I've chosen to look at the first issue of BLAST and just by looking at the cover, I've realized how different the bibliographic coding for the journal is looking at it on the web is versus having the copy that was scanned to produce this digital copy. The front cover and the back cover are two entirely different shades of pink. The front is very faded, and it almost looks like it started out a red-brown color. Compared to the bright and shocking pink of the back cover, I would never have guessed that the two started out the same exact color. It makes me wonder what exactly happened to the front cover, and perhaps having the physical copy for bibliographic coding would lend me more of an idea. It almost looks as though something spilled on the front cover. The binding is held together by what looks like old masking tape and both covers have rips and the pages are curled under. In the sense of experiencing the wear and age of the document, I scarcely connect with it through the digital version whereas I think I'd get a strong sense of it if I had the actual physical copy in my hands.
Delving into the text, I notice that the printing of the letters and images in the issue appears to be inexact. For example, there are spots where there are extra dots of black on the page, like on a page towards the beginning where it says MANIFESTO. and there is an image of what looks like a jousting weapon. Around the image, there are imperfections in the printing which I only noticed because I looked carefully for them and zoomed into the document from its default view on my computer. Likewise, scrolling two pages down to the page that begins BLAST First (from politeness) ENGLAND, I notice that just by looking at the letters A on the page and comparing them to one another, some of them have the triangle part on the top filled in while others are open to reveal white paper. There are also some spots in the black letters where white dots show, revealing more imperfections in the printing. This bibliographic coding is difficult to obtain and understand in the digitized versions. Had I not been looking closely, I would not have noticed it. Browsing through digitized versions is a very different experience from looking at a physical copy of something. It certainly changes the bibliographic coding as Borenstein mentioned when comparing King Lear originals to reprints. I wasn't so convinced that the experience would be very different from looking at a scanned version of BLAST and a physical copy, but now that I've examined it closer, I've come to a different conclusion. I'm sure this will be further evident after visiting the special collections to see a copy in person.