1964 Reprint numbers - National Geographic's Collectors Corner2024-03-29T13:42:23Zhttps://ngscollectors.ning.com/forum/topics/1964-reprint-numbers?commentId=1029239%3AComment%3A104958&x=1&feed=yes&xn_auth=noWOW, Thank You SO Much. It do…tag:ngscollectors.ning.com,2015-03-21:1029239:Comment:1049582015-03-21T15:18:23.497ZMike Oliphanthttps://ngscollectors.ning.com/profile/MikeOliphant436
<p>WOW, Thank You SO Much. It dose also confirm what I have said so many times about 1898 to 1905 being much tougher to find than given credit. Keep the knowledge growing. Mike O </p>
<p>WOW, Thank You SO Much. It dose also confirm what I have said so many times about 1898 to 1905 being much tougher to find than given credit. Keep the knowledge growing. Mike O </p> Sure!tag:ngscollectors.ning.com,2015-03-10:1029239:Comment:1039742015-03-10T16:35:52.915ZJeffry Personshttps://ngscollectors.ning.com/profile/JeffryPersons
<p>Sure!</p>
<p>Sure!</p> Jeff,
May I use my response a…tag:ngscollectors.ning.com,2015-03-10:1029239:Comment:1038852015-03-10T03:25:29.825ZMelvin L. De Vilbisshttps://ngscollectors.ning.com/profile/MelvinLDeVilbiss
<p>Jeff,</p>
<p>May I use my response above and credit you and your letter on NGS letterhead in a revision of my reprint guide?</p>
<p>Mel</p>
<p>Jeff,</p>
<p>May I use my response above and credit you and your letter on NGS letterhead in a revision of my reprint guide?</p>
<p>Mel</p> Jeff,
An absolutely amazing f…tag:ngscollectors.ning.com,2015-03-10:1029239:Comment:1038822015-03-10T03:21:08.303ZMelvin L. De Vilbisshttps://ngscollectors.ning.com/profile/MelvinLDeVilbiss
<p><font size="3">Jeff,</font></p>
<p><font size="3">An absolutely amazing find – thanks for sharing this with us.</font></p>
<p><font size="3">In Buxbaum’s last edition on page 82 he makes the only reference to quantities published. Of course, he is simply referring to NGS advertising which claims 1,000 loose issues were printed with no accounting of the actual number of bound volumes.</font></p>
<p><font size="3">Until now, this is all I’ve had to go on.</font></p>
<p><font size="3">Here’s…</font></p>
<p><font size="3">Jeff,</font></p>
<p><font size="3">An absolutely amazing find – thanks for sharing this with us.</font></p>
<p><font size="3">In Buxbaum’s last edition on page 82 he makes the only reference to quantities published. Of course, he is simply referring to NGS advertising which claims 1,000 loose issues were printed with no accounting of the actual number of bound volumes.</font></p>
<p><font size="3">Until now, this is all I’ve had to go on.</font></p>
<p><font size="3">Here’s the breakdown (please check my math):</font></p>
<p><b><font size="3">Volume 1 through Volume 7 (1888 – 1897):</font></b></p>
<p><font size="3"> </font> <font size="3">1,400 copies per loose issue per year + 1,600 complete bound volumes per year + 2,000 extra Volume 1, No. 1 loose issues.</font></p>
<p><b><font size="3">Volume 8 through Volume 18 (1898 - 1907):</font></b></p>
<p><font size="3"> </font> <font size="3">500 copies per loose issue per year + 1,500 complete bound volumes per year.</font></p>
<p><font size="3">These facts “INSTANTLY” makes the second ten years of loose reprints nearly 3 times rarer than the first ten years; and the bound copies of complete volumes for the second ten years just slightly more scarce.</font></p>
<p><font size="3">This actually makes sense if you take into consideration there were more individual “original” copies available in the later ten years of the reprints than the first ten years. If one believes the primary purpose was to assist libraries, and perhaps collectors, at “completing” their collections – this makes perfect sense.</font></p>
<p><font size="3">But then, as I’ve discovered time and again, just when I think I’ve got it figured out – somebody comes up with a letter of provenance on NGS letterhead to change the entire picture.</font></p>
<p><font size="3">Truly, this is quite a revelation you have just provided us.</font></p>
<p><font size="3">Thanks again!</font></p>
<p><font size="3">Mel</font></p>
<p><font size="3">P.S. Who would have thought the 1975 reprint (issued in 1976) of Volume 1, No. 1 would actually be more scarce/rare than the 1964 reprint?</font></p>
<p></p> Jeff,
Wow, never thought I'd…tag:ngscollectors.ning.com,2015-03-09:1029239:Comment:1040462015-03-09T22:10:53.137ZPhilip Rivierehttps://ngscollectors.ning.com/profile/PhilipRiviere
<p>Jeff,</p>
<p>Wow, never thought I'd find out a definite number from the society in both individual reprint issues AND bound volumes. Thanks for sharing...</p>
<p>Phil</p>
<p>Jeff,</p>
<p>Wow, never thought I'd find out a definite number from the society in both individual reprint issues AND bound volumes. Thanks for sharing...</p>
<p>Phil</p> Jeff,
Awesome letter. If I r…tag:ngscollectors.ning.com,2015-03-09:1029239:Comment:1039482015-03-09T15:12:42.135ZGeorge Thomas Wilsonhttps://ngscollectors.ning.com/profile/GeorgeThomasWilson
<p>Jeff,</p>
<p>Awesome letter. If I read it correctly, there seems to be far fewer individual Reprint issues opposed to bound volumes than I originally thought. Thanks again for sharing this find.</p>
<p>Tom</p>
<p>Jeff,</p>
<p>Awesome letter. If I read it correctly, there seems to be far fewer individual Reprint issues opposed to bound volumes than I originally thought. Thanks again for sharing this find.</p>
<p>Tom</p>