Anyone care to help me figure out if this is an original?

A description (and picture) of the 1971 reprint of the "Ladies' Indispensable Assistant" can be found here: http://www.leonardshoup.com/si/125985.html

The picture of the book is what my copy looks like. The page number of my copy is the same as that reprint & both my copy and that reprint are hard back.

The only difference is that my copy doesn't have the "original insert from The Cookbook Collector's Library by Mary Anne Richards". Nothing in my copy says anything about the Cookbook Collector's Library or Mary Anne Richards. The only copyright date I see is 1852.

If what I own is a reprint, then perhaps the insert fell out? I wonder, was the insert bound to the book, or was it separate? If so, then why in the world didn't they print the proper year on the book itself?

Or, maybe I have an original. Though, despite the green moldy looking stain on the inside cover, it's in pretty good condition. The pages feel like they're only about 40 years old, not over 100 years old - but I'm not an expert on what old pages should feel like lol. Though, they look old -- but I know that the reprint was designed to look old.

Your thoughts & advice are most welcome! Thanks!

Sorry I can't help you, but this book looks like being very interesting. So knowing how to take care of a canary was necessary for the ladies' education?

Amanda,

I think the term "laid in" for the insert means that it was not mechanically attached. The insert would have had all of the information from the 1971 printing. I suppose so that if you don't own the original, you can at least enjoy the illusion.

I collect how-to and advice books from that era, and their age is always obvious. The advice is many times laughable, always interesting as a glimpse into another time, and sometimes still spot-on. I can certainly appreciate having reprints that won't threaten to fall apart while enjoying them.

Thinking a little bit further about it, it doesn't look like what would have been a hardback binding in 1852. A hardback would have had a handsome dark cover. My guess is that the original was softbound, and the reprint publisher transformed it.

If what you have looks just like the picture at the link in #1, it's a reprint (you can tell by the spine, with the modern materials and lettering), not to mention what you note is the modern feel of the paper. Original editions of that book will tend to have foxing since they weren't printed on very good paper (you can see an 1851 edition here). And I agree with 2wonderY in #3, who notes that the binding on the original would have plain cloth (listings I find for 1851 and 1853 editions indicate that they were bound in black or brown embossed cloth, not printed paper).

The picture of the reprint shows what would typically be frontispiece engraving on the left and title page on the right.

see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Book_frontispiece

I've seen reprints of 19th century books bound in softback using those pages as front and back cover.

I'm guessing that the original publisher might have created two versions as well; a handsome bound edition, and another cheaper version sold for pennies. I'll have to go look again at some of my household reference books. Always trying to learn more.

Thanks so much for your thoughts & advice. Yeah, after reading through the comments, I'm pretty sure what I have is a reprint. It's good to know. I inherited this book from my father, who got it from his grandmother -- but I'm betting it's from the 70s. I'll have to leave another insert in that book, so the next person who wonders, won't have to wonder for very long. Unless....my insert falls out. lol

:)

What you have described, the book sounds like it is indeed a copy of the 1970s reprint. The original book might have been issued in any variety of bindings, from black or brown embossed or stamped cloth, (often-times coated to resemble leather) to a variety of colorful cloth-covered bindings. But none of the original 1850s issued books would have had a printed cover similar to the reprint example.

There may have even been a variety of bindings offered, from a inexpensive cloth-covered hardcover binding, to a more expensive leather-bound hardcover binding.

Also, it would be highly unlikely that the original would have a date stamped on the spine. If the book was beening rebound years later, the binder might stamp the date on the spine, but the binder would certainly not have rebound the book in the manner shown.

As for telling the age of the book by its paper, it's hard for anyone to tell for sure from a distance. I've seen 500 year old paper look like it's almost brand new. Paper from the 1850s can be extremely brown, foxed (spotted) and brittle or it can be clean, bright and supple. It all depended on the choices made by the publisher at the time.

During this period, inexpensive processed paper made from non-traditional pulp was becoming available. Some of this paper was susceptible to foxing, some to brittleness, some to both, and some aged quite nicely, with no major defects.

I've handled books where the publisher used different batches of paper in the printing of a single book. The paper may have looked similar when new, but after 100 years, one signature (or gathering) will be brown and brittle, and the next signature will be white and supple.

In the case of your book, as there appears to be no recent date on the title or copyright page, check the final pages for any printing history. Occasionally, the reprinter will use the final page to give the reprint date, publisher name and address, and the printing company used.