May 1896 Anomaly

[Melvin L. De Vilbiss]

Observe the bottom half of the last ad page before the back cover:

Version 1: The 1964 Bound Reprint shows a man with a pipe sitting while gazing from a forest edge over an open field.

Version 2: I have two original May 1896 issues that show an ad for the same subject but with different words and no human or forest scene. It is mostly just a black background with images of trains.

Note 1: both the reprint and original issues for June 1896 have the second version (Original May 1896) of this ad.

Note 2: both reprint and original issues for July and August 1896 have the first version (1964 Bound Reprint) of this ad.

Note 3: there exists yet a third version of this ad that exists in both the reprint and original for September through December 1896 issues.

Question:

Does anyone have, or have you seen, an original May 1896, with the first version ad?

[George Thomas Wilson]

Mel,

I have a reprint and a bound reprint of May 1896.  Both have the man with a pipe.  Sorry, no originals.

Tom

 

[Philip Riviere]

Mel,

My May 1896 copy  is a reprint that has the gentleman with his pipe.

Phil

[Melvin L. De Vilbiss]

The reason for specifically trying to identify "an original" that matches the "reprint" ad is a bit involved, but here goes:

When the NGS decided to provide reprints to the public in 1964, they unbound a complete set of loose magazines for copy and reproduction.

It was later determined by Buxbaum (he goes into great detail as to his detective work in his third edition) that the NGS actually used the 1922 reprints of Volume I, No.’s 2 & 4 for the reproduction run.

I have since discovered a couple of other little quirks with the 1964 reprints, i.e. missing indexes that were supposed to be included in the December issues (and weren’t), i.e. only 1900 and 1905 are specifically listed as “loose” productions, not 1898 & 1899 (but these do exist).

To continue with the index, the 1964 bound Volume XI (1900) has the Title Page, Contents & Illustrations, but does not have the Index, which was as much a loose supplement to that volume as the first three items as acknowledged by both Nathan and Buxbaum. Why was the index not provided with the bound reproduction?

I can only surmise the “set” that was debinded specifically for the reproduction was not a perfectly complete set, as already noted by use of the 1922 reprint of Volume I, No.’s 2 & 4.

Additionally, there have been a few other discrepancies I’ve chalked up to “attention deficit” such as two pages out of order in the bound reprints, when compared to an original.

Which brings me to this question: Has anyone observed the first version of the aforementioned ad in an original May 1896? The antithesis to this question is, or was it a reproduction error whereby two pages got mixed up?

The entire gist of this research is minute detail of little significance, but of interest to me:

If the answer to the first question becomes known as a “yes,” then it could, with some certainty – though not absolute, be determined that month of that year “had a second production run whereby that ad had most likely already been changed in preparation for the next month’s issue.”

 

[George Thomas Wilson]

Mel,

Sorry I can't help.  My only original 1896 issue is February.  My April reprints have the black background versions so a second run for May after the ad was updated sounds plausible.  Let me what you find out.

Tom

 

[Melvin L. De Vilbiss]

To follow up with additional information:

The May 1896 issue is the only one, with respect to this advertisement, that a discrepancy exists between the original and the reproduction.

Generally speaking, the NGS (I must assume, but cannot prove) would set up its advertisements and run the same ads/sequence for several months in a row. Any changes to a specific ad would subsequently run for several months in a row in the same location as its predecessor.

If I am correct, the originals show this process at work, the reprints are interrupted only by the May issue.

It is my supposition the May 1896 reprint was a reproduction error in 1964 and that a second printing run of the original May 1896 issue cannot be surmised by this discovery.

Now, no sooner do I make the assumption the NGS set its advertising pages and ran them several months in a row I must admit the Jan and Feb 1896 issues do not fit this process.

There exists yet a fourth version of this advertisement for the “Chicago Great Western Railway” that ran during these two months. It was in a different location within the advertisement section for these two issues.

I would suggest that 1896 was the first year the NGS produced one issue per month. By the Society’s own admission in it proceedings notes of 1895/1896, they were experiencing growing pains and had not quite settled into a routine. By March 1896 you can observe the standardized format of the advertising pages that would follow for the remainder of the year.

As such, in the original, this advertisement in question is identical (version 2 above) from March through June; changes to version 1 July and Aug; and again changes to version 3 Sep through Dec, all the above in the same location - bottom half of the last advertising page before the back cover.

Again, I conclude the May 1896 reprint was a reproduction error in 1964.