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 |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
Ads |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Out with "first edition", in with "first printing"?
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 |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
Out with "first edition", in with "first printing"?
"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 |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
Out with "first edition", in with "first printing"?
"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 |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
Out with "first edition", in with "first printing"?
"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 |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
Out with "first edition", in with "first printing"?
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 |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
Out with "first edition", in with "first printing"?
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 |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
Out with "first edition", in with "first printing"?
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 |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
Out with "first edition", in with "first printing"?
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. |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
Out with "first edition", in with "first printing"?
"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 |
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|