Monday, October 31, 2011

The Post I Alluded to In Another Post

Here is the post I promised in that list of random facts in the prior Versatile Blogger post. Don't ever say I don't finish what I say I'm gonna start. Or something like that.

Every once in a while, my local public library likes to have a special event for people in the know. I call it the book addict's non-anonymous. We all know that libraries get donations in the form of books that people either no longer want (scandalous!), have left behind (...they're in a better place, but books can't come...which is sad), or that some kind, generous, pious individual has decided would be better loved in a library where children and adults can appreciate them.

However, due to the overwhelming amount of books or lack of space for said books, my library likes to hold 50 Cents an Inch Sales at least twice a year to raise some money. Who can blame them?

Well, who other than someone who donated half of her collection of treasured books that she fully expected to be able to check out if she wanted to read them again but found that none of the books she donated were to be found in the actual library, can blame them?

Regardless of past issues, this sale has quickly become somewhat of an addiction for me. I've already established, pretty much from the first post, that I'm addicted to buying and reading books, but this is on a whole new level. This sale is EPIC.

I bought 22 inches worth of books for only a measly $11! That's insanity! Eleven bucks is less than half of the price of a new hardback, and I bought about ten hardbacks (not new, but still) with it.

I only wish someone had thought to take pictures of me combing through the book tables and uttering cries of "Yes! It's old! It's an anthology! It's a book!" and other things. There may have been a few instances where I may have pushed an older patron slightly in order to reach a book before he/she did. Hey, what happens at 50 Cents an Inch Sale, stays at 50 Cents an Inch Sale.

Anyway, I've included pictures of some of my buys, and my prize purchase of the day, the poems of Ossian. There's a lot of controversy in the literary world surrounding the authenticity of the poet's identity and the creation of the epic poems, but I think it's awesome that I managed to find a copy that doesn't have a publish date in actual numbers.

It's in Roman Numerals. Neat, huh? MDCCCXCVI translates to 1945 in case you're trying to figure that out in your head. I couldn't, which is why I'm so glad for Google and its ability to find little plug-in things that translate things for me. Magic!

Addendum: Colin Smith alerted me to the fallacy of my Google thing, and it turns out that the year it was published was infinitely less recent. Try 1896, not 1945. In a word: jackpot!

Here's Colin's math:
The numerals on the page pictured are MDCCCXCVI. And this is 1896. M=1000, D=500, CCC=300, XC=90, and VI=6.

Thank you, Colin. You've further provided evidence that it's a good thing that I'm not trying to be a math teacher or count things for a living. Not even Google can help me.


  1. Wow! Why didn't you let us all know about this? I'm sure a couple of us could have cleaned the place out! And FYI, Google got it wrong. The numerals on the page pictured are MDCCCXCVI. And this is 1896. M=1000, D=500, CCC=300, XC=90, and VI=6. So it's even older than you thought! Cool deal! :)

  2. Omygoodness! That's way better! And I can't believe Google did that to me. I've learned a hard lesson today. My faith is shaken in the almighty Google. I need to reflect on this. Thanks for the correction, Colin. You win. Google loses. Or I lose. It doesn't matter which. :D

  3. I haven't found anything quite so cool at my library's book sales (yet), but at the last one in August, I bought a whole bunch of copies of Life magazine from the 50s. I think they were like 25 cents awesome.


When commenting on my blog, I ask that you use correct grammar and punctuation. It's a courtesy not only to me, but to other viewers as well. Thank you!