Publication:SLMNDCRCSK1977

Asylum and Circus
Don could you check it came up with a bad sum check for the ISBN. Should it be 0-532-19172-2? Thanks :-)Kraang 21:23, 14 Jul 2007 (CDT)

It says 0-532-19172-7 both on the spine & copyright page. Don Erikson 09:31, 15 Jul 2007 (CDT)


 * Okay i'll adjust the Cat# field and add into notes about the ISBN# error. Thanks!Kraang 10:48, 15 Jul 2007 (CDT)


 * I would not make the assumption that it's the checksum that's wrong. For example, if we transpose the 72 near the end to 27 we end up with 0-532-19127-7 which has a correct checksum.  My observations are that 0-532- is the correct prefix for Manor in that time period and that 19172 is on the high side for 1977 which seems to run from about 12471 to 19156.  19172 is just out of range but 19127 with the transposed digits fits well.


 * Another possibility is a single digit error. 0-532- is correct and so working my way down a digit at a time it's
 * 0532191727 - Original value where checksum does not match
 * 0532 2 91727
 * 05321 8 1727
 * 053219 8 727
 * 0532191 9 27
 * 05321917 5 7
 * 053219172 2 - None of these found a book but it's possible one of this is the correct ISBN.


 * In summary - All we can do with this one is to document that the ISBN was printed wrong and to document exactly what's stated in each part of the publication.


 * Don - An AbeBooks seller has an image at . It looks like it says "(blurry) 19172 * $1.50" at the top but no ISBN.  If that's the case I would document this too including whatever the blurry stuff is that can't be read in the photo.  It seems to establish that 19172 is correct and that it would be the checksum that's wrong.


 * ps: I just updated the pub-notes but also saw that the pub is for $1.95 while the image seems to show a $1.50 edition. 14:43, 15 Jul 2007 (CDT)

after checking again the numbers for this book are correct. We can only assume it is a publisher's error.The cover price is $1.95. The picture looks like $1.95 to me but I can see how anyone could see it as $1.50. As to the number being high for the year, that's probably because of the error.Don Erikson 09:23, 16 Jul 2007 (CDT)