'New' discovery in an old pile -- Oct. 1889 map: N. Carolina-Tenn.

[Scott T. Shier]

from the centennial index booklet

 "Maps of the United States and the World,

and Cartography at the National Geographic Society ~ 1888-1988"

RE: the first loose map supplement in an NGM; on the sixth page of this Centennial Index booklet I've only just become aware of this following entry under the United States sub-section of supplement listings: 

North Carolina - Tennessee: Asheville Sheet. Section from the Cumberland Plateau to the Blue Ridge. Surveyed in 1882-3-7. Note: Reprinted 1965 as Asheville Quadrangle. Surveyed in 1898-99. Oct. 1889

            * bold emphasis mine

Now, this entry is also duplicated verbatim in the Centennial Index book itself. For this post, I've referred to the title of the booklet that was issued in the deluxe slip-cased edition.

My question is has anybody else ever noticed this, heard of it, or ever seen one/owned one of these 1965 copies?

At first blush I wondered if the notation simply refers to the fact of the 1964 reprinting of the first 18 volumes of NGM, with all its supplements therein; with "1965" being a typo...? Nope. If that were the case, each of the other supplement entries would also bear a comment indicating a reprint.

Though, the reprint copy of this map plate in my (reprint) copy of this issue does show the "...Quadrangle" rather than "...Sheet" term printed. Ostensibly the original printing used "Sheet".

Thus one could swing back to thinking this is declaring the map was one of the 1964 map reprints notwithstanding a seeming typo on the year. Unlikely. Why do none of the other 32 supplements include such a note? Also, if there is this 1965 reprinting w/ very slight title revision, for what/why/whom was it printed?

Neither Buxbaum or Nathan, nor Don Smith make any further enlightening comment about this in their guides; they simply ID the title/name as "Ashville District" in their run-down lists of map supplements.    

          *underline emphasis mine.

Any thoughts? Anybody have some insight into this? Best,

           ~ Scott S.

[Melvin L. De Vilbiss]

Scott,

I cannot directly answer your question since the Volume I, No. 4 issue is one of the few I do not have in my collection, albeit one of the two rarest in the NGM collection - the other being Volume I, No. 2.

I do have an original (combined) index for Volume 1 & 2 that does not add any light to this subject.

The "Contents." listing for Vol. I, No. 4 reads only "Round about Ashville. Bailey Willis, (Illustrated by one Map and Profile)" on page 291.

The index reads, "Ashville, (N.C.), round about (Willis)... [Vol.] I [pages] 271, 291

We have to wait/go to the @1967 version of the Volume I Cumulative Index (1888 - 1946) before the NGS publishes any indexing of its issues prior to 1899.

Hence, we have the following (in the map indexing):

Ashville. see North Carolina

North Carolina - Tennessee: Ashville Sheet. Section from the Cumberland Plateau to the Blue Ridge. Natural Profiles, Surveyed in 1882-3-7. I (that's a roman numeral 1 for Volume 1), supplement, 15 3/4 x 21 3/4 inches, Oct., 1899; reprint, Ashville Quadrangle. Surveyed 1898-99. I (again, that's a roman numeral 1), supplement, 16 x 22 inches, 1965.

Mel

[George Thomas Wilson]

Quick question on the topic:  Does anyone have the 1922 reprint of Vol.1 No. 4 and what does THAT map say?

Just wondering.

Tom

[Scott T. Shier]

Tom -

Drat! I was hoping I had No. 4 and not No. 2 when I saw you mention this...I used to have both but knew I only had one now. Would love to have compared, since as we know (in no small part to Mel), even the 1922 reprints have contradictory anomalies that do not apply to the originals, nor the 1964 reprints....

*quick comment: I sold both my 1922 reprints back when, because I had obtained the full 1964 reprint set after, and at the time being that I was operating under this odd illusion of keeping myself on a short leash, thought "now why do you need 2 duplicates floating around - dump them!". Later, in regret, I bought a new one.... this current copy of Vol. 1/No. 2, which is in worse condition than the first one I had //sigh//.

[Melvin L. De Vilbiss]

Tom, Scott,

It shows "Quadrangle," not "Sheet." Hence, my lament that I have never observed an original Volume I, No. 4, in that I can only speculate the original shows "sheet" as Scott has so keenly identified in his reference.

To further what Scott was referring to in his reply to you Tom, we know from the detailed research Buxbaum documented in the Reprint section of his third edition that the 1964 National Geographic Society reprints actually duplicated the 1922 reprints of Volume I, No's 2 & 4 and not the originals.

This follows, as the 1898-99 survey was available for the 1922 "officially sponsored" reprints.

Mel

[Melvin L. De Vilbiss]

FYI

The "original" is labeled with the word "Sheet" at the top.

I asked someone I know that actually has in his possession an original Volume I, No. 4.

Thanks for broaching the subject Scott, it took my mind off of living - HA!

Mel

[George Thomas Wilson]

Mel,

Knowing the V1N4 (and V1N2) were copied from the 1922 reprints is why I asked my question in the first place.  The 1964 reprints were billed as being exact copies to the best of their ability but, as you know, there are some discrepancies (placement of indexes and such).

Tom

[Scott T. Shier]

If it's relevant or 'useful' at all, I also follow up with a footnote to say:

• Roger Nathan itemizes this supplement as "Asheville Sheet" ;
• whilst E. Buxbaum (e.g., 1935 & 1971) indicates "Asheville District" ; 
• and Don Smith refers to it as "Asheville District" as well

So, was Nathan literally transmitting what he saw printed on the original copy? Were Buxbaum and Smith employing some kind of author's prerogative to refer to it in the sense of what the map's scope was, as in saying "this map was about the greater Asheville district...." whereas maybe they thought "sheet" was not self-evident, or implied something not a geographic territory. Hmm.

* Don Smith may merely have been reciting it the way the Dean of Collecting wrote it.

[Melvin L. De Vilbiss]

Both men had their idiosyncrasies and neither was 100% accurate in reciting titles of maps and/or pictorials.

I personally believe they wanted their own distinction such that you and I would be discussing this just like we are - "who really got it right?"

Oh joy!

Mel