Multiple-Map Indexes

[George Thomas Wilson]

In my rather long-winded rant about map indexes, I referenced two "collectibles" as part of my case for additional, revised map indexes.  The Centennial Index box set (1989) and The Close-Up USA box set (1978) each contain an index for multiple maps.

The index booklet for the Centennial set is simply contains two consecutive map indexes for the United States and for The World.  It is soft-covered and of a standard size for map indexes.

The Close-Up USA multiple-map index, is a combined index for the 15 maps from the Close-Up USA series of map supplements.  It is a hardbound book, smaller in size but thicker than the standard map index.  It was sized to fit into the set's yellow plastic case.

I have recently acquired a third, multiple map index.  This one is designed as a reference for the Atlas series' Folio (1958) (some assembly required).  Nathan documents the Folio as being 14" by 19.5" and having "66 gummed strips.  The Atlas maps were designed to be attached to these strips."

In 1963, the Society published its first hardbound Atlas of the World (12.5" by 19").  This atlas contained the same set of maps along with a combined index with maps referenced by page number.  At the same time the Society produced an index for the Folio (14" by 19.5") by reprinting, and slightly enlarging, the index from the Atlas "at a greatly reduced cost".  The inside front cover of this Folio index contain instructions for converting page numbers from the Atlas to plate numbers in the Folio.

As a side note, Nathan documents both the Folio (1958) and the first Atlas (1963) but makes no reference to the Folio map index (1963).  I am including images of all three.  Note: the Folio index is way too large for my scanner.  The image is of the lower right quadrant.

Does anyone know of any other multiple map indexes out there?  Just curious.

Tom Wilson

[Scott T. Shier]

Tom,

That's a really neat, and for me at least, unexpected 'find' -- the Atlas Folio index. Never heard of it before. I am amazed when in 2014 new things can still be found (or for some, perhaps re-discovered, as there's some collector's who keep their knowledge to themselves...).

I am a completeist (sp?) on some things, and since I have the Folio and the maps, and my own 2 documents I created for the series, this will now bug me a lot to know there's this Index and I don't have one, ha! 

Where did you find yours? 

The only thing I can point out as a possibility now --and maybe you know this, or others would say obviously-- but the Close-Up U.S.A. set did have two re-releases that I know of, in 1988 and 1996. They are revision-and-re-releases rather than re-issue/reprints, because they were revised (or modified) each time. 

     - The '88 edition had a different font for the lettering I believe on the case (same color plastic though), and I believe the maps were revised minimally, at least for the map-side place names. This version would have had the same 1987 U.S. map that the Centennial Index set included...

     - The 1996 set was put out in a thick-glossy cardboard box (not "70's orange" plastic), and the map titles (or, front covers) per map, and the book, had a different font again and redesigned imagery, new dates, and perhaps some minimal amount of place-name updating, but the primary illustration images & caption/legend text was all the same . . . as far as I know. Also, I the Index was a stiff s/c "booklet/pamph." rather than an outright h/c book.

** there is a dated 1986 issue of Close-Up, but I have not been able to determine whether is was a merely a reprint/re-issue of the 1978 version, or if it was also updated or re-dated. It does show the updated font lettering on the book and case, as the 1988 edition shows.


These re-issued Close-Up sets are something I've casually monitored on eBay listings for a few years, and was thinking for a long time to ask Phil for example, if the different Close-Up sets were something he had, or paid attention to. Eventually my intention was to actually get all 3 and then do a close side-by-side thorough comparison inspection. I only have the original 1978 set as it currently stands.

Anyway, point being, in the sense of being revised re-releases, would the Index book for 1988 and 1996 count as a 4th and 5th "Multi-Map Index" as you are defining these other three? , granted, they would be progeny only of your first example. 


I have not come across any other specific years of issue for the Close-Up boxed set. I'd be interested if anyone else can verify that there were only the 1978, (1986), 1988, 1996 editions. As for the rest of your post, it's interesting and thanks for posting~!

 - Scott 


p.s.

I'm replying promptly from just reading your fresh post here, so off the top of my head I can't think of another one as you ask. But, there's a vague memory I'm feeling...there is another index like this for - something. I need to let it sit in my head for a bit. When or if I can remember this thing, I'll let 'ya know. 

[George Thomas Wilson]

Scott,

Got the Folio Index for $20 on eBay.  If I see it again I'll let you know. As for the revised Close-Up USA  sets, the index references the 15 regional supplement maps in the set; none of which were mentioned by Nathan as having been revised at all, let alone for the years in which you have cited.

Tom

[stephen zamarin]

Hi,

For the 1986 issue of the Close-up USA series, the way you could find if they did any revisioning is to check the Northwest map. Mt. St. Helens elevation was 9,677 feet or 2,950 meters before 1980. After 1980, it was reduced to 8,365 feet or 2,550 meters. The March 1973 Northwest map listed the elevations in feet. By the 1980's, National Geographic started using the metric system in its map supplements. It could be possible when the maps were revised, they changed the elevations to metric.

[Scott T. Shier]

Tom,

....by the way, how many pages is that Index for the Atlas Folio?

[George Thomas Wilson]

Scott,

There are 146 pages to this index (pp. 155 to 300).  Remember that these are the page numbers from the first "true" Atlas and have little to do with the Folio other than being the same set of maps.

Tom

[Scott T. Shier]

thanks - good tidbit to be aware of then.

[George Thomas Wilson]

A big DUH on my earlier post.  Oh course Nathan didn't reference those maps.  They were created after his book was published.  I hope it was jet lag, but probably old age.  It is interesting that, at least this one multiple map index did go though revisions much like the revisions of the single map indexes we've been discussing in the other discussion.

BTW, do you think I should be posting these topics (indexes, parodies, etc.) in the general public or keep them in the specialized groups?

Tom

[Scott T. Shier]

You're right, Roger Nathan's book = 1982, these re-issues after that. I only have wished that Mr. Nathan might have been able to do an update to his book --like Buxbaum did-- sometime between 1983 and his untimely passing in 2005, alas.

It's odd to me (or a bit wistful) that for us, our most recent published reference is 1982 (32 years since...). We have this site and all the great info. and collating that's been shared, but it's not quite the same as a handy, tightly organized book such as Nathan, Buxbaum.

As to your question: Hmm, I suppose we could all have an opinion or preference. In a way it seems theoretically nicer to post topics within a group, where a group exists for a given category or topic of discussion. It strikes me that for future back-tracking it would be easier to go to The Map Group to find that chat about Maps/indexes; e.g., a future 'Corner member might find it more user-friendly if they know their interest is the Special Publications books to just go to the Books Group to see what's been said over time.

There's a sub-category of group settings and options that are not being utilized much heretofore. We can "notify all group members" when we add something, or have it send a email. On a day-to-day basis, it is easier and more prominently shown at the top center of the Main page tab, the "Forum" ---> and then descending//most recent and All posts by anyone for anything. One might glance at the top and not see you just posted something and leave the page, unless they think to click on a group to see most recent, or the Main page, down where it shows "Latest Activity", which shows everything.

So I could see where I might not see anything new atop, and not realize there's a new post under 'Latest' .

I'd be interested to see what the others think. Or you could message the group en masse and ask where the majority would prefer them to go?

I do know that the general discussions Search method is more tediuos, messy, less delineated than perhaps going into a Group topic search would be. Note when you go the Groups tab/page, it has its own Search box which is segregated from the 'Corner's (Ning . com) comprehensive search parameters;

...also, in the Groups tab, you can search out a thread, item, or person within 'All Groups', or just for 'My Groups' -- only those you are in -- which seems like that could be very helpful at times.

              ~ Scott

[Melvin L. De Vilbiss]

I like the specialized topics/categories.

If you guys are taking a poll?

Mel

[Scott T. Shier]

no offical poll Mel, ha. Maybe we should post a specific Discussion to get people's input. Did you get an email from me the other day? Been having problems so can never be sure. I didn't hear back from anyone on any of my emails this past 2+ weeks, so I dunno if I need to call my email provider again, sigh.

[Melvin L. De Vilbiss]

Sent a reply - call your email provider :)