Date error on reprint of issue Vol. V No. 6

[George Thomas Wilson]

There is a date error on the reprint for the NatGeo Vol. V No. 6.  On the reprint it has the date as May 5, 1893 when in fact it was published May 5, 1894.  You can verify this by checking the bottom of page vi of this issue.  I also cross checked in the 1888-1946 Index which verified that 1894 is the correct year.

[Melvin L. De Vilbiss]

The Society used a complete set of original magazines to make reproductions for the 1964 reprint run, with one exception - the Volume I, No's. 2 & 4 used for the reprint runs were themselves 1922 reprints.

I know it is confusing, but the error you note is actually on the original "page vi" in the Contents listing and continued with the original Volume VI, page X Contents listing. This error was simply reproduced in the reprints as originally perpetrated.

Neither of the noted authors on all NG things collectable, i.e. Buxbaum or Nathan (now both deceased) ever recorded, mentioned or indicated otherwise. They both record the original issue as being published in 1893, as written on the cover.

The society did have problems with their publications of Volume V issues. The most notable was the listing on the cover of Volume V, Number 4, July 10, 1893. The cover had the label of “Volume IV” on it and there exists no known copy with the correct volume label.

To make things even more interesting, Buxbaum has a section on Reprints. One of his listings of reprints involves “partial” reprints of single papers for the author and bound without the covers of Volume V: page vi (publications) – 1,000 copies; pages xxv-xxvi (by-laws) – 700 copies; pages xxix-lxviii (membership) – 50 copies; all dated “May 5, 1894,” NOT 1893.

And yet, throughout his publications, and Nathan’s as well, they both indicate the actual issue was published in May 1893, not 1894.

This was a very good catch - thanks for the intrigue!

[Melvin L. De Vilbiss]

Upon further inspection:

Reading through the "Sixth Annual Report of the Secretaries," (Presented to the Society January 5, 1894) pages xx and xxi of Volume V you will find the following information:

"Magazine. - Six brochures have been published during the year, two forming the last two numbers of volume iv and the remainder a portion of volume v."

Reviewing the published dates on the "original" volumes, you'll find the following (from January 1893 to 5 January 1894).

1893

February 8 - Volume IV, (Number 6)

February 20 -Volume IV, (Number 7)

March 20 - Volume V, (Number 2)

April 7 - Volume V, (Number 1)

April 29 - Volume V, (Number 3)

May 5 - Volume V, (Number 6)

July 10 - Volume V, (Number 4)

1894

NONE

That’s a total of SEVEN brochures, not SIX in the year of the report!

Based on the Report of the Secretaries, reporting only SIX published brochures, the date on the original cover for Volume V, Number 6 (5 May 1893) is the mistake and should read 1894, just like the Volume Number mistake on the number 4 issue of Volume V.

[George Thomas Wilson]

You sent your 2nd message while I was writing my reply to the 1st.  I had a feeling it was an original mistake and not a reprint one, otherwise it would have been caught easier.  As I stated, they caught the Vol IV. for Vol. V error on the July issue but would have to have been really psychic to catch an error in an issue as it was published.  I'm searching the Vol VI issues to see if I can find an Erratum reference for this.  Thanks again for letting me vent.

[Melvin L. De Vilbiss]

George,

It appears we did cross paths in our responses. This is a response I was preparing before you responded yet again. Let's cross paths more gently...

First, I'd like to say, psychic phenomenon aside, facts are the stuff of research, not assumptions. In my first response, I identified data collected and provided by a couple of renowned authors. I presented conflicting information within their own data and stated only the fact they had never presented this issue as you identified it.

Second, and to your original point, you stated there was a "date error on the reprint." Point in fact - there was not. The reprint was true to the original, a point I was unsuccessful in driving home.

Third, I congratulated you on the catch. I apologize if I didn't spell it out, but to me, a "catch" means you discovered something others had not. To me, that also meant further investigation was required. Still, I'm sorry I didn't spell that out either.

Finally, I admit your second presentation provides interesting assumptions (especially the errata), but publications have been known to be scheduled with the exact number of pages previously reserved, and publications are known to be printed AND dated prior to the date of issue which would indicate a table of contents could have been produced without the actual items in the list having been distributed - not likely, but still not an impossibility.

It was the Report of the Secretaries that clearly indicates only six brochures were published in the year of the report. This is still not absolute proof - but it seems to be getting much closer to the real answer that the date on this particular issue (in the original) is wrong (just like the volume # on issue 4) especially when added to "all your data points."

The reprints remain true to the original – wrong or not.

My hope is that you continue sharing your discoveries as we all work through the best data we can assemble.

Regards,

Mel

[George Thomas Wilson]

Thanks for all the info.  Sorry I misunderstood the original point you were making.  I could not find an erratum for this error in any Vol VI issues but it would be unlikely anyway since the error occured in a previous volume.  What I did find, however, is an excellant listing of all issues Vol I thru Vol VI in the Oct. 31, 1895 issue.  It confirms the 1894 date.  Thanks again and best wishes.

[Melvin L. De Vilbiss]

George,

Excellent point, re: Oct. 31, 1895 issue.

But here again, I throw out a need for caution. I've discovered time and again that just when I think I've got the answer, someone comes along with a bit of information that ruins my day.

To show you how, refer to this same Oct. 31, 1895 issue pg. xi:

Volume VI, No. 1 is dated February 17, 1894 in this publications list. That issue is in THIS volume - and yet, they still got it wrong.

I know it's small, but the date on the cover of the first issue, and on the first page of the first issue of Volume VI is 14 February, not 17 February as shown in the list. It's just a digit, but then, so is a "3" or a "4."

Back to your topic - I keep digging, and come up with confusion. Roger Nathan lists the date of publication as May 5, 1893 AND declares all dates listed for Volume V are "correct," but makes a point of noting the incorrect volume label for issue number 4 and says nothing about the date for number 6.

He even lists the date of the reprints I mentioned above as 1893, not 1894 as Buxbaum listed them - more descrepancies.

What adds to the confusion is that Nathan went as far as to identify something as small as the Volume III, No. 5 descrepancy whereby the first page has the date of January 28, 1892, when the cover (and as he states the correct date) is February 19, 1892.

Your question, to me, seems like a more glaring mistake that would have more easily surfaced by those who were truly involved with details - but then, I hadn't noticed it till you brought to my attention.

Still researching....and enjoying the hunt....and I still believe the " (Jan 1894) Report of the Secretary" is our strongest independent evidence that the date of number 6 should be 1894, not 1893, especially when supported with all the data points you've identified.

Mel

[George Thomas Wilson]

Last post on the subject.  When I bought the 1888-1946 index it was for the purpose of finding out when the 1800s issues were published.  Going through the metadata was gruelling.  In it, some (but not all) references to the Feb. 19, 1892 issue lists BOTH dates (Jan. 31 & Feb. 19) as the publishing date.  All references to our May 5th issue have it as 1894.  Too bad I cannot find an Erratum in a later issue, that would settle the matter.

[George Thomas Wilson]

Again I would have you read page iv of the issue in question.  Ot not only refers to its publication date as May 5, 1894 but also issues 4 & 5 (July 10, 1893 & Jan. 31, 1894) as well as procedings from a conference July 27-28, 1893.  Unless H. G. Welles was on the board, I don't see how this issue could have been published in 1893.  There is a further reference to iy being printed in 1894 on page vii.  Likewise, as stated in my original post, the 1888-1944 index has all references to this issue as being published in 1894.  BTW, I was aware of the July, 10, 1893 error it actually was an original printing error and is corrected in the May 5th  issue page viii under Errata for the volume.  More time travel for you.  I could conceed that they knew in advance when the other issues would be printed, and even the the conference, but to know the number of pages, highly unlikely.  And to know the error to be made: psychic.  Thanks for you prompt reply