Thread Name: Dates on MLs From: John Krygier <jbkrygie@removed> Date: Thu, 05 Jul 2001 10:02:15 -0400 A question for the ML experts: Was there any particular reason that ML did not indicate dates of reprint in ML editions? A bookseller asked me this question - she noted MLs with late 1800s dates on them that were obviously printed in the 1960s as an example (maybe a Hardy title). This is also a problem on eBay were sellers assume the date on the ML is the date of printing ('in great shape for a book printed in 1897!). I am assuming if there were dates on MLs they were there because of copyright. But why not include a date of reprinting (like Everyman's Library)? ------------------------------------- From: Printmat@removed> Date: Fri, 6 Jul 2001 08:05:39 EDT I've always made the assumption that it was for reasons of economy, and that as a reprint house, like Grosset & Dunlap, ML's publishers didn't see a need to keep a running tab of printings on the copyright page. The lack of a subsequent printing indicator is, or was, a fairly widespread practice; Doubleday also comes to mind. ------------------------------------- From: "Gordon Neavill" <aa3401@removed> Date: Fri, 6 Jul 2001 11:32:04 -0400 No special reason. Copyright dates are supposed to be printed on copyrighted books and usually appear on the verso of the title page. Sometimes the copyright date refers to the original American publisher's copyright, sometimes to introductions or other matter original to the ML edition. Until recently most publishers (with a few exceptions) didn't bother to date each printing. I guess they figured book buyers weren't interested in such information. They obviously didn't foresee the rise of ML collecting. -------------------------------------