tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24153667.post7961747983097796985..comments2008-07-25T08:13:53.575-05:00Michael John Neillhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00116684507094892060mjnrootdig@gmail.comBlogger1125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24153667.post-88280058821318104312008-07-25T07:54:00.000-05:002008-07-25T07:54:00.000-05:00(Also posted to APG list)<BR/><BR/>Yikes! On internal evidence, this appears to conglomerate the 1843 directory, the 1880 directory (which began with a Steinway promotional booklet -- compare <BR/>the actual 1880 directory filming), and the 1883 directory (per the <BR/>microfilming instructions on the last page) -- or at least, parts thereof. And at least the first couple dozen pages alternate between 1843 and 1880! (As a <BR/>sidelight, I see that the actual 1843 directory in its proper listing is presented out of order, with the title page and introductory matter well back <BR/>in the sequence.) I didn't find evidence of an 1867 element, but at this point it would hardly be surprising.<BR/><BR/>Fully untangling this mess would require a good deal of knowledge and time. But if one could somehow fully describe it before Footnote cleans it up, it would be a priceless if rather extreme example of why we can't treat or cite online and microfilm versions as being transparently the same as the print originals!<BR/><BR/>HaroldHaroldhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12217640113047709249noreply@blogger.com