OCD indulged

Periodicals tend to start with Volume One, Number 1, and proceed from there. The major exception is MAD magazine, which did in fact start with Volume One, Number 1, but apparently never got to Volume Two. “We’ll never have a Volume Two,” declared MAD publisher William M. Gaines. Should the post office insist, he said they’d go to Volume Two after issue #1000; Gaines died in 1992, MAD is up to issue #543, and I figure this is worth mentioning only for historical purposes.

Closer to home, The Oklahoman has long rolled over into the next volume on the third — not the first, but the third — of January. The issue of 31 December was Volume 125, Number 364. Apparently someone in the office decided that an eighth of a millennium of this was enough, and declared that Volume 126 would begin on the first of January. Down in the corner of Monday’s front page:

Clipping from the Oklahoman, volume 126, number 2

Well, I feel better.


  1. Dan T. »

    3 January 2017 · 6:50 pm

    As I recall, the New York Times announced in their January 1, 2000 edition that their issue numbering (like MAD, they show a whole number counting from their start in 1850) had been wrong for over a century; somewhere in the 1890s they had screwed up and skipped a few numbers, so the publisher was finally correcting this by changing the number of that issue and issues from there onward.

  2. CGHill »

    3 January 2017 · 7:21 pm

    Wouldn’t surprise me. I always wonder if I’ve misnumbered things around here.

RSS feed for comments on this post