Talk:Nuremberg Chronicle

Alternate illustrations

There are many fine, large illustrations available for this work now. http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Nuremberg_Chronicle_illustrations_f_001-010 Twang (talk) 23:20, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Current value

Found a first edition of this book for sale at USD$165,000. Should this be integrated into the article in a section detailing its worth today? Sale page is http://www.abaa.org/books/273263417.html. abaa.org is a reliable and reputable source for rare book sales. Canine virtuoso (talk) 03:35, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Interesting find. The German edition hence, seems to have an even higher value. Also if you look up for single pages, which are frequently sold on eBay, the German ones tend to have a higher price than those of the Latin version. The reason for this might be, that the way they wrote German back in those days is also of historic value and scientific interest, while Latin is always Latin and few people can read it today fluently. --El bes (talk) 01:27, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

A only one image for several towns

Some images of the Nuremberg chronicle are used for several distinct towns

• 
  Image said to be Nicea (now Iznik in Turkey)
• 
  Image said to be Metz
• 
  Image said to be Marseille
• 
  Image said to be Lithuania (!)
• 
  Unknown

• 
  Image of Magdeburg
• 
  Image said to be Paris
• 
  Image said to be Tarvisio

It seems to be the first copy/paste of the History. --Tangopaso (talk) 19:13, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

It was not an uncommon practice, as the engravings were labourous to produce. BTW, one image in the chronicles is used 17 times to show different persons! --Episcophagus (talk) 07:09, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

Woodcuts, please! This is covered in the text: the total 1809 illustrations used about 645 actual different images. Johnbod (talk) 11:55, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

Of corse, woodcuts . English is not ny first language and sometimes... well... I get the wrong word. --Episcophagus (talk) 19:48, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Minor errors

This article states the work has "336 pages". Presumably in error for 326.It actually has 326 or possibly (including blanks seldom present) 328 LEAVES; i.e. 652 (possibly 656) pages. It is not paginated, but foliated in Roman numerals. The number of woodcuts depends on whether the many strips of portraits cartouched together are considered separate cuts; Copinger (reviser of Hain) states it has "over 2500" - images presumably. The figure 1809 is NOT the total, but the number of different cuts. It is usually stated that there are 1164 repeats, giving a total of 2973. Although attaining high sale prices, this work is undoubtedly the commonest of all extant incunabula, and recent additional entries to the cited ISTC locations require the production run to be revised - some estimates are c 10,000 copies printed. Omitting lost and destroyed copies plus fragments, a current (2014) count is approximately 1136 existing copies of the 1493 Latin edition, plus 376 for the 1493 German. And in addition, for the three pirated Augsburg editions : Latin 1497 211 copies, and German 1496 82, 1500 64. Total c1869 copies. Since this is a late incunable, and probably cherished, more than the usual proportion have probably survived. However, a print run of below 3000 to 5000 is unlikely. Several institutions have ten or more copies. I suspect that rising prices have encouraged more or less modern hand-colouring.122.57.152.168 (talk) 07:33, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

Paper size

A folio with 328 leaves has 164 sheets. A contract for 400,000 sheets of paper is known to have been made for printing this edition; or perhaps Koberger's two editions, though five months is rather a long time to have held and stored such a colossal pile. Which incidentally would be just sufficient to print 2439 copies. 2400 plus a few for presentation, and allowance for sheets spoilt during printing. But copies of the two editions are commonly found on paper considerably smaller than Koberger's favourite 'superregal' 485 X 660mm sheets, that he had been using since the late 1470's. Probably only a single mill was able and equipped to make it. Tall double-column books look superb on this paper, offset with wide margins differing in width. He would certainly have intended to print the NC on it, as a chef d'oeuvre of his career. (Even though his 'huge' books were unpopular, being expensive,unwieldy, and heavy). A few copies/leaves ARE - Bodleian S108(1)has sheets 482 X312mm, an a double-spread sheet of Pavia (not printed as an extra) measures 484X660mm. But it is near certain that local paper-mills could not cope with the demands of this edition, and that Koberger had to make do with the largest paper available from some 5 or 6 mills. Each with its own watermark. Most incunabula exist in copies of varying paper size, but this is due to trimming at rebinding, and is seldom so great as seen in the NC - often only a few mm between 'tall' and 'short' copies. By the 1490's, huge books (with their splendid openings) were going out of fashion. Men strong enough to shake a superregal or any Royal Imperial paper frame were a dying breed, and there was a demand for linen rags exhausting the available supply. Assuming that the contract for 400,000 sheets was placed with a single mill, and mindful that nearly over 1500 copies plus umpteen fragments still survive, a print run of around 10,000 seems quite reasonable. 122.61.97.23 (talk) 08:50, 6 March 2016 (UTC)