ModLib Archive Messages containing "ISBN"

     
  4 Threads found:

Thread Name: A bit about ISBN numbers (was Re: Minor Marx variant)

From: Scot Kamins <kamins@removed>
Date: Sun, 23 Jul 2006 10:21:06 -0700

From the usually unreliable but occasionally enlightening WIKIPEDIA:

"The International Standard Book Number, or ISBN (sometimes pronounced "is-ben"), is a unique[1] identifier for books, intended to be used commercially. The ISBN system was created in the United Kingdom in 1966 by the booksellers and stationers W H Smith and originally called Standard Book Numbering or SBN (still used in 1974). It was adopted as international standard ISO 2108 in 1970. A similar identifier, the International Standard Serial Number (ISSN), is used for periodical publications such as magazines. From 1 January 2007, ISBNs will be 13 digits long"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ISBN


-------------------------------------


From: J B Krygier <jbkrygier@removed>
Date: Sun, 23 Jul 2006 14:31:43 -0400

The very prestigious journal Nature did an accuracy assessment of Wikipedia and Encyclopedia Britannica entries and the results... relatively close in accuracy, considering the EB is written by paid professionals & experts: "In order to test its reliability, Nature conducted a peer review of scientific entries on Wikipedia and the well-established Encyclopedia Britannica.

The reviewers were asked to check for errors, but were not told about the source of the information.

"Only eight serious errors, such as misinterpretations of important concepts, were detected in the pairs of articles reviewed, four from each encyclopedia," reported Nature.

"But reviewers also found many factual errors, omissions or misleading statements: 162 and 123 in Wikipedia and Britannica, respectively."

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/4530930.stm


-------------------------------------


From: Scot Kamins <kamins@removed>
Date: Sun, 23 Jul 2006 11:58:24 -0700

The reliability of the Nature study has been called into question, as has the reliability of the Britannica itself.

The lack of reliability of Wikipedia was the main reason that Wikipedia cofounder Larry Sanger abandoned the project and went off to join the Digital Universe project (http://www.dufoundation.org/ project.php).


-------------------------------------
-------------------------------------

Thread Name: ML ISBNs

From: "John Wolansky" <jwol@removed>
Date: Sun, 23 Jul 2006 13:22:52 -0400

At a glance, I have the following with ISBN's:

76 Education of Henry Adams, blank endpapers 73 Famous Ghost Stores, two copies with the same markers as the Trial mentioned earlier 68 Women in Love, Lawrence w/blank endpapers 50 Chekhov's Short Stories w/blank 28 Madame Bovary w Fuhita 15 Painted Bird w/blank endpapers.

And a half dozen more on another shelf! Later, maybe.

Is it possible a first ML printing from 1970 could have an ISBN?


-------------------------------------


From: J B Krygier <jbkrygier@removed>
Date: Mon, 24 Jul 2006 10:12:40 -0400

There were only 5 new ML titles in 1970, so I pulled out my copies to check for ISBNs:

Styron: Confessions of Nat Turner (FMLED Feb 1970): two copies, no ISBNs on either DJ. Vidal: Julian (FMLED Feb 1970): no ISBN on DJ back. Camus: Notebooks 1942-1951 (FMLED Sept 1970): two copies, no ISBNs on either DJ. Kosinski: Painted Bird (FMLED Sept 1970): no ISBN on DJ back.

I don't have the Auden 2nd ed to check.

Short of knowing if the Auden 1st DJ has a ISBN, it seems as if no true FMLED DJ will have an ISBN number, and any DJ with an ISBN indicates a subsequent, post 1970 printing.

Interesting that John W. has a Kosinski with an ISBN - that indicates a second printing of that title.

One comment on ISBNs: in a quick internet search, I have seen both 1970 and 1972 indicated as the first time the standard was used in the US. Individual publishers probably adopted it at different times. I have no idea when Random House did.


-------------------------------------


From: Darrell Johnson <zebradlj@removed>
Date: Mon, 24 Jul 2006 08:23:21 -0700 (PDT)

Random House is already listing the longer ISBN #'s for all of their current books. For anything that was already in existance the longer number simply adds3 digits in front of the previous number and alters the last digit to a new number. Their web-site lists both numbers for each title it has a page for.

On a similar topic: Some books have Library of Congress Numbers and others do not. The impression I have is that titles newly produced after a certain point in time seem to have them while older titles never got them even if they remained active until 1970. Is this correct? Can the appearance, or lack there of, of the Library of Congress Number help pin down the printing dates for any titles? Or is this bit of information always useless?


-------------------------------------


From: "John Wolansky" <jwol@removed>
Date: Mon, 24 Jul 2006 12:23:51 -0400

Both my Auden books, 160.2, have an ISBN #. &^*%$!

Can anyone confirm a 160.2, stated second edition, without an ISBN?

You picky people are costing me first ML editions!


-------------------------------------


From: J B Krygier <jbkrygier@removed>
Date: Tue, 25 Jul 2006 08:04:29 -0400

A collector's work is never done...


-------------------------------------


From: "JOSEPH HILL" <goodbooks@removed>
Date: Mon, 25 Jul 2006 17:01:30 GMT

Dats what I said! Only make it 160.3, in case anyone is just reading this stuff for the first time else, they sure will be confused.


-------------------------------------


From: "JOSEPH HILL" <goodbooks@removed>
Date: Mon, 24 Jul 2006 16:45:52 GMT

As so few 2nd Editions of Auden are known to exist, I doubt we have a 2nd lacking an ISBN. I also think that the Painted Bird with a ISBN is a rare bird indeed.


-------------------------------------


From: "JOSEPH HILL" <goodbooks@removed>
Date: Mon, 24 Jul 2006 17:01:30 GMT

I am sure you mean,160.3


-------------------------------------


From: "John Wolansky" <jwol@removed>
Date: Mon, 24 Jul 2006 15:58:03 -0400

Correcto.


-------------------------------------
-------------------------------------

Thread Name: ISBN'S AND GIANTS

From: "John Wolansky" <jwol@removed>
Date: Tue, 25 Jul 2006 14:50:20 -0400

I guess I am a glutton for punishment. For the record, neither my English Romantic Poets, 101.1 nor my Between Hume and Mills, 102.1. have ISBN numbers.

I did notice an ISBN on a copy of Plutarch's Lives, and Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire. I suspect there are, as Scott pointed out, many more.


-------------------------------------


From: "JOSEPH HILL" <goodbooks@removed>
Date: Tue, 25 Jul 2006 23:12:46 GMT

My copy of 101.1 has no number 102.1 lists only the Library of Congress number.


-------------------------------------
-------------------------------------

Thread Name: ISBN in 101.1 English Romantic Poets

From: J B Krygier <jbkrygier@removed>
Date: Tue, 25 Jul 2006 21:26:24 -0400

I guess this is fitting, as I raised the confounded ISBN issue:

my copy of 101.1 English Romantic Poets DOES have an ISBN number, blank endpapers, $4.95 price. Does this mean there were two printings of this tough-to-find Giant?


-------------------------------------


From: "Bill DiBenedetto" <billdi@removed>
Date: Tue, 25 Jul 2006 19:03:15 -0700

My copy of 101.1 does not have an ISBN number. It is a stated FMLE, February 1970; $4.95 price; blank endpapers.


-------------------------------------


From: "JOSEPH HILL" <goodbooks@removed>
Date: Wed, 26 Jul 2006 04:23:50 GMT

Well, what are you going to call it now, 101.2? If that be the case, I am now lacking one more variant in my collection, and I don't fancy finding a copy. A late Gibbon set I can live without but this be a different matter.


-------------------------------------


From: Scot Kamins <kamins@removed>
Date: Tue, 25 Jul 2006 21:30:55 -0700

What? A new variation for an ISBN number??? I don't THINK so. :-D


-------------------------------------


From: Gordon Neavill <aa3401@removed>
Date: Wed, 26 Jul 2006 08:33:19 -0400 (EDT)

Assuming that the ISBN appears on the back panel of the jacket it means for sure that there were two printings of the jacket. It doesn't necessarily mean there were two printings of the book.

The first printing was probably 5,000 copies. Prior to publication, Random House calculated that it would have to sell two Giant printings of 5,000 copies each and two printings (8,500 and 5,000 copies) of a 2-volume Vintage paperback edition to recover the plant costs (typsetting, dies for the binding, jacket design, etc.) I've never seen any evidence of a Vintage paperback edition, but the jacket with the ISBN suggests there may have been a second printing of the Giant. If so, I wouldn't be surprised to see remainder marks stamped on some of the copies of the second printing.


-------------------------------------


From: Ron Holl <modlib@removed>
Date: Wed, 26 Jul 2006 10:45:16 -0400

At most, these discoveries will result in a new indication for the existing title within the Guide. For example, the 101.1 would get an indicator for a non-first in addition to the first. But as Barry points out we don't necessarily know there was an additional printing, and it really is the DJ that makes it a first or not first, in the absense of some indication in the book/binding or RH records. (Has anyone verified that the first indication is present in the book along with the ISBN labeled DJ?)

Although these second printing DJ's point to a possible additional printing, in my opinion something like the Ouida first printing pages in a different binding is a more significant variant.

My proposal: We track all titles that only have first edition indicators. When a DJ variation is found that suggests one or more later printings may have occurred, we add an indicator for the non-first column. The comment column gets a note indicating that the first is only identifiable by the DJ.

This would include Bemelmans/My War with the US, Thurber/Carnival, etc. in addition to these ISBN finds. And in no case should the "first no dj" indicator be higher than (or even equal to) the "non first with dj" indicator.


-------------------------------------


From: J B Krygier <jbkrygier@removed>
Date: Wed, 26 Jul 2006 11:31:09 -0400

My ISBN'ed Bewley does not have a remainder mark. The only thing I notice about it is that the black binding is more smooth and glossy than the binding material on other '69-'70 giants I have (and I have only a few).


-------------------------------------
-------------------------------------