Casualties & Medical Statistics - a bibliographical point.

[Dust Jacket Collector]

I’ve just bought another copy of the ‘Casualties & Medical Statistics’ book from the Official History series (it was too cheap to pass up!) and you’ll see from the photo there’s a slight difference between the two copies. The one on the left (ex-RAMC library) says ‘Official Copy’ at the top whereas the other (ex-MOD) doesn’t. I’m not aware that this was a restricted volume, in the manner of the Rhineland & Persian works. 1500 copies seem to have been printed. Have any other collectors of the Official History come across this? None of my other volumes of the Medical Services seem to be so labelled.

[johntaylor]

Hi, I've just had a look at the facsimile editions published by Naval & Military Press - Volumes III and IV have the Official Copy heading, but this is missing from the other volumes (including Casualties and Medical Statistics).

 

John

 

[Guest]

There is nothing sinister in  one copy being headed "Official Copy".  It is not restricted or confidential-  It just means that the Official Copy was printed off  to be supplied for "the public service"- in this case, DDMS of Western Command who appear to have got the book on publication. It means that copies were run off without the tedium of having to order it as a book and have a series of monetary and accounting rules to get through-pointless if the "author" was the same as the end-user for the volume-ie the army. (Here the anecdote printed by Max Hastings in the Oxford Book..  is germane-where he prints all the exchanges needed to procure compasses for use by CIGS)

 

    It does raise a moot point - You say the print run was 1500. But does this mean 1500 for public sale, as per the title-page or  1500 inclusive of those taken for the public service?   My experience of earlier publications is that the official print-runs for book publications through HMSO are meaningless. For instance, the great Victorian series of white elephants done through HMSO- the Calendars of State Papers and the Rolls Series are obviously far more plentiful than the notional print-run figures.  A further complication is that as well as the "official" print-run, there was the capacity to hold sheet stock as well. Whether this was included in the "official" print-run figures or not is anyone's guess.

    It seems to me that in any print-run above,say,200, then sheet stock would be likely kept rather than to bind up everything at one go.  Thus, as a consequence and from the collecting point of view, there are 2 further complications-1) That there may be small variations in bindings as the sheet stock is bound up in batches   2)  A non-used sheet stock may be quietly junked (at minimum cost-the cost of "run-on" sheet stock after the work has been typeset is minimal-and certainly only a fraction of the binding costs if everything was done up front)

    HMSO does junk a lot of some publications across the years- I have had a chap turn up with a lorry load of new HMSO publication (Not end of bin or remaindered) on their way to pulp-merely to reduce warehouse space against projected demand based on past sales.  A good example of the caveats to be borne in mind  with "print-runs"  is the bibliography of the Hogarth Press, where the print-runs are given but also the numbers sent for pulp by Len and Ginnie.

    From an issue-point view of book collecting, the only real questions to ask are-is the any "variant" between the two(ie binding) and ,if stated, whether the print-run code is the same 

[Dust Jacket Collector]

Thanks. The print-run code is the same for both volumes but the binding differs slightly.

I suspect with many copies of the Official History that they printed far more copies than were eventually bound up. I can’t imagine that there would have been 1500 takers for this particular work. As John has shown above the ‘Official’ designation doesn’t seem to mean much. They must have printed the title page twice. Oddly if any copy was going to be described as ‘Official’ you’d think it would be the MOD copy.

(I have several books that originally came from various Government libraries. Have they retained nothing! I despair).

[Guest]

2 hours ago, Dust Jacket Collector said:

Have they retained nothing! I despair).

 

   It was a horror story.  The government reference set of parliamentary papers, that held by the Board of Trade, ended up with a Japanese zoo, who reputedly bought it for c.£750,000 from a North London bookseller   (I have one of the index volumes for the set- the govt. handily sent out samples to potential bidders c.1979- mine was bought from a potential bidder whose bid was so low when they were the only bidder anyway- £3000 - that even the Civil Servants in charge of the sale realised that it was a rip-off). The Foreign and Commonwealth Office (ie the old libraries of both those departments) were sold off at first (apart from several thousand bags of books put in the bags used for disposal of confidential disposal of waste paper- There were so many brown bags when I saw some of  the stuff  just south of the river (1994?)  that it looked like a potato wholesaler's wet-dream. Most of the retained library was deposited with Kings College, London- at least the valuable pamphlet collection was digitised on JSTOR.  The War Office almost went the same way-  chunks were sold by MOD but the navy objected and wanted all their stuff back again. The MOD obligingly had a discard stamp made that was squaddie-proof- it was made the same size as an office ink-pad so that even the average squaddie couldn't get it wrong.  Thus, a nice book that had survived,say, for a century was disfigured by an enormous discard stamp. Aesthetically, about as charming as a large cow-pat on the Mona Lisa.  After that, the Govt. took a bit more care and the rarer stuff went into charitable trusts. The Board of Education Library was sold off to an East Anglian bookseller but a very large residue of stuff deemed worthless (ie everything you or I would find interesting!1) went to the University of London Institute of Education-even they bungled the sale of what they didn't want by asking too much per unit-£5 a pop-so it was effectively junked). An important collection of early books on education, assembled with public monies in the mid-19th for an International Exhibition was sold off by tender- it had sat in a cupboard unloved,unused and unknown for over a century. 

   There was still at least one other collection of nice materials tucked away - an important grouping of 19th Century pamphlets  assembled by a leading social reformer of the time.  I have no idea what has happened to that. The Foreign Office discovered a small cache of early books about 10-15 years ago but that went to BL- and there was some good publicity for a change.

    None of my erstwhile colleagues to my knowledge acted dishonestly-but they were  strongly those who operated  by the business ethics propounded by the late ,great W.C.Fields -"Never Give a Sucker an Even Break".  But at least the incompetent civil servants involved- there was as a small team of the same civil servants whose job it was to downsize libraries- well, all they had at the end of it was their OBEs.etc and a fire-proof index-linked pension. It's a hard life. I am not allowed  because of the bar on political matters on GWF to say under which Prime Minister all of this too place but suffice it to say that things were different before 1979 and  the out-of-the back-door system seem to have stopped c.1997. No names,no pack drill.

     By the way, before Mrs Handbag, books used for the public service were returned to HMSO to be got rid of-when it was based at Atlantic House, close to Holborn Viaduct. It was conveniently close to the old (and much-missed) Farringdon Road bookstalls- and dear George used to get books from there quite regularly- always, for some reason, in traditional cloth sacks. There was a special unit at Atlantic House to get rid of books from the public sector- it was one elderly civil servant called Manny Goldman.  The  body was officially called the Stationery Office Disposal Unit which gave rise to one of the undisputed great acronyms of all time -  SODU 

    

   

Edited 19 February , 2021 by Guest

[Dust Jacket Collector]

Thanks again. I’ve just noticed in my latest copy a correction slip altering a couple of figures. There are no other changes elsewhere in the book. These look to be official alterations which presumably never made it through to a corrected printing.

[Guest]

Shows how much it was read at the time.  Suggests that the "Official use" copies may have been run off before a final proof-read.  Are those items corrected in the other edition?

[Dust Jacket Collector]

No. The change slip is dated 1932 whereas the book was printed in the previous year. I imagine the slip was inserted in any stock still remaining but has long since vanished from most copies. I don’t have the modern reprint but I think they’re just photocopied from the originals.