# Why Series of Numbers in Books?

**URL:** <https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-series-of-numbers-in-books/473483>\
**Category:** Factual Questions\
**Created:** [November 19, 2008, 6:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-series-of-numbers-in-books/473483 "2008-11-19T18:25:54Z")\
**Posts on this page:** 3\
**Page:** 2

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![RealityChuck](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/realitychuck/32/195_2.png) [@RealityChuck](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RealityChuck)\
**Post date:** [November 19, 2008, 8:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-series-of-numbers-in-books/473483/21 "2008-11-19T20:58:13Z")

</div>

> [@masterofnone](#):
>
> Now that the question is answered:  
> Cite? Not that I doubt that you know what you’re talking about, but you can’t possibly mean people still manually set type like they did with the old lead type. 😕

No. The they use phototypsetting, but do use an offset press for printing.

The advantage of offset is that the first copy costs a fortune (due to the cost of setup), but each copy after that only runs you the cost of supplies. Laser printing has a higher cost of supplies, but each copy costs the same. There is a break-even point where it’s cheaper to go to offset for the printing.

As an example (with non-real-world numbers), say setup costs for offset are $100, with each copy costing 50 cents. For laser, it’s $1 a copy. On that basis, 200 copies are $200 on both. But 300 copies are $300 on laser and $250 on offset, so if you make more than 200 copies, offset is the way to go.

The numbers aren’t like this in the real world, and the price of laser printing has come down – so much so that some publishers do use them for their books. But a best seller is always going to be cheaper to print offset than laser.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Pork\_Rind](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/pork_rind/32/111_2.png) [@Pork\_Rind](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Pork_Rind)\
**Post date:** [November 19, 2008, 9:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-series-of-numbers-in-books/473483/22 "2008-11-19T21:19:34Z")

</div>

> [@sailor](#):
>
> When printing with [linotype](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linotype_machine) you have a single block for the whole page or pages. They would just file down one number for each printing. Otherwise you’d have to redo the entire block.

Not quite. Each line of type is an individual piece [like this](http://www.uh.edu/engines/linotypeslug3.jpg). A page would be composed of many individual Linotype slugs locked up into a form kind of [like this](http://www.albury.net.au/~tim/Chprint3.JPG). The only time the entire page would be one ‘block’ would be if you had made a stereotype from the locked up slugs.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Voyager](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/voyager/32/133_2.png) [@Voyager](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Voyager)\
**Post date:** [November 19, 2008, 10:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-series-of-numbers-in-books/473483/23 "2008-11-19T22:38:15Z")

</div>

Part of the information I collect when indexing my paperbacks is original edition and this edition. I’ve noticed that publishers are very inconsistent on this. Daw, after the first year or so, would put month and year of the edition on first printings. Ace would provide only one copyright date, that of the first printing even if this was a later one. Bantam gave a complete printing history. Ballantine did a pretty good job on this also, as did Signet.

I think some had printer’s keys - but many, such as Ace books, did not.

I’ve spend a fair amount of time trying to deduce the dates of later editions of Ace books from the ads for other books at the back.

[Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-series-of-numbers-in-books/473483.md?page=1)