The July 1907 map supplement tipped into the magazine had two versions.
The first had the information posted in the top right margin stating this was a supplement for the July 1907 issue.
The second was void of this information.
I have one of each, in original issues.
I confirmed the reprint version was of the issue with the margin information included by checking my bound 1964 copies.
I was investigating this for a purchase knowing that the word "reprint" is stamped on most, but not all, map supplements for the entire run of the 1964 reprints.
The July 1907 issue with the map supplement of the polar regions was one supplement that does NOT include the word reprint. I was trying to determine any other way of differentiating an original with a reprint and thought I had it when I discovered my original did not have the margin info, until I decided to look at my second original and - there it was (with the margin info).
My first original was void of this info.
Both maps were securely tipped into their original issues.
Hence, two original versions.
This is a neat find, Mel !!!
Since the number of issues back in the day were smaller than it was at peak popularity (or even today), I am truly surprised that there were two production runs of the original map.
Is there any way you could provide visual documentation of the map variation?
Yours in collecting,
Going away on a last minute trip to be with my ailing father in OK.
Perhaps when I get back I can take clearer pictures of all three, original with/without and reprint with (note that both the bound and loose reprints are always exactly the same).
It was a fluke of luck that I stumbled on this and it is yet another reminder that "just when you think you got it figured out, the NGS throws in a boner!"\
I have a theory about this, but I'll have to get back to you. :-)
In great "anticipation" - I think there was a song by that title...
Actually my theory got turned around once I located the book I was seeking in my holdings. So here is a 1909 book published by Frederick A. Stokes Co., "The North Pole" by Robert E. Peary. It came with an glued-in map in on the back cover board . . . the same 1907 map included with the July 1907 issue of NGM! Perhaps not coincidentally, the books' lengthy Foreword is by Gilbert Hovey Grosvenor.
We know that Grosvenor and the NGS cultivated close ties with other entities, namely government agencies in the early decades. This led to most or all the maps and map supplements of pre-1915, which was the year the Society inaugurated it's own Cartographic Division.
So my theory about your one copy void of NGM issue info. was that NGM was using surplus old stock of Arctic maps produced by some other agency, and then when they ran out, the balance of copies were printed with the "supplement to July 1097 issue of National Geographic Magazine" line.
Well, since this book "The North Pole" is dated 1909, my theory does not work. And to top it off, the map included does have "supplement to July 1907 NGM" printed on it, so ha-ha! Turns out NGM was sharing it's excess copies with a favored collaborator eh.
A little off topic here, but when you posted this photo, I had to rummage through my collection to find this little item:
In your "Outside Looking In" Group I have a list of items in my possession published by outside sources about the National Geographic Society entitled "How Others See Us". In it there is listed a serial which ran in the Hampton's Magazine from January through September 1910 written by Adm. Peary entitled "The Discovery of the North Pole". I was able to find this hardbound compilation of that nine-part series, killing nine birds with one stone, so to speak.
Yours in collecting,
neat find, thanks for showing me Tom
What is your theory on this map supplement?
Stephen, see my above reply to Mel. Thanks!
Maybe the map without the information on the top right margin was a later printing meant to be sold as a sales version. Sales versions of National Geographic map supplements tended to omit that information.
The newsstand version of the magazine is a recent addition to the publication. I can't remember the year, but either Mel or Scott could let you know when. Definitely not back in 1907, though.