When Tony Atkinson submitted his paper “On the Measurement of Inequality” to the newly-introduced Journal of Economic Theory in 1969, he cannot have imagined that it would become one of the most widely-cited papers in the economics research literature. As the Social Science Citations Index reveals, Atkinson [1] has been cited some 1,013 times by other authors in the last 37 years (50 times in 1996 alone, evidently a good year). Tony wrote a follow-up piece, “More on the Measurement of Inequality” in 1973, but somehow this never was published. We are delighted to be able to reproduce Tony's 1973 manuscript here, with his kind permission. “More on the Measurement of Inequality” is replete with intuition and applicability. We can now see how Tony was thinking, when pushing forward the implications of his measurement system. What is more remarkable, though, is that his follow-up manuscript is also replete with developments which only appeared in print, in the work of other authors, years later. Consider Tony's treatment of third-order stochastic dominance in the 1973 manuscript. He based its welfare rationale on Kolm's Principle of Diminishing Transfers, which itself did not enter the research literature until 1976 (in the first of Kolm's two Journal of Economic Theory papers that year, see [6, 7]). This kind of dominance—for utilities with a positive third derivative—permits prescriptions to be given for distributions whose Lorenz curves cross, and brings in the coefficient of variation as a sometimes-decisive statistic—yet this empirically significant development took many more years to see the light of day in any journal (see Shorrocks and Foster [9], Dardanoni and Lambert [2], Davies and Hoy [3, 4]). Tony refers to supplementary work on higher orders of dominance still, with some percipience. For published treatments of this topic, we had to wait until the papers of Menezes et al. [8] and Ekern [5] appeared. One of Tony's closest collaborators, Francois Bourguignon, upon learning of this project, commented: “I think it is an excellent idea to publish this piece, even though it makes some publications by some of us somewhat trivial. I remember very well how I was struck some J Econ Inequal (2008) 6:275–276 DOI 10.1007/s10888-007-9074-8