ARC Question

I think I found an ARC.

It's a copy of Elizabeth Peters _Trojan Gold_ (Atheneum, 1987) with the top
page edges and the first page after the free endpaper stamped NOT FOR
RESALE. It's a first edition to all appearances.

I've used it as an example of an ARC on my "Visual Aids" Remainder and Other
Edge Marks page
( http://home.att.net/~my_wings/visual...dermarks_.html ) with the
following explanation:

"Publishers sometimes send ARCs (Advance Reading Copies) to reviewers and
store purchasers prior to the publication of the book. A NOT FOR RESALE
notation is expected for this class of publication, and ARCs are one of the
few cases where a page edge marking will not reduce the value. That said,
even though it might look just like one, an ARC is not the same as a first
edition, it should never be described as such, and it will usually (although
not always) be priced lower."

Have I got this identified correctly and described correctly? Comments from
those who are actually familiar with ARCs in more than theory are greatly
appreciated.

Thanks!

Alice

"my-wings" wrote...
I think I found an ARC.

It's a copy of Elizabeth Peters _Trojan Gold_ (Atheneum, 1987) with the
top
page edges and the first page after the free endpaper stamped NOT FOR
RESALE. It's a first edition to all appearances.

I've used it as an example of an ARC on my "Visual Aids" Remainder and
Other
Edge Marks page
( http://home.att.net/~my_wings/visual...dermarks_.html ) with
the
following explanation:

"Publishers sometimes send ARCs (Advance Reading Copies) to reviewers and
store purchasers prior to the publication of the book. A NOT FOR RESALE
notation is expected for this class of publication, and ARCs are one of
the
few cases where a page edge marking will not reduce the value. That said,
even though it might look just like one, an ARC is not the same as a first
edition, it should never be described as such, and it will usually
(although
not always) be priced lower."

Have I got this identified correctly and described correctly? Comments
from
those who are actually familiar with ARCs in more than theory are greatly
appreciated.

I would describe your book as a review copy rather than an ARC. The books I
have that are stamped like this are all genuine first printings--same
binding and jacket as the copies released to the trade--not specially
produced advance reading copies. At least for myself, I don't think that
the stamp reduces its desirability--just the opposite. But it's a matter of
taste, of course.

Other thoughts:

The Simon & Schuster logo is "the sowing man"; he's got a seed bag over his
left shoulder, and his right hand is spreading the seeds (of knowledge, one
presumes).

Another type of remainder mark--no longer in use, but you might run across
it on older books--is the purple spray used by Doubleday, Delacorte, and
perhaps some others. This stuff was sprayed on the entire top or bottom
edge of the book, leaving a speckled stain--though I recall reading
somewhere that it comes out easily with bleach.


--
Jon Meyers
[To reply,
lose your way.]

Not for resale stamps usually do not mean that the copies have been sent
to reviewers. They are often seen on remaindered copies that have been
distributed to schools, prisons or other institutions. This is generally
thought to reduce the value of the book - although not quite as much as
a library stamp.

"Arne Herløv Petersen" wrote in message
...
Not for resale stamps usually do not mean that the copies have been sent
to reviewers. They are often seen on remaindered copies that have been
distributed to schools, prisons or other institutions. This is generally
thought to reduce the value of the book - although not quite as much as
a library stamp.

Thanks for your additional comments. I do remember seeing this myself on a
few books. I've changed the information about "NOT FOR SALE" stamps one more
time to reflect this addition.
(http://home.att.net/~my_wings/visual...dermarks_.html).

Thanks again. Any comments to help me improve the site are always welcome!

Alice