Hello...can someone help me to know if the cronology below is correct?

[Abramo Russo]

Year/Month	Vol.	Date/Month	Nr.	Pages	Plate(s)	Index(es) ?
1888	1		1
1889	1		2
1889	1		3
1889	1		4
1890	2		1
1890	2		2
1890	2		3
1890	2		4
1890	2		5
1891 [03]	3	Saturday, March 28, 1891		1-30	1
1891 [04]	3	Thursday, April 30, 1891		31-40	-
1891 [05]	3	Friday, May 1, 1891		41-52	-
1891 [05]	3	Friday, May 29, 1891		53-204	2-20
1892 [02]	3	Friday, February 19, 1892		205-261	21	I-XXXV
1892 [01 (?)]	3	Thursday, January 28, 1892		205-230 (?)	21 (?)
1892 [03]	4	Saturday, March 26, 1892		1-18	-
1892 [03]	4	Monday, March 21, 1892		19-84	1-16
1892 [03]	4	Friday, March 18, 1892		85-100	-
1892 [03]	4	Thursday, March 31, 1892		101-116	17
1892 [05]	4	Sunday, May 15, 1892		117-162	18-20
1893 [02]	4	Wednesday, February 8, 1893		163-208	-
1893 [02]	4	Monday, February 20, 1893		209-215	-	I-XXIV
1893 [04]	5	Friday, April 7, 1893		1-20	1-5
1893 [03 (?)]	5	Monday, March 20, 1893		21-44	6-19
1893 [04]	5	Saturday, April 29, 1893		45-58	20
1893 [07]	5	Monday, July 10, 1893		59-96	21
1894 [01]	5	Wednesday, January 31, 1894		97-256	-
1893 (?) [05]	5	Friday, May 5, 1893		257-263	-	I-LXVIII
1894 [02]	6	Wednesday, February 14, 1894		1-22	-
1894 [03]	6	Saturday, March 17, 1894		23-34	1-3
1894 [04]	6	Wednesday, April 25, 1894		35-62	-
1894 [05]	6	Wednesday, May 23, 1894		63-126	4-6
1894 [06]	6	Friday, June 22, 1894		127-148	7-8
1894 [11]	6	Thursday, November 1, 1894		149-178	9
1894 [12]	6	Saturday, December 29, 1894		179-238	10-14
1895 [04]	6	Saturday, April 20, 1895		239-284	-
1895 [10]	6	Thursday, October 31, 1895		285-291	15	I-LXXXIII
1896	7	January	1
1896	7	February	2
1896	7	March	3
1896	7	April	4
1896	7	May	5
1896	7	June	6
1896	7	July	7
1896	7	August	8
1896	7	September	9
1896	7	October	10
1896	7	November	11
1896	7	December	12
1897	8	January	1
1897	8	February	2
1897	8	March	3
1897	8	April	4
1897	8	May	5
1897	8	June	6
1897	8	July-August (One issue - Two Months)	7-8
1897	8	September	9
1897	8	October	10
1897	8	November	11
1897	8	December	12
1898	9	January	1
1898	9	February	2
1898	9	March	3
1898	9	April	4
1898	9	May	5
1898	9	June	6
1898	9	July	7
1898	9	August	8
1898	9	September	9
1898	9	October	10
1898	9	November	11
1898	9	December	12

[George Thomas Wilson]

Abramo,

Just off the top of my head:

The 5th issue of volume 2 was printed in April 1891.

There was no January 28, 1892 issue.  This was an error on the top of the first page (page 205) of the February 19, 1892 issue.  You can read more about that on my post "Index 0" in the Maps, Supplements and Indexes group.

Also, the last issue of volume 5 was printed May 5, 1894 but mistakenly has 1893 on the cover.

Tom Wilson

[Abramo Russo]

Thank you George! Your knowledge on the NGSM is AMAZING!

[Melvin L. De Vilbiss]

These might help (read the small print):

[Abramo Russo]

WOW! Your Docs are a FOUNT of infos!!! Thanks from the bottom of my heart. If I can help just let me know.

Abramo Russo

[Lloyd Bonaccorso]

Hello Melvin,  I was just looking at your "Master Copy of NATIONAL GEOGRAPHIC INVENTORY" file. I noticed that you stated that the "Volume references end with Volume 198, No.2 August 2000.  I have to assumed you simply mean that they are no longer on the FRONT cover, as the volumes and no.'s are still reference. They have simply moved inside to the CONTENTS page. Starting in September 2000 they were placed in the "top right hand corner" of the contents page, then in March 2006 they were moved to the "top center" of the contents page, and still remain in this position until this day. Just an observation, as you didn't note in your file that the Volume references only "moved", as appose to "ended".

[Melvin L. De Vilbiss]

Excellent point Lloyd!

Thank you for your attention to detail, which, in my opinion, makes collecting the NGM interesting, if not a bit tedious.

Please note that my master copy was my first work at assembling my inventories, I have not kept it up to date with my personal inventory format, and subsequent changes and updates, and would therefore advise there are many details, some of them not so minor, that are missing from the original master.

This detail you have noted, however, is not one that I've included even in my personal inventory - and should, somewhere.

Thanks again for your interest and keen eye!

Regards,

Mel