If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
Out with "first edition", in with "first printing"?
my-wings wrote:
"Ted Jones" wrote... 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. 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. Hmmm, also. Because I do the same thing when I sell on eBay. I describe any 1st/1st as a first edition, followed by a statement spelling out the first-printing identification. (If a book is a later printing, I say so and don't even use the phrase "first edition" at all.) I always thought I was anticipating the question I often have when I'm considering bidding on a book, and I had no idea that this might cause confusion. --Jon Meyers |
Ads |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
Out with "first edition", in with "first printing"?
"Jon Meyers" wrote...
[...] (If a book is a later printing, I say so and don't even use the phrase "first edition" at all.) This is why it's important to drop the always-daft implication that "first edition" means "first printing". The phrase "first edition" has a natural and significant meaning for which there is no obvious alternative expression; it doesn't deserve to be skunked [1]. [1] A technical term in English Usage. Matti |
#14
|
|||
|
|||
Out with "first edition", in with "first printing"?
"Jerry Morris" wrote...
(Matti Lamprhey) "Jon Meyers" wrote... [...] (If a book is a later printing, I say so and don't even use the phrase "first edition" at all.) This is why it's important to drop the always-daft implication that "first edition" means "first printing". The phrase "first edition" has a natural and significant meaning for which there is no obvious alternative expression; it doesn't deserve to be skunked [1]. [1] A technical term in English Usage. Matti, I disagree. Wikipedia provides three different definitions of a first edition, from the points of view of a bibliographer, a book collector and a publisher: http://www.en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_edition Clearly, there needs to be a way to identify the first edition the book collector is seeking from the first edition the bibliographer or publisher is referring to. The use of the term "first printing" provides additional information of significant value to the book collector. ---------------- Of course, so I don't see where the disagreement lies. Matti |
#15
|
|||
|
|||
Out with "first edition", in with "first printing"?
Jon Meyers wrote in news:GvDWf.765
: 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 This is usually not an issue for me. The vast majority of my purchases do not have a second printing much less, a second edition. My usual concern is whether there is a black mark on the top or bottom. I tend to like fine press editions. Thus, "first thus" is far more interesting than "first". When a book I like has the rare good fortune to go into a subsequent printing or even a second edition, if the price difference is modest, I'll take a first/first. When I give a book to someone who would know the difference and care, I'll step up more. States are my weakness. First edition, first printing, first state, my sense of proportion goes all out of wack. I tend to view "modern firsts" as a merry fraud. Let's see - Two Ian Flemmings or " A Christmas Carol? Golly Gee! Well? I dunno? I do know, but I thought I'd inject some suspense. |
#16
|
|||
|
|||
Out with "first edition", in with "first printing"?
Jon Meyers wrote in
: my-wings wrote: "Ted Jones" wrote... 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. 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. Hmmm, also. Because I do the same thing when I sell on eBay. I describe any 1st/1st as a first edition, followed by a statement spelling out the first-printing identification. (If a book is a later printing, I say so and don't even use the phrase "first edition" at all.) I always thought I was anticipating the question I often have when I'm considering bidding on a book, and I had no idea that this might cause confusion. --Jon Meyers I now agree with your descriptive style. In those cases where there have been subsequent press runs, I'll ask the question, less I fall prey to stupidity or cupidity. Thanks, Ted |
#17
|
|||
|
|||
Out with "first edition", in with "first printing"?
Pausing between engagements, Michael replied:
snipsnipsnip... I agree with Jerry on this one. And I think wiki summed it up quite nicely with this: "A common complaint of book collectors is that the term first edition is used incorrectly. Typically, this complaint centers on the use of the bibliographer's definition in a book-collecting context. For example, J. D. Salinger's The Catcher in the Rye remains in print in hardcover. The typesetting remains the same as the 1951 first printing and therefore all hardcover copies are, for the bibliographer, the first edition. Book collectors would use the term first edition for the first printing only." Michael |
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|