It is believed, as supported by Buxbaum’s research, that within a publication month/issue, the National Geographic Society often had “reprints” made during the early years of the NGS. Sometimes an accounting of these reprints was kept, but more often than not (as Buxbaum surmised) there was no available accounting he could uncover.
The reprints published as supplemental issues to a given month, during the same month of issue, should be considered as simply an additional production run.
Sometimes, however, the reprints were produced after the month of issue. There was usually no discernable difference between the original and the reprint, hence, as Buxbaum proffered, since there was no practical process for identifying which was which, the reprints should be considered the same as the original and valued accordingly, recognizing there might actually be a year or more between the original and the reprint.
One glowing example of an additional “production run/reprint” that is obviously “different” than the original is the April 1905 wine colored cover issue.
This Philippine issue is considered by many to be the singular issue that began the rise of popularity to the National Geographic Magazine propelling the NGS membership from a couple of thousand to well over 10,000 members in just one year.
The NGS conducted additional production runs of this issue in an attempt to keep up with the burgeoning demand, but they ran short of the tan stock paper used for the style of cover they were printing in 1905.
NGS did have old stock paper of the 1903 style and used to it for the new production run(s). How many of the tan versus the wine color issues were printed is anyone’s guess. I have never seen or heard of an accounting as such.
Besides the obvious difference of the covers between the original tan issue and the subsequent wine colored production run, there are other identifiable differences – and then arises a confusing mixture with the 1964 bound reprint issue (which was copied from a complete set of original issues – supposedly).
Wine Cover:
2nd ad page from the front cover has a Judd & Detwieler, Inc. ad page
The inside of the back cover has 3 ads: Byron S. Adams printer; Henry Romeikes et.al.; Gatchel & Manning
The outside of the back cover has 2 ads: The Washington Loan and Trust Co.; The New Fall Hats for Men
The Original Tan Cover:
2nd ad page from the front cover has a “Complete Card Index et.al.
The inside of the back cover has 3 ads: Gatchel & Manning; Back (NG) Volumes for Sale; Henry Romeikes et. al.
The outside of the back cover has 2 ads: Shirts to Order; Special Maps Published by NGS
Now the Bound Reprint copy of 1964:
Ironically, this tan colored reprint has the wine production version of the 2nd ad page.
I began to wonder if the NGS used this wine colored version in its 1964 reproduction run (and used the tan paper for its reprints), just like, as Buxbaum was able to prove with minute detail, the 1922 reprints of Volume I, No’s 2 & 4, were used instead of the originals.
Then I discovered the inside and outside of the back cover was that of the original tan issue.
As this reprint is inconsistent with either my original tan issue or my wine colored issue, does this mean there were additional production runs using the tan stock paper with slightly different covers and ads prior to the wine colored stock paper being used (perhaps for more than one production run also) and one of “those” runs was used for the 1964 reprints?
Most likely…
Tags:
Mel,
Thanks for your research. Interesting note on the reprint. My April 1905 is an original and matches your tan description perfectly.
Tom
Thanks Tom!
As few of us will ever have first hand observation of more than just a handful of the older issues, confirmation by other collectors is critical to any such discussion.
I need to re-glance at my wine-colored April 1905 and see that it jives w/ your parameters. I only have the 1964 reprint April '05 otherwise. Do you think there's a variance between the loose 1964 reprint copy and the bound '64 reprint copy too?
Zut alors! if so ~ et tu, Brutus?
~Scott
Scott,
One would think the loose and bound 1964 reprints would be the same, but since I do not have a set of loose reprints other than the red brick issues I cannot make the comparison and, as we have all discovered at one time or another with NGS publications, what one assumes as absolute is often proven wrong, or at least inaccurate in some way.
Mel
© 2024 Created by Cathy Hunter. Powered by