Re: Beware of Carbon Book.

John wrote:

> I was scanning the book section on E-Bay and there is what appears to
> be a incredible book being offered on Carbon Printing. The book has
> been altered as the original has over 260 pages plus numerous
> advertisements...The cover is also different from the original.. This
> copy only has 216 pages and a very important part is missing . I
> believe it is the entire section on Swans methods of Carbon
> printing............. This asshole that is selling this book knows the
> portion is missing and he still claims it is complete. I know this
> because I had purchased another copy of the book from him a year or so
> ago and he would not refund the moneys saying as far as he is
> concerned it is complete.

Actually, before you get your knickers twisted too tightly, he's probably
right. I own two copies of Marton, and one is just as you describe -- 213
pages, without Part V, "The Appendix." Interestingly, this volume shows
Part V in the table of contents, but that part of the table of contents was
covered with a pasted-on cover sheet right from the publisher. I assure
you, the book was originally made without Part V and with that part of the
table of contents covered with a cover sheet -- it has not been altered.
So the "asshole" probably just has one of these. I have, for a decade,
been pointing this out to prospective purchasers of Marton, because Part V
is easily half the value of the book to a modern practitioner. I've also
sent a number of copies of Part V to people who have the short book. In my
experience, the short version is much more common than the long one.

Why these shortened books exist is the question. Obviously, the longer
version came first, because all copies [at least, all that I've seen] have
a complete table of contents (in the short version, hiding behind a
pasted-on cover sheet). Did Swan or one of the other people featured in
Part V complain or sue? Or was there just little interest in rolling your
own tissue in the early 1900s, because factory tissue was plentiful?

Best regards,

etienne
Received on Thu May 6 20:56:22 2004