Out with "first edition", in with "first printing"?

Has the time come--or is the time long past--to stop using the shortcut
"first edition" as the iconic term for the object of most collectors'
desires?

Book collecting & used bookselling no longer operate like closed
communities, and, whereas using "first edition" when one really means
"first printing of the first edition" was once convenient shorthand, it
is now responsible for so much misunderstanding and misrepresentation
that it has ceased to be a convenience and has become instead an
annoyance, one that allows the unscrupulous to sell their later
printings as "stated First Edition!" and induces the uninformed to buy
and sell these same books under the impression that they are dealing in
collectable copies.

Everyone here can recall many examples from eBay, of course; but the
problem is just as bad at the major listing services. At ABE & Alibris,
checking the "First Edition" box certainly doesn't limit your search to
first printings (or even to first editions, for that matter--but that's
another issue). I no longer trust a listing that describes a book as
simply a "first edition" unless I've dealt with that seller before; if
it doesn't also say "first printing," I ask before I buy, or I just skip
it in favor of a listing that does specify 1st printing.

So, is it time--is it even possible--to change the cultural norm in the
book-collecting world? To de-emphasize the term "first edition," and
push the term "first printing" to the forefront? Or is there even any
point in trying to change which term is used? Liars will still lie, and
the ignorant & unwary will still get taken, no matter what terms we use.


--Jon Meyers

Jon Meyers thundered thusly:

Has the time come--or is the time long past--to stop using the shortcut
"first edition" as the iconic term for the object of most collectors'
desires?

Book collecting & used bookselling no longer operate like closed
communities, and, whereas using "first edition" when one really means
"first printing of the first edition" was once convenient shorthand, it
is now responsible for so much misunderstanding and misrepresentation
that it has ceased to be a convenience and has become instead an
annoyance, one that allows the unscrupulous to sell their later
printings as "stated First Edition!" and induces the uninformed to buy
and sell these same books under the impression that they are dealing in
collectable copies.

Everyone here can recall many examples from eBay, of course; but the
problem is just as bad at the major listing services. At ABE & Alibris,
checking the "First Edition" box certainly doesn't limit your search to
first printings (or even to first editions, for that matter--but that's
another issue). I no longer trust a listing that describes a book as
simply a "first edition" unless I've dealt with that seller before; if
it doesn't also say "first printing," I ask before I buy, or I just skip
it in favor of a listing that does specify 1st printing.


Alternatively, you could do your own legwork like most astute
collectors, by referring to trade catalogues, reference books and
online resources like the various national libraries.


So, is it time--is it even possible--to change the cultural norm in the
book-collecting world? To de-emphasize the term "first edition," and
push the term "first printing" to the forefront? Or is there even any
point in trying to change which term is used? Liars will still lie, and
the ignorant & unwary will still get taken, no matter what terms we use.


--Jon Meyers

You seem to be under the misapprehension that sellers are all-knowing
and the buyers are all-stupid. In my experience of Ebay for example,
sellers with little book dealing experience are much more ignorant than
some of the shark-like collectors, many of whom are able to zoom in on
misdescribed rarities and snatch a bargain at the seller's expense. For
this reason, I think your portrayal of the status quo very unrealistic.
The internet has brought millions of previously unavailable books into
the bookbuying arena, so whilst you may get the irritatingly ignorant
'first edition' appellations, you also get access to very obscure books
at a very reasonable price.

The only issue I do agree with you on is this: I think first printings
SHOULD be described as first printings. It doesn't matter if the
printer or publisher takes five years to sell his stock of printed
sheets (as often happened a century or two ago), if they were printed
at the same time on the same paper by the same people, then they are
all first printings. Just because a later catalogue is slipped in to a
book sold six months later, it should not mean it is a later printing
or an inferior item.

My biggest bugbear with the internet is the wave of new print on demand
booksellers. They are the real flies in the ointment. They haven't even
printed their book yet, yet the call it a first edition and use all
manner of catch-all keywords, so that when you search for a book, you
find yourself bogged down in reams of useless and annoying POD
listings.

SS

"Jon Meyers" wrote in message
...
Has the time come--or is the time long past--to stop using the shortcut
"first edition" as the iconic term for the object of most collectors'
desires?


Yes. I use "1st pr" on eBay. It's clearer, people understand, and
there's no confusion.

Kris

"First editions" has developed a cache. First Printing does not sound
nearly as nice on the tongue.

Still, Jon has a good point. I don't mind a buck or two just to see and
perhaps be lucky but anything more on eBay (and, at times, other places)
demands a post to ask. At times, it is possible to make certain
assumptions, but that is rare.

How many times have you seen BOMC advertised as "First Edition". Many
simply do not know but more are trying to scam.

You have to watch, Recently, a first edition of Patricia Cornwell's first
book, signed by her with her old signature, sold for $35. The seller lived
in Davidson, N.C. so the provenance was great. The same book will sell for
at least $350 on ABEbooks. I have several finds form eBay, including books
for $5 that normally sell for over $100 due to a slow season.

A time and place for all. The art of book hunting is knowing both when to
buy (and when to take a certain risk) and when to sell (and to whom).

Regards,
Willow








"Kris Baker" wrote in message
m...

"Jon Meyers" wrote in message
...
Has the time come--or is the time long past--to stop using the shortcut
"first edition" as the iconic term for the object of most collectors'
desires?


Yes. I use "1st pr" on eBay. It's clearer, people understand, and
there's no confusion.

Kris

"Jon Meyers" wrote in message
...
Has the time come--or is the time long past--to stop using the shortcut
"first edition" as the iconic term for the object of most collectors'
desires?

Book collecting & used bookselling no longer operate like closed
communities, and, whereas using "first edition" when one really means
"first printing of the first edition" was once convenient shorthand, it is
now responsible for so much misunderstanding and misrepresentation that it
has ceased to be a convenience and has become instead an annoyance, one
that allows the unscrupulous to sell their later printings as "stated
First Edition!" and induces the uninformed to buy and sell these same
books under the impression that they are dealing in collectable copies.

Everyone here can recall many examples from eBay, of course; but the
problem is just as bad at the major listing services. At ABE & Alibris,
checking the "First Edition" box certainly doesn't limit your search to
first printings (or even to first editions, for that matter--but that's
another issue). I no longer trust a listing that describes a book as
simply a "first edition" unless I've dealt with that seller before; if it
doesn't also say "first printing," I ask before I buy, or I just skip it
in favor of a listing that does specify 1st printing.

So, is it time--is it even possible--to change the cultural norm in the
book-collecting world? To de-emphasize the term "first edition," and push
the term "first printing" to the forefront? Or is there even any point in
trying to change which term is used? Liars will still lie, and the
ignorant & unwary will still get taken, no matter what terms we use.



When I buy, I don't trust "first edition" unless it clearly indicates
first/first in some manner. As a seller, I try to identify both edition and
printing, and often show something like: "first edition stated with full
number line". I realize this is a bit wordy for "real" collectors, but I
want people to have confidence that they know what they're getting from me.

Frankly, I think the odds of changing "first edition" for "first printing"
are pretty slim. Unknowledgeable sellers still won't get it, and those who
do know better have probably already adopted the practice of mentioning the
printing, if for no other reason that to set themselves apart from the crowd
of sellers who don't have a clue.

Alice

Shelf Space wrote:
Jon Meyers thundered thusly:

At ABE & Alibris,
checking the "First Edition" box certainly doesn't limit your search to
first printings (or even to first editions, for that matter--but that's
another issue). I no longer trust a listing that describes a book as
simply a "first edition" unless I've dealt with that seller before; if
it doesn't also say "first printing," I ask before I buy, or I just skip
it in favor of a listing that does specify 1st printing.


Alternatively, you could do your own legwork like most astute
collectors, by referring to trade catalogues, reference books and
online resources like the various national libraries.

I'm not sure what you're getting at here. Of course I research the
books I wish to acquire, and I'm usually confident that I know what I
want and how to identify it. My point was that I have found that I
can't trust listings by unknown sellers; even in the context of what
should be the professional trade, where "first edition" should always
mean "first printing of the first edition", I can't assume that a book
described only as a "first edition" is in fact a first printing.


So, is it time--is it even possible--to change the cultural norm in the
book-collecting world? To de-emphasize the term "first edition," and
push the term "first printing" to the forefront? Or is there even any
point in trying to change which term is used? Liars will still lie, and
the ignorant & unwary will still get taken, no matter what terms we use.


You seem to be under the misapprehension that sellers are all-knowing
and the buyers are all-stupid.

I apologize for my cartoonish portrayals of buyers & sellers; I too have
seen examples of misdescribed books at eBay drawing those "shark-like
collectors." In the event, it doesn't matter to my argument whether the
ignorance or duplicity, if any, lies on the side of the buyer or
seller--or both, or neither. I was just trying to say that the
pervasiveness of the term "first edition", without any qualifiers, leads
to many misunderstandings because of poor or misleading descriptions,
and that perhaps emphasizing "first printing" as the benchmark term
might alleviate some of that. Or not--which is why I offered it for
discussion.


--Jon Meyers

On Wed, 29 Mar 2006 16:04:27 -0600, Jon Meyers
wrote:

Has the time come--or is the time long past--to stop using the shortcut
"first edition" as the iconic term for the object of most collectors'
desires?

Book collecting & used bookselling no longer operate like closed
communities, and, whereas using "first edition" when one really means
"first printing of the first edition" was once convenient shorthand, it
is now responsible for so much misunderstanding and misrepresentation
that it has ceased to be a convenience and has become instead an
annoyance, one that allows the unscrupulous to sell their later
printings as "stated First Edition!" and induces the uninformed to buy
and sell these same books under the impression that they are dealing in
collectable copies.

Everyone here can recall many examples from eBay, of course; but the
problem is just as bad at the major listing services. At ABE & Alibris,
checking the "First Edition" box certainly doesn't limit your search to
first printings (or even to first editions, for that matter--but that's
another issue). I no longer trust a listing that describes a book as
simply a "first edition" unless I've dealt with that seller before; if
it doesn't also say "first printing," I ask before I buy, or I just skip
it in favor of a listing that does specify 1st printing.

So, is it time--is it even possible--to change the cultural norm in the
book-collecting world? To de-emphasize the term "first edition," and
push the term "first printing" to the forefront? Or is there even any
point in trying to change which term is used? Liars will still lie, and
the ignorant & unwary will still get taken, no matter what terms we use.


--Jon Meyers


I hear ya, Jon. I was duped on eBay when I first began, lo' those
many months ago. :-D

I bid for (and won) what I thought was a first edition/first printing
of the famous (infamous?) Da Vinci Code, only to recieve a BOMC edtion
instead. Burned once, shame on me, burned twice....?

Taught me to email the seller with a battery of questions before
logging a bid, however.

On a sidenote, I do remember emailing SEVERAL "first edition" sellers
about the number line, only to recieve emails back saying, "What's a
number line?"

Like you said, "the uninformed..."


Michael

Pausing between engagements, Michael replied:


SS wrote:

You seem to be under the misapprehension that sellers are all-knowing
and the buyers are all-stupid.

Oh, I SO totally didn't read THAT part!

In my experience of Ebay for example, sellers with little book dealing
experience are much more ignorant than some of the shark-like collectors,
many of whom are able to zoom in on misdescribed rarities and snatch a
bargain at the seller's expense.

Right. Those misdescribed rarities are EVERYWHERE on eBay these days.


For this reason, I think your portrayal of the status quo very unrealistic.
The internet has brought millions of previously unavailable books into
the bookbuying arena, so whilst you may get the irritatingly ignorant
'first edition' appellations, you also get access to very obscure books
at a very reasonable price.

I just don't share your view of "The internet has brought millions of
previously unavailable books into the bookbuying arena" as being a
wholly positive thing. Yes, it is far more convienent to buy and sell
books now, and eBay has brought a gazillion books to your computer
screen, but at what cost to the market? The now prevalent .99 cent
book? The penny book?

The only issue I do agree with you on is this: I think first printings
SHOULD be described as first printings. It doesn't matter if the
printer or publisher takes five years to sell his stock of printed
sheets (as often happened a century or two ago), if they were printed
at the same time on the same paper by the same people, then they are
all first printings. Just because a later catalogue is slipped in to a
book sold six months later, it should not mean it is a later printing
or an inferior item.

My biggest bugbear with the internet is the wave of new print on demand
booksellers. They are the real flies in the ointment. They haven't even
printed their book yet, yet the call it a first edition and use all
manner of catch-all keywords, so that when you search for a book, you
find yourself bogged down in reams of useless and annoying POD
listings.

Agreed.

Michael

When I buy, I don't trust "first edition" unless it clearly indicates
first/first in some manner. As a seller, I try to identify both
edition and printing, and often show something like: "first edition
stated with full number line". I realize this is a bit wordy for
"real" collectors, but I want people to have confidence that they know
what they're getting from me.



Alice



Ah! I have wondered about that. This may fall into the catagory of "Too
Much Information". I tend to have an internal conversation that starts with
- "I wonder what is meant by that"? I know now it is a clarification not a
warning. Either you have started a new convention or I must look at your
books.

"Ted Jones" wrote in message
...




When I buy, I don't trust "first edition" unless it clearly indicates
first/first in some manner. As a seller, I try to identify both
edition and printing, and often show something like: "first edition
stated with full number line". I realize this is a bit wordy for
"real" collectors, but I want people to have confidence that they know
what they're getting from me.



Alice



Ah! I have wondered about that. This may fall into the catagory of "Too
Much Information". I tend to have an internal conversation that starts
with
- "I wonder what is meant by that"? I know now it is a clarification not a
warning. Either you have started a new convention or I must look at your
books.


Hmmm. I guess you've just made the point that even verbose descriptions are
cryptic when the reader doesn't know why you said what you did! Maybe I
should just say "first edition, first printing" myself instead of adding the
number line bit. I always thought I was adding valuable information, but
perhaps I've just been confusing the issue.

Alice