More comments on Mike Goodall’s 1906 Thirteenth Edition of “Bridge,” by Professor Hoffmann (and perhaps on a new aspect of Goodall’s use of the term “edition”) and a few other notes on other “editions” of “Bridge” . . .

The following is an image of the title page of the example of the Thirteenth Edition of Bridge, by Professor Hoffmann, 1906, discussed in an earlier post.  This was sent to me by Mike Goodall, in whose collection the booklet rests:

bridge booklet (red cover) Mike Goodall cropped 1 19

That title page (a little at the bottom is not shown) plainly shows February, 1906.

Now, have a gander at the following image, which is from an example of the “Thirteenth Edition” in my own collection.  It shows November, 1905.  The text ends on page 57:

Bridge 13 1 18 13 cropped

Although it is difficult to discern in the above image, there is a rule (a line) above the “edition information,” and a rule below it as well — just as in Mike’s example.  Here is a better picture of the rules:

Bridge 13 1 18 13 cropped more

In adjusting the image, I brought out some of the decoration on the verso of the title page, and even a ghostly image of information on the contents page that follows.

Now, all of this should be quite confusing.  It is to me.  It is especially so, when one considers the differences relating to the word “Baccarat” discussed in an earlier post.

I’m not sure what page the text ends on in Mike’s copy.

I also have an Eleventh Edition, March, 1905, with the last page of text on page 57.

Obviously, that is before the Thirteenth Edition.

After the Thirteenth Edition, I have an Eighteenth Edition, 1909, in which the last page of text is page 52.

I have a Twenty-Fourth Edition, 1913, with the last page of text on page 52.

I also have quite a few other copies of Bridge, which I have not looked at in connection with this post, but I hope in the future to discuss them in some detail.

There are so many potential explanations for Goodall having two dates in “one” edition that I hesitate to even mention any.  The easiest explanation might simply be that Goodall “should” have changed the “Thirteenth Edition” to “Fourteenth Edition.”

But long before now, most of us have probably concluded that Goodall’s “edition” terminology was “personal” to Goodall and did not do much more than indicate the general chronology of printings.  (The confusing situation on Goodall’s various “editions” of The Royal Game of Bezique comes to  mind.)

—Tom Sawyer

Saturday, January 19, 2013

About 371 words.

Advertisements
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.