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

"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

(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


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.

Jerry Morris

Moi's Books About Books: http://www.tinyurl.com/hib7
Moi's LIbrary http://www.moislibrary.com My Sentimental Library
http://www.picturetrail.com/mylibrary Florida Bibliophile Society
http://www.floridabibliophilesociety.org

"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

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.

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

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