Strangely interesting

Collapse
X
 
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts
  • 5MadFarmers
    Senior Member
    • Nov 2009
    • 2815

    #46
    Originally posted by Dick Hosmer
    Are you still planning to follow through on your previously stated idea of actually becoming an actual publisher?
    For my stuff? Yes. For anything else? No way. I can imagine what a disaster that would be. When you mentioned that it'd be trivial for me to find the stuff for a German breakfast around here I chuckled. I often don't remember to eat. I'd probably starve to death if it wasn't for the other half. The reason I take a couple of weeks to mail books? That takes the "can do routine tasks" gene. That thing is nowhere to be found in my DNA. If I wasn't married I'd be hopeless. A German breakfast is when I paddled out of my room and there was food down in the public area. Kind of hard not to notice as you needed to walk around the tables. Grab a plate and walk along the line and make something. If it wasn't in front of me I'd not remember to wander to where it was.

    That hard drive I mentioned in the book? It's still sitting here on the floor. I will finally get that cleaned up now just by being home.

    To be a publisher I'd need somebody to be able to do the routine stuff. Which would mean the other half. She has a job. The reason she doesn't like me selling anything? She'd be the one doing it. She's a particularly smart girl. She ain't buying in to that. So she'd like me to put the stuff I work on out for her own reasons. Which is likely the main reason why I'll do it. But she does know that if anything routine is involved she'll have to do it.

    That disaster would be epic. That I have zero doubt on.

    I'm pretty sure the reason I don't put my book up for sale on eBay is I know people might order it and that'd cause me to have to mail them. Easier to lie low. In the end I'll give them to the kid and he can sell them. He has that gene. So I'm pretty sure I know how it'll go with the following ones. Except the fiction ones. Those are different.

    ====

    "Vanity Press." A term invented by the publishers to tar books. The logic is pretty clear. I noted you used that term. I've noted others using it. Care to see my take?

    1) Option 1. Have an established publisher do the work on your book. They then take the bulk of the profit. So in this scenario you're doing the hard work on generating the content and they do the easy work of putting it out there. Yet they get the money. What do you get? "The ego stroke of having your book published by a big publisher."
    2) Option 2. Do it yourself. Use the "Vanity Press." Except you get the profits.

    Which sounds like more vanity? I'll go with #1. I'm firmly convinced the large publishing houses created that term for their own selfish reasons.

    The publishing market has changed. The large publishing houses no longer have that power. Similar to the record companies in so many ways. Today you have the ability to do what they used to control - get it out there. It's different in many ways but effectively it isn't. The "print houses" have access to Amazon, Barnes & Noble, etc., I could have used the print house I utilized for the book and gone a different route. I elected not to. For my own reasons. For the fiction books I will. For the reasons specific to them.

    Firstly, the market is now e-books. So you create your book. They have all the tools to help. They'll even get it edited if you'd like. I obviously skipped that step. It was intentional. Regardless, once your book is done you upload it. Then it goes out there as an e-book. On all the usual sites. Each takes a cut for those sold. If people want printed copies they can buy them. "Print on demand." "Just in time manufacturing" right? Order a dead tree edition and they print it and mail it. Author doesn't need to do anything.

    So what exactly does a publishing house, in the old sense, provide? Pretty much nothing that isn't available via the new. The only thing that is different is you pay the costs up front. Which is fine because you get the profits.

    Take a look:

    https://www.bookbaby.com/

    Comment

    • Dick Hosmer
      Very Senior Member - OFC
      • Aug 2009
      • 5993

      #47
      I've set up with CreateSpace, an affiliate of Amazon. For reasons I cannot divulge (but it wasn't lack of quality) NCP declined my second book. I was bitter at first, but have gotten over it.

      You are correct, the entire publishing process has (due to modern electronic capabilities) changed from night to day, and been turned completely inside-out.

      "Vanity press" was, I believe, originally intended as a derisive term for works which were so bad (or controversial) that no established firm would touch them, hence, the author had to pay for everything himself up front, or never see his name on a spine.

      Of course, some truly appalling crap gets published under the new system. Had a consignor in our antique store who fancied himself a spinner of tales, and his work, self-published through LuLu, was the worst kind of middle-school drivel imaginable. Terrible dialog, bad spelling, sloppy layout, the whole banana - but, he's an "author" now.

      Comment

      • Dick Hosmer
        Very Senior Member - OFC
        • Aug 2009
        • 5993

        #48
        Originally posted by Dick Hosmer
        Oh come on, a joke's a joke ferhevvinsake. I've asked Al Frasca for his input on the numbering machine.
        And here is his answer, for the trapdoor period - so - I would ASSUME a similar process was utlized for the Krag:

        "The numbering system was automatically advanced using a machine with the numbers on a rolling index system. The numbers are very uniformly stamped and all nicely aligned and erect. Remember, one man stamped all the receivers and he had to keep about 1500 receivers ahead of production. He stamped for about a half a month to maintain the quota. Watch carefully at the fonts used. When one set of fonts were retired, another complete (and different) set replaced them. During the 1881 and 1882 period, the star was inserted at the end of the sequence and could be used or removed as needed to keep tract of the rebuilt National Guard guns. Looking through the list of employees in the Milling Shop and their duties for each month, there does not seem to be any one person singled out to do the stamping. Only C.O. Wood clearly specified stamping receivers in the 1881 and 1882 periods."

        Comment

        • 5MadFarmers
          Senior Member
          • Nov 2009
          • 2815

          #49
          Originally posted by Dick Hosmer
          And here is his answer, for the trapdoor period - so - I would ASSUME a similar process was utlized for the Krag:
          Evolutionary change. Slowly at that. So yes, I'd be surprised if it was radically different in the era of the '03 even.

          Originally posted by Dick Hosmer
          "The numbering system was automatically advanced using a machine with the numbers on a rolling index system. The numbers are very uniformly stamped and all nicely aligned and erect. Remember, one man stamped all the receivers and he had to keep about 1500 receivers ahead of production. He stamped for about a half a month to maintain the quota. Watch carefully at the fonts used. When one set of fonts were retired, another complete (and different) set replaced them. During the 1881 and 1882 period, the star was inserted at the end of the sequence and could be used or removed as needed to keep tract of the rebuilt National Guard guns. Looking through the list of employees in the Milling Shop and their duties for each month, there does not seem to be any one person singled out to do the stamping. Only C.O. Wood clearly specified stamping receivers in the 1881 and 1882 periods."
          1500 ahead. They appear to have gotten greatly ahead on the 1894s. If the receivers were, as the 1898/1899 overlap tends to indicate, serialized before the model marking was added it's possible that thing should be 1895. That just doesn't seem likely though. Why bother messing with the year marking at all at that point? They all get banged the same. With the 1898/1899 thing they have to change it but not for the 1894 or 1895.

          24045 - 1895
          24060 - 1895
          24106 - 1895
          24110 - 1895
          24267 - 1895
          24301 - 1895
          24398 - 1895
          24401 - 1895
          24434 - 1895
          24441 - 1895
          24553 - 1895
          24597 - 1895
          24685 - 1895


          Range seems strangely absent of them. Maybe they hung them on the wall as a reminder not to get ahead but missed that one.

          Comment

          • 5MadFarmers
            Senior Member
            • Nov 2009
            • 2815

            #50
            I remembered correctly.



            Interestingly strange gun.

            Comment

            • Dick Hosmer
              Very Senior Member - OFC
              • Aug 2009
              • 5993

              #51
              Guess I'm wearing my really stupid hat again today, but what do you find remarkable? And, what model(s) are included in the list of dates and numbers? If they indicate early carbines lower than mine - "records are made to be broken".

              Comment

              • 5MadFarmers
                Senior Member
                • Nov 2009
                • 2815

                #52
                Originally posted by Dick Hosmer
                Guess I'm wearing my really stupid hat again today, but what do you find remarkable? And, what model(s) are included in the list of dates and numbers? If they indicate early carbines lower than mine - "records are made to be broken".
                The thread was about that interesting "1894" marked receiver. I own a receiver 600 in serial lower than that - it's in the picture. So I'm still trying to tell is that's a mis-strike or there truly is overlap. Thus far every serial I've encountered between my lowest 1895 and that 1894 is an 1895. Not a single 1894 in that gap. Presumably if it was an overlap 1/2 would be 1894. Just not seeing them. I don't know that they're not out there but I'm not seeing them. So I'm going to keep looking.

                When I took 24597 or whatever the serial is, I'd have to go look, I listed that as the lowest gun I was comfortable was a carbine. Then that thing at Julia appeared. I looked at it at the time and passed.

                "Some parts are altered to conform to changes found in later models"

                So, no, you're not missing anything that the pictures wouldn't make stark. The barrel end is turned down. Kind of hard to mount a bayonet on a gun with a carbine stock. Ergo that stock and barrel do not really belong together. Ergo somebody put them together at some point. Who? When? I have no idea. I didn't bid on it though as I didn't like it.

                So that one is in carbine format but I'm not comfortable calling it a carbine. I'm sure the new and former owner are but I'm not.

                What do I think I'm seeing? "Lots of guns got turned into school guns. They're carbines now." Not much different from 1898Cs in so many ways. I think they're being assembled. I wonder if I know by who.
                Last edited by 5MadFarmers; 07-06-2016, 09:37.

                Comment

                • madsenshooter
                  Senior Member
                  • Aug 2009
                  • 1476

                  #53
                  Since I've played with a few of them, I know just how easy it would be to set a numbering machine so that it strikes a 4 rather than the 5 you'd planned. (If the machine used was anything like those used in printing). Throw that receiver away? Shoot no. As for the lower number of 24476 who's to say a 96 cadet rifle receiver didn't become a carbine instead of a long rifle at the Armory, or by others. It'd still count as a service rifle in the tally they wanted for the payment due to the patent holder. I found a guy on facebook who adamantly said he had a 94 marked rifle in the 28000 range. I think he just misread it.
                  "I have sworn upon the Altar of God, eternity hostility upon all forms of tyranny over the minds of man." - Thomas Jefferson

                  Comment

                  • jon_norstog
                    Senior Member
                    • Sep 2009
                    • 3896

                    #54
                    Originally posted by 5MadFarmers
                    .......What do I think I'm seeing? "Lots of guns got turned into school guns. They're carbines now." Not much different from 1898Cs in so many ways. I think they're being assembled. I wonder if I know by who.
                    The fakes may be getting better then? If thaT is the case, sooner or later Gresham's Law will take effect.

                    jn

                    Comment

                    Working...