Learn more about this item

We had these wonderful Childcraft books in our home when I was a child. Our family's edition were either the 1949 or 1954 books, which look ...

This is volume twelve of a fifteen volume set of Childcraft books made in 1954. The pages are yellowing from age, but the book is in good usable condition.

In my recent travels for vintage children's picture books, I scored on a set of Childcraft, The How and Why Library for the mere sum of $5.00. These books are full of great illustrations by many different artists. I have quite a few scans for you from Volume 1 that I hope you will enjoy. Can I just say how much I like these books? They are fun to look at and full of ideas and inspiration. Don't forget to click on the pics for a bigger view. Artist: Charles Harper Oh Charley, how we do love thee, let us count the ways... Artist: Gordon Laite Artist: Gordon Laite I like all the details in these insect illustrations. Artist: Mary Horton What a great rendering of happiness! Artist: Fred Womack Who doesn't like polka dot elephants? Artist: Mary Horton Great composition by this artist! Artist: Russell Jackson I'm really impressed by the dimensional paper art by Russell Jackson. Coming up will be a post on Jackson with more examples of his work. Artist: Vernon McKissack This name is new to me, but I feel like I've seen work by this artist before, anyone familar with McKissack? Artist: William Steig Another masterful composition! Artist: Garth Williams Garth Williams draws a great mouse, like the hand lettering and the way the pages are laid out. Artist: Susan Perl I believe Susan Perl did a lot of work for McCall's Magazine in the 60's/70's. I'm partial to pen and ink drawings. Artist: Roger Duvoisin Isn't this a great illustration? Artists: Alice and Martin Provensen Alice and Martin Provensen were a great team and this is just one of the many reasons why their work is well regarded. Artist: Elizabeth Orton Jones I like illustrations like these where only part of it is painted and the rest is left as line work, it's very striking. Artist: Gail E. Haley I have a couple books by the talented Gail Haley and will do a post on her in the future. Artist: Mary Miller Salem This picture takes me back to when I was a kid - nice vantage point and composition. Artist: Leonard Weisgard Another great illustration by the impeccable Leonard Weisgard, simple and striking. Artist: Mary Hauge I like the simple color scheme and tree trunk rendering in this illustration. I'm not familar with this artist, but I'd like to see more of her work.

Scanned from Childcraft Vol. 1, 1954 Edition, illustration by Dorcas

Vintage hardcover book Inventors and Inventions a supplement to Childcraft Childcraft - The How and Why Library Copyright 1993, 224 pages Very nice condition with wear on the outside covers, stamps and writing on inside front cover Thanks

Scanned from Childcraft Vol. 1, 1954 Edition, illustration by Milo Winter

Childcraft - The How and Why Library Vol.13 Illustrated by Maribeth Olson ©1964 Field Enterprises Educational Corporation

Childcraft Science and Industry Volume Fourteen copyright 1949. Great photos and learning facts for kids. In very good condition.

I'm turning once again to my trusty Childcraft Library which is chock full of great vintage illustrations from many beloved illustrators of the past. The combination of photograph and illustration is kitschy and sweet. I have to say as the mother of four that I don't recall many photographic moments like this lol. Illustration by Eloise Wilken and photo from Tell City Chair Company. This one isn't too hard to guess. Pen and ink work by Garth Williams with his distinctive gentle animals and characters. This one I wouldn't have guessed. My first thought was Feodor Rojankovsky as the illustrator, but it's not. Anyone care to guess? I also wouldn't have been able to guess this one, though I love his work. The illustrator is Nicolas Mordvinoff. Illustrator is Eraldo Carugati - anyone familiar with this artist? Artwork by Hope Taylor from Highway, Byway and City Rhymes Art by Vladimir Bobri Wonderful illustration by Maurice Sendak The distinctive work of Virginia Lee Burton Illustrator Ezra Jack Keats The Little Land When at home alone I sit, And am very tired of it, I have just to shut my eyes To go sailing through the skies-- To go sailing far way To the pleasant Land of Play. By Robert Louis Stevenson To view previous Childcraft posts go here, here, here, here or here. To view images from the above posts on Pinterest, go here. Childcraft The How and Why Library Volume 1, Poems and Rhymes Field Enterprises Educational Corporation 1972 Edition

Back in July, JT Covenant used a comment on my review of Ladybird's The Lost World to point me to a book that they thought I'd enjoy. I can happily say that they were right on the money. In fact, finally receiving this hefty old thing through the post (it came from the US) sent me quite giddy with glee. Not only is it illustrated by a panoply of artists, all with wildly varying styles, all of whom are credited (including Greg Paul!), but it's virtually a comprehensive encyclopedia of '80s palaeoart memes. Some are tiresomely familiar, but there are also some very weird ideas in here that have long since been rendered obsolete. To cap it all, it's from the very year I was born. It's Dinosaurs! The 1987 Childcraft Annual. I wasn't familiar with Childcraft, but it is apparently a "multi-volume illustrated anthology for children" that has been around since the 1930s (or so says Wikipedia). Dinosaurs! is impressively comprehensive for a kids' book, covering a tad under 300 pages (excluding the glossary, index etc.), and is richly illustrated throughout. One doesn't have to go any further than the cover to find Bakker and Sibbick references, including what appears to be a weirdly hornless version of Sibbick's Normanpedia Ceratosaurus. This is explained inside as follows: "Most scientists think that only the male certaosauruses [sic] had a horn, and that they used this horn...when fighting each other at mating time." Damn those Most Scientists and their constant baseless speculation! No wonder no one listens to a word they say. It's always fun when artists replicate others' interpretations of certain animals, but then alter their poses and place them in different situations. The very specifically quirky creatures become characters of their own, and it's enjoyable to keep up with their continuing adventures through the pages of various unrelated kids' dinosaur books. Here, artist John Dawson has his very Sibbickian ceratosaurus happily devouring a camptosaur carcass - until Old Man Allosaurus turns up to drone on about the good old days when there were only tetanuran theropods around here, the freakishly large tree ferns were greener, and speculatively fluffy juveniles did as they were told. While Dawson's ceratosaurs are at least adopting notably different postures to Sibbick's, his Allosaurus is altogether more cheekily familiar to anyone who knows the Normanpedia well. Yes, it's eating while lying down (which is actually a nice idea in itself), but the torso section instantly gives it away. The head, with its forward vision-blocking face nubbin, is a dead ringer, and the position of the right arm is identical. Even the colouration is remarkably similar. Still, Dawson was far from unique in slavishly reproducing Sibbick's slightly odd, arm-flexing take on Big Al - why, its plastic mould-friendly chunkiness even meant that it was immortalised in toy form. In addition to the typical post-Normanpedia Sibbick clones, Dinosaurs! manages to include the obligatory Bakkerian Deinonychus, always running at full pelt, always sporting a fetching dewlap. Admittedly, this is a particularly well executed (by Jean Helmer) example of the meme, with lovely detailing and a very dapper red-headed colour scheme. I like the composition, with the impression given that the animals are tumbling down the side of the page in pursuit of their quarry (Tenontosaurus, of course, illustrated on the opposite page). Besides, at least copying Bakker ensures that your dromaeosaur won't end up looking like...this thing. There's something quite enjoyably dainty and delicate-looking about this Velociraptor, what with its tiny hands and rather diminutive sickle claw. It's just a product of unfortunate '80s thinking, which saw artists suppressing the very birdlike traits of these animals (when they weren't just copying one another. The artists, that is). Here, artist Robert Hynes pairs Wile E Raptor with his eternal foe, the angry squatting Protoceratops. Spoiler: things don't end well. Elsewhere, the most '80s Oviraptor possible (it has a mane of cool blue feathers, but otherwise steers well clear of being birdlike) noshes messily on someone's abandoned eggs. This one's by Colin Newman. I do love the technique used for the sky, but the animal combines a Sibbickian concentric ring skin pattern with a finely polished finish reminiscent of a 4x4 vehicle purchased by a money-crazed, wantonly aggressive businessperson. The nose horn was widespread in reconstructions at the time, and was the result of a misinterpretation of an incomplete skull (the crest was broken off). Where the mane started out, I'm not sure; it must have seemed quite radical at the time. These days, of course, we know that oviraptorosaurs were feathered like birds (although no one told Papo). Ornithomimosaurs always looked thoroughly indecent in art, so it was a relief for palaeoart fans everywhere when firm evidence was discovered that they were fully floofed-up after all. While artists had, by this time, moved away from the terrifying '70s visions of spindle-limbed monstrosities with tiny human fingers on the far-away extremities of seemingly endless long, thin arms (the better to reach through the tiny crack between your wardrobe doors), '80s ornithomimosaurs could still look a bit creepy. I do admire Jim Pearson's technique here - it's rather reminiscent of John McLoughlin's work. But Christ...the eyes. The eyes alone. Even discounting the worryingly humanoid anatomy of the arms, with their clawless, frog-like fingers, those huge, wet eyes are just plain disconcerting. Brrr. So that we may forget that last illustration as quickly as possible, here's one (by John Francis) of some Coelophysis attempting to set the land speed record for basal Triassic theropods. Shades of Bakker's "Syntarsus" here, although thankfully without the little backward-projecting wedge of feathers on the head. For whatever reason, perhaps the most 'old school' theropod illustration (in execution if nothing else) stars none other than Sexy Rexy, here shown being overly affectionate towards a hadrosaur, who has unfortunately been accidentally asphyxiated as a result. It's got it all - green-grey warty dino skins, a number of identical smoking conical volcanoes, and even a swamp. It's a wonderfully painted piece, though (by Kinuko Craft), and for all that it's quite retro in appearance, it's still aged much better than... ...This. There isn't a lot I can add. And no, Spinosaurus being all stumpy-limbed isn't a vindication of vintage illustrations that depicted it with a head so generic as to be shapeless. (I can see you commenters coming a mile off.) With apologies to Jim Pearson, because hindsight is indeed a wonderful thing, and I do like your style. Speaking of outdated interpretations...would you believe that one Gregory S Paul™ produced illustrations for this book? Paul's illustrations stick out like an especially well-researched and anatomically correct thumb among all the Sibbick-u-like dinosaurs - in particular, his accurately fat-necked apatosaur is a remarkable sight in a book like this. But I'll feature that another time. For now, here's a remarkably prescient feathered non-avian theropod; or at least, it would have been, were it not for the true identity of the animal it's intended to represent. For this remarkably dromaeosaur-noggined creation is, in fact, supposed to be Avimimus. As in, the oviraptorosaur. Yeah, we can laugh about how literally wrong-headed this is, but the animal was very poorly understood at the time. Typically, artists just copied John Sibbick's even more inaccurate version (at least the body in Paul's is nearer reality) as seen in the Normanpedia, and you'll note that Paul has the animal's remiges attached along its second digit. So very many artists still can't get that right. And finally...Troodon has been subject to a few peculiar hypotheses over the years. Everyone's familiar with Dale Russell's 'Dinosauroid', the comical green lizard man that made quite a name for himself in '80s and '90s dinosaur books, before being pecked to death by a swarm of feathered maniraptorans. However, few recall the one about Troodon being the only known carnivorous ornithischian. No, really. It's not so surprising in the light of troodontid teeth being misinterpreted as belonging to a pachycephalosaur, and possible omnivory in Troodon has been discussed again more recently (notably by Holtz et al.). However, Dinosaurs! is the only children's book I've come across to give the 'Troodon as ornithischian' idea a proper airing (and a life reconstruction by Roberta Polfus). The text describes the animal as 'looking like Hypsilophodon', so that's what we get in the illustration. Well, sort of. Over on Facebook, Patrick Bate remarked on how the dinosaurs were lacking in texture and simplistic-looking when compared with the mammal up front, which is "drawn down to the tiniest hair". This is very pertinent, and one gets the strong impression that the artist wasn't entirely sure what they were supposed to be drawing...which isn't too surprising. Imagine the brief... Coming up next: more '80s! More! This book cannot be contained in a mere single post.

In the series starter, I explained how I acquired my Childcraft set. Once I had it, however, I was still uncertain of how to use it. As I participated in homeschool discussion groups, I noticed th…

My blog focuses on the art and artists of vintage children's picture books, mainly from 1950's through 1980's.

“Childcraft, Volume One. Poems of Early Childhood.” Published by the Quarrie Corp in Chicago. Copyright 1923, 1931, 1934, 1935, 1937, and 1939. Edited by S. Edgar Farquhar and Patty Smith Hill. Art editor Milo Winter. 38 artists listed in addition to the work of Milo Winter.

Pre-owned book, in good condition, as shown. Pages are very like new condition. All corners are very good Front cover is a little bowed See photos for style, size, sample pages and print info. It was published by Field enterprises, Chicago. it has stories of familiar paintings, sculptures and more. All stories are illustrated. This large collectible book is 10" x 14-1/4" with 120 pages.All sales are final and as-is, Please see all pictures of the book you will be getting. thank you for looking. Please come back again soon.

“Childcraft, Volume One. Poems of Early Childhood.” Published by the Quarrie Corp in Chicago. Copyright 1923, 1931, 1934, 1935, 1937, and 1939. Edited by S. Edgar Farquhar and Patty Smith Hill. Art editor Milo Winter. 38 artists listed in addition to the work of Milo Winter.

Source: Childcraft: The How and Why Library Volume 9

Back in July, JT Covenant used a comment on my review of Ladybird's The Lost World to point me to a book that they thought I'd enjoy. I can happily say that they were right on the money. In fact, finally receiving this hefty old thing through the post (it came from the US) sent me quite giddy with glee. Not only is it illustrated by a panoply of artists, all with wildly varying styles, all of whom are credited (including Greg Paul!), but it's virtually a comprehensive encyclopedia of '80s palaeoart memes. Some are tiresomely familiar, but there are also some very weird ideas in here that have long since been rendered obsolete. To cap it all, it's from the very year I was born. It's Dinosaurs! The 1987 Childcraft Annual. I wasn't familiar with Childcraft, but it is apparently a "multi-volume illustrated anthology for children" that has been around since the 1930s (or so says Wikipedia). Dinosaurs! is impressively comprehensive for a kids' book, covering a tad under 300 pages (excluding the glossary, index etc.), and is richly illustrated throughout. One doesn't have to go any further than the cover to find Bakker and Sibbick references, including what appears to be a weirdly hornless version of Sibbick's Normanpedia Ceratosaurus. This is explained inside as follows: "Most scientists think that only the male certaosauruses [sic] had a horn, and that they used this horn...when fighting each other at mating time." Damn those Most Scientists and their constant baseless speculation! No wonder no one listens to a word they say. It's always fun when artists replicate others' interpretations of certain animals, but then alter their poses and place them in different situations. The very specifically quirky creatures become characters of their own, and it's enjoyable to keep up with their continuing adventures through the pages of various unrelated kids' dinosaur books. Here, artist John Dawson has his very Sibbickian ceratosaurus happily devouring a camptosaur carcass - until Old Man Allosaurus turns up to drone on about the good old days when there were only tetanuran theropods around here, the freakishly large tree ferns were greener, and speculatively fluffy juveniles did as they were told. While Dawson's ceratosaurs are at least adopting notably different postures to Sibbick's, his Allosaurus is altogether more cheekily familiar to anyone who knows the Normanpedia well. Yes, it's eating while lying down (which is actually a nice idea in itself), but the torso section instantly gives it away. The head, with its forward vision-blocking face nubbin, is a dead ringer, and the position of the right arm is identical. Even the colouration is remarkably similar. Still, Dawson was far from unique in slavishly reproducing Sibbick's slightly odd, arm-flexing take on Big Al - why, its plastic mould-friendly chunkiness even meant that it was immortalised in toy form. In addition to the typical post-Normanpedia Sibbick clones, Dinosaurs! manages to include the obligatory Bakkerian Deinonychus, always running at full pelt, always sporting a fetching dewlap. Admittedly, this is a particularly well executed (by Jean Helmer) example of the meme, with lovely detailing and a very dapper red-headed colour scheme. I like the composition, with the impression given that the animals are tumbling down the side of the page in pursuit of their quarry (Tenontosaurus, of course, illustrated on the opposite page). Besides, at least copying Bakker ensures that your dromaeosaur won't end up looking like...this thing. There's something quite enjoyably dainty and delicate-looking about this Velociraptor, what with its tiny hands and rather diminutive sickle claw. It's just a product of unfortunate '80s thinking, which saw artists suppressing the very birdlike traits of these animals (when they weren't just copying one another. The artists, that is). Here, artist Robert Hynes pairs Wile E Raptor with his eternal foe, the angry squatting Protoceratops. Spoiler: things don't end well. Elsewhere, the most '80s Oviraptor possible (it has a mane of cool blue feathers, but otherwise steers well clear of being birdlike) noshes messily on someone's abandoned eggs. This one's by Colin Newman. I do love the technique used for the sky, but the animal combines a Sibbickian concentric ring skin pattern with a finely polished finish reminiscent of a 4x4 vehicle purchased by a money-crazed, wantonly aggressive businessperson. The nose horn was widespread in reconstructions at the time, and was the result of a misinterpretation of an incomplete skull (the crest was broken off). Where the mane started out, I'm not sure; it must have seemed quite radical at the time. These days, of course, we know that oviraptorosaurs were feathered like birds (although no one told Papo). Ornithomimosaurs always looked thoroughly indecent in art, so it was a relief for palaeoart fans everywhere when firm evidence was discovered that they were fully floofed-up after all. While artists had, by this time, moved away from the terrifying '70s visions of spindle-limbed monstrosities with tiny human fingers on the far-away extremities of seemingly endless long, thin arms (the better to reach through the tiny crack between your wardrobe doors), '80s ornithomimosaurs could still look a bit creepy. I do admire Jim Pearson's technique here - it's rather reminiscent of John McLoughlin's work. But Christ...the eyes. The eyes alone. Even discounting the worryingly humanoid anatomy of the arms, with their clawless, frog-like fingers, those huge, wet eyes are just plain disconcerting. Brrr. So that we may forget that last illustration as quickly as possible, here's one (by John Francis) of some Coelophysis attempting to set the land speed record for basal Triassic theropods. Shades of Bakker's "Syntarsus" here, although thankfully without the little backward-projecting wedge of feathers on the head. For whatever reason, perhaps the most 'old school' theropod illustration (in execution if nothing else) stars none other than Sexy Rexy, here shown being overly affectionate towards a hadrosaur, who has unfortunately been accidentally asphyxiated as a result. It's got it all - green-grey warty dino skins, a number of identical smoking conical volcanoes, and even a swamp. It's a wonderfully painted piece, though (by Kinuko Craft), and for all that it's quite retro in appearance, it's still aged much better than... ...This. There isn't a lot I can add. And no, Spinosaurus being all stumpy-limbed isn't a vindication of vintage illustrations that depicted it with a head so generic as to be shapeless. (I can see you commenters coming a mile off.) With apologies to Jim Pearson, because hindsight is indeed a wonderful thing, and I do like your style. Speaking of outdated interpretations...would you believe that one Gregory S Paul™ produced illustrations for this book? Paul's illustrations stick out like an especially well-researched and anatomically correct thumb among all the Sibbick-u-like dinosaurs - in particular, his accurately fat-necked apatosaur is a remarkable sight in a book like this. But I'll feature that another time. For now, here's a remarkably prescient feathered non-avian theropod; or at least, it would have been, were it not for the true identity of the animal it's intended to represent. For this remarkably dromaeosaur-noggined creation is, in fact, supposed to be Avimimus. As in, the oviraptorosaur. Yeah, we can laugh about how literally wrong-headed this is, but the animal was very poorly understood at the time. Typically, artists just copied John Sibbick's even more inaccurate version (at least the body in Paul's is nearer reality) as seen in the Normanpedia, and you'll note that Paul has the animal's remiges attached along its second digit. So very many artists still can't get that right. And finally...Troodon has been subject to a few peculiar hypotheses over the years. Everyone's familiar with Dale Russell's 'Dinosauroid', the comical green lizard man that made quite a name for himself in '80s and '90s dinosaur books, before being pecked to death by a swarm of feathered maniraptorans. However, few recall the one about Troodon being the only known carnivorous ornithischian. No, really. It's not so surprising in the light of troodontid teeth being misinterpreted as belonging to a pachycephalosaur, and possible omnivory in Troodon has been discussed again more recently (notably by Holtz et al.). However, Dinosaurs! is the only children's book I've come across to give the 'Troodon as ornithischian' idea a proper airing (and a life reconstruction by Roberta Polfus). The text describes the animal as 'looking like Hypsilophodon', so that's what we get in the illustration. Well, sort of. Over on Facebook, Patrick Bate remarked on how the dinosaurs were lacking in texture and simplistic-looking when compared with the mammal up front, which is "drawn down to the tiniest hair". This is very pertinent, and one gets the strong impression that the artist wasn't entirely sure what they were supposed to be drawing...which isn't too surprising. Imagine the brief... Coming up next: more '80s! More! This book cannot be contained in a mere single post.

“Childcraft, Volume One. Poems of Early Childhood.” Published by the Quarrie Corp in Chicago. Copyright 1923, 1931, 1934, 1935, 1937, and 1939. Edited by S. Edgar Farquhar and Patty Smith Hill. Art editor Milo Winter. 38 artists listed in addition to the work of Milo Winter. Illustrated by Electra Popadopoulos.

I got this cute little sign post last year for my Fairy Garden. So now I'm going to enlighten you about Fairy Rings! Now, what actually is a Fairy Ring? Scientifically, it is a huge threadlike, musty-smelling mass, called a mycelium, which causes mushrooms to grow in a circle. (Not good for the grass, as the fungus eats the nutrients from the grass!) Mythologically speaking, it is a worn area in the grass made by fairies dancing. The English believed that fairy rings were where fairies came to dance and celebrate, the mushrooms of the rings were used as stools for the fairies to recuperate during the evening's festivities. The following information is from Druansha's Page: "...old legends will tell you that this is where the Faeries dance and perform many of the rituals of their own magic. Legends might warn you that those who join the Fairy dance within the circle under the moon are sometimes lost to time and place and may even disappear forever..." There are many stories written on Fairy history, folklore, and superstitions. Most of them talk about the terrible consequences of interfering in the lives of Fairies, revealing their location, stepping into their ring or trying to capture them. "...if a human steps into the ring (s)he will be compelled to join the Fairies in their wild dancing, which would seem to occur just a few minutes but in fact would last for seven years or more. The unfortunate human can only be rescued by someone outside the ring who can grab hold of his or her coat-tails..." It is said that bad luck and doom befalls those who cross the Fairies but I'm not sure if this is an early Celtic interpretation because later in the Victorian Era Fairies were seen as something romantic, titillating and strangely beautiful & captivating.

My blog focuses on the art and artists of vintage children's picture books, mainly from 1950's through 1980's.

“Childcraft, Volume One. Poems of Early Childhood.” Published by the Quarrie Corp in Chicago. Copyright 1923, 1931, 1934, 1935, 1937, and 1939. Edited by S. Edgar Farquhar and Patty Smith Hill. Art editor Milo Winter. 38 artists listed in addition to the work of Milo Winter.

"Childrcraft: Poems of Early Childhood," edited by J. Morris Jones, illustrated by Eloise Wilkin, Leonard Weisgard, Janice Holland, Milo Winter, Henry C. Pitz, Esther Friend, Urlsula Koering, Tasha Tudor, R.T. Dixon, 1954. Featured in My Retro Reads: A blog celebrating the beauty of vintage children's books.

I'm turning once again to my trusty Childcraft Library which is chock full of great vintage illustrations from many beloved illustrators of the past. The combination of photograph and illustration is kitschy and sweet. I have to say as the mother of four that I don't recall many photographic moments like this lol. Illustration by Eloise Wilken and photo from Tell City Chair Company. This one isn't too hard to guess. Pen and ink work by Garth Williams with his distinctive gentle animals and characters. This one I wouldn't have guessed. My first thought was Feodor Rojankovsky as the illustrator, but it's not. Anyone care to guess? I also wouldn't have been able to guess this one, though I love his work. The illustrator is Nicolas Mordvinoff. Illustrator is Eraldo Carugati - anyone familiar with this artist? Artwork by Hope Taylor from Highway, Byway and City Rhymes Art by Vladimir Bobri Wonderful illustration by Maurice Sendak The distinctive work of Virginia Lee Burton Illustrator Ezra Jack Keats The Little Land When at home alone I sit, And am very tired of it, I have just to shut my eyes To go sailing through the skies-- To go sailing far way To the pleasant Land of Play. By Robert Louis Stevenson To view previous Childcraft posts go here, here, here, here or here. To view images from the above posts on Pinterest, go here. Childcraft The How and Why Library Volume 1, Poems and Rhymes Field Enterprises Educational Corporation 1972 Edition

Childcraft #14 Your Child Goes to School 1961 THIS HARDCOVER BOOK IS IN NEAR FINE CONDITION WITH VERY SLIGHT WEAR AS SHOWN. ***PAGES ARE TIGHT AND BRIGHT***

My blog focuses on the art and artists of vintage children's picture books, mainly from 1950's through 1980's.

“Halfway Down” (A Singable Poem)

We had these wonderful Childcraft books in our home when I was a child. Our family's edition were either the 1949 or 1954 books, which look ...