Buxbaum proved that the 1922 Reprint of Vol. I, No. 2 was used for the 1964 reproduction run, both individual issues and bound, of the first 18 Volumes.
He speculated both 1922 Reprints (No.’s 2 & 4) were used instead of damaging an original of either of the two rarest magazines in the collection. The issues used were pulled apart, hence damaged, for the reproduction runs.
The proof that the 1922 Reprint of Volume 1, No. 4 was used is on the inside of the front cover.
In the original issue of Vol 1, No. 4 the “Contents” listing is on the back of the front cover. Each listing/subject title, along with authors (complete with Bonafede), and page number is shown with paragraph spacing between each listing.
The Contents listing for the 1922 Reprint is also on the back of the front cover, but its format is dramatically different. Principally, there is no paragraph spacing between listings, essentially creating one paragraph, and the authors are listed by name without their accompanying Bonafede.
The 1964 reprints, both individual and bound issues, mirror the 1922 Reprint format.
My 1922 Reprint has two identical plates of “Upper Castillo – River San Juan” immediately following pg. 326. Both the original and the 1964 Reprints (individual and bound) have only one plate (as it should be).
Nice find, Mel !!!
Both my 1922 and 1964 reprints only have one plate.
I've noted before that my Ashville map is "tipped in" between pages 292 and 293 of my 1922 reprint, but it appears between pages 300 and 301 in my 1964 one.
It's nice to know that the same kinds of collating errors occurred 100 years ago and are still happening now. My copy of the April 2020 issue has two perforated posters, back-to-back, instead of one.
Yours in collecting,
Another possible anomaly - the inside cover of the 1922 reprint of Vol 1 No 4 has the date "May 1889" even though Vol 1 No 3 was dated July 1889. The Complete National Geographic DVD collection identifies Vol 1 No 4 as "October 1889" which would make sense chronologically, but the images used for that issue in the DVD clearly show the date May 1889 on the inside cover. Was this an error which was initially made with the 1922 reprints and then perpetuated in 1964 and apparently also in the DVD collection imagery? Or was the original Vol 1 No 4 actually dated May 1889 out of sequence with Vol 1 No 3?
It was an event (error or intentional) made with the original publication back in 1889. Buxbaum did not speculate as to why, but stated publications with the May date, in the original, were known.
Interesting - thank you! I have seen evidence of other inconsistent datings too, but apparently that was not at all uncommon in the early era of the publication when volumes and numbers were not issued on a regular and predictable basis. I will seek out Dr. Buxbaum's book as well - sounds like a very handy reference to the goings on in early years. Thanks again!