff,

May I use my response above and credit you and your letter on NGS letterhead in a revision of my reprint guide?

Mel

[Jeffry Persons]

Sure!

[Mike Oliphant]

WOW, Thank You SO Much. It dose also confirm what I have said so many times about 1898 to 1905 being much tougher to find than given credit. Keep the knowledge growing. Mike O