New member - Lots of ULTBs but plenty of questions

Greetings! I stumbled upon this group and joined a little while ago and today began tagging my unique listings. I have a lot, and will be doing 10 or so per day until I've got them all. I will also post my questions about appropriateness of some listings as I go. I have skimmed some, but sadly do not have the time to go through all the posts/discussions and so will ask indulgence for questions I pose which may well have been answered elsewhere.

Here goes for my first 11 (and I am only asking about the entries I'm not sure of):

1) I'm pretty sure I've read that catalogs for conventions/art shows are kosher, so I guess this one's good:
The 1955 Pittsburgh International Exhibition of Contemporary Painting

2) By the same criteria, I present the program from the 1984 Major League Baseball All-Star Game: (http://www.librarything.com/work/5303817/book/297546640). Are we good?

3) Three different editions of Alchemy Magazine. This was a literary anthology produced by the Liberal Arts Department of San Francisco State University when I was a grad student there in the late 80s. I don't know how "generally available" these would be considered, as they might have been sold briefly in some San Francisco bookstores on a consignment basis when they were first published, and of course in the campus bookstore, but that's it. I looked and it seems that each of these is listed by one other LT member, but separately from mine (I included the editor as "author." The other lister did not.) So these would therefore fall under the "in order to be considered for this group the book(media) must be cataloged by at least two people on Library Thing" proviso. Unless they are considered "generally available," in which case that second listing would, I guess, disqualify them. These were all entered manually by me. Thoughts?
http://www.librarything.com/work/5313187/book/29826546
http://www.librarything.com/work/5313218/book/29826767
http://www.librarything.com/work/5304410/book/29759891

Thanks for any and all help. This is a fun project!

#3> "There's no rule that someone else has it; the rule is that no one does."

From the Group rules:

22. Moo, Blurb, Lulu and other vanity presses...Well if you create a wacko book(media) just to brag, or perhaps gloat, on this group more power to you. So for books(media) published by a vanity or self publishing presses and books(media) not general available through mainstream distributions channels, in order to be considered for this group the book(media) must be cataloged by at least two people on Library Thing.

My question is whether an anthology published by a university department, mostly for faculty/students of that university, counts under this rule.

#2> Hmmmm. I see the point. The work page shows 2 members. Although the work shows up on my You and 0 Others list. Strange.

>4 rocketjk: & >5 rocketjk: Sort of ruins the definition of unique if 2 or more people list it!

#7> Sure, but I didn't write the rule quoted in Post #3. It's from the group's home page.

I'm aware you didn't write the rule, it just seems contradictory is what I'm saying.

It can be a little difficult if the other copy is owned by a private library. The system can create conflicting displays.

Of course combination can also be an issue.

As I've posted before, there are some very scarce books where I have multiple variant copies but no one else has one cataloged.

James

#9> OK. Got it. And I agree. But since I'm new to the group, I just wanted to play along with the pre-established criteria.

Read rule 22 and laugh. Laugh hard! Then tag your books ULTB and enjoying breaking a rule. Isn't IT FUN! HA HA HA ! Embrace the Suck!

I have been adding the ultb tag to 10 or so books a day from my 0 other members list. I have been playing it by ear in terms of which books from that list to skip, keeping what seems to me to be the spirit of the endeavor in mind. Working my way through the alphabet, I'm through the R's and up to 100 ultb tags.

OK, I'm finished, coming in at 148. The real question marks in my mind are the literary anthology periodicals, like Story Magazine. My listing all include the publications' editors. Other people, I've noticed, list such periodicals but don't bother including the editors. That will lead to two separate listings, of course. I researched a few of these to be sure there wasn't somebody else with the same edition of particular periodicals, but not all of them. There are also one or two, such as travel guides and the like, that may be listed in other languages. Maybe I'll go back over some of these in the near future and see if any need to be winnowed out.

In the meantime, here's my list, in case anyone wants a look:

http://www.librarything.com/catalog/rocketjk&tag=ultb&collection=-1

I just looked at your ULTB collection, why not. And at first I thought that Pictorial Shakspere was really misspelled...but it wasn't, of course. Why on earth did they spell it that way, I wonder.

#15> When I got that book (and who remembers where?), I got in touch with an antiquarian book dealer who told me that in the days of typesetting they would sometimes leave out a letter or two. I don't even remember the reason. Maybe it was cheaper to produce the book that way.

I am almost tempted to ün" join this group :-)
Well I found 338 unique to me books AND, AND films. I find it much more difficult to combine obscure Films than books.
I'm not even sure if films should be included in this ULTB group. I will though eventually get rid of that Tag. Why do I need it when I can
just sort by members?

Perhaps I am strange but I prefer to has as few ULTB as possible :-)

>15 SaintSunniva: Shakespeare never once spelled his name Shakespeare (in handwriting). We have six signatures of his, spelled:

Willm Shakp
William Shaksper
Wm Shakspe
William Shakspere
Willm Shakspere
By me William Shakspeare

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spelling_of_Shakespeare%27s_name (mentions this very volume)

"(mentions this very volume)"

Wow! Cool. And thanks.

Hmmm I though Shakespeare would sign his name Edward de Vere ;-)

>16 rocketjk:
Maybe it was cheaper to produce the book that way.

Oooh! If we had to pay per letter....ouch.

>18 prosfilaes:, thanks, that's quite interesting.

....and the first known printed example of the name (as author/writer, that is, since there were of course people named "Shakespeare", variously spelled) is the hyphenated "Shake-spear", which suggested (then) not a real person's name but a pseudonym. See: Charlton Ogburn, Jr. "The Mysterious William Shakespeare" (1983)

No matter how William S. signed his name, Edward de Vere would have signed his as
"Edward Oxford", according to customary usage for peers.

Unless of course his peers did it...