1st or 2nd edition??

[ChessRMe]

Please help me resolve an inquiry over whether a book is a first or second
edition:

The book is "Point of Impact" by Stephen Hunter, published by Bantam books in
1993. I have seen two "editions" of this book:

One has a printing line 987654321 with no reference on copywrite page as to
"First Edition" or any later printing. It is my belief that this is a First
Edition of this book based on the number 1 in the printng line.

The other "edition" being claimed as a first has a printing line 98765432 and
also lacks any reference to "First" or any subsequent edition. I contend that
this edition is not a first because the printing line ends with the number 2.
The counter-argument I am recieving is that this is really a "First Edition
with a later priniting."

Am I missing something? Who is right?

[Don Fitch]

Post by ChessRMe
The book is "Point of Impact" by Stephen Hunter, published by Bantam books in
One has a printing line 987654321 with no reference on copywrite page as to
"First Edition" or any later printing. It is my belief that this is a First
Edition of this book based on the number 1 in the printng line.
The other "edition" being claimed as a first has a printing line 98765432 and
also lacks any reference to "First" or any subsequent edition. I contend that
this edition is not a first because the printing line ends with the number 2.
The counter-argument I am recieving is that this is really a "First Edition
with a later priniting."
Am I missing something? Who is right?

I'd say you're both right, depending on context. Technically,
this latter one sounds like a "First Edition, Second
Printing", which is, by definition, part of the First Edition.
Most serious bibliophiles, booksellers, and Collectors,
however, seem to use "First Edition" as an in-group or term-
of-art shorthand for "First Edition, First Printing" -- which,
in general, is a requirement for "collectability".

Just to add a bit to the general confusion....

I understand that some publishers, taking advantage of modern
printing technology, have been known to make changes (usually
minor, such as correcting typos, but sometimes significant) in
the second or subsequent Printings, without indicating that
it's a new Edition. (Serious Collectors can spend an
incredible amount of time & energy quibbling over things like
what constitutes a "new edition".)

And... this title was also a Book-of-the-Month Club selection,
presumably in the hard-cover edition, so you'll need to check
the dj for a price indication on the front flap (usually --
but not always -- Book Club editions are later than First
Printings, I think).


Don Fitch

--

[John A. Stovall]

Post by ChessRMe
Please help me resolve an inquiry over whether a book is a first or second
The book is "Point of Impact" by Stephen Hunter, published by Bantam books in
One has a printing line 987654321 with no reference on copywrite page as to
"First Edition" or any later printing. It is my belief that this is a First
Edition of this book based on the number 1 in the printng line.

My first edition had the following number line:

BVG 0 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1

Bantam did not note "First Edition" in it.


*****************************************************

"He that we last as Thurn and Taxis knew
Now recks no lord but the stiletto's Thorn,
And Tacit lies the gold once-knotted horn.
No hallowed skein of stars can ward, I trow,
Who's once been set his tryst with Trystero."

"The Crying of Lot 49"
Thomas Pynchon

[MindElec]

On Fri, 24 Oct 2003 12:07:05 GMT, John A. Stovall

Post by John A. Stovall

Post by ChessRMe
Please help me resolve an inquiry over whether a book is a first or second
The book is "Point of Impact" by Stephen Hunter, published by Bantam books in
One has a printing line 987654321 with no reference on copywrite page as to
"First Edition" or any later printing. It is my belief that this is a First
Edition of this book based on the number 1 in the printng line.

BVG 0 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1
Bantam did not note "First Edition" in it.

i've sold several, they have all had complete number lines.

technically they are both first editions, from a collectors POV
though, only the first printing is of value.


robert

"I've been long, a long way from here
Put on a poncho, played for mosquitos,
And drank til I was thirsty again
We went searching through thrift store jungles
Found Geronimo's rifle, Marilyn's shampoo
And Benny Goodman's corset and pen"

[Charles Bennett]

The poem at the end of your reply, is it your's?

What collection is it from?

[John A. Stovall]

Post by Charles Bennett
The poem at the end of your reply, is it your's?
What collection is it from?

It's from Sheryl Crow - "If It Makes You Happy" .

http://www.leoslyrics.com/listlyrics.php?hid=hq5TFpwgcTU%3D
*******************************************************

"'Cause when love is gone, there's always justice.
And when justice is gone, there's always force.
And when force is gone, there's always Mom, Hi Mom!"

"O Superman"
Laurie Anderson
from
"Big Science"

[John Yamamoto-Wilson]

Post by ChessRMe
The other "edition" being claimed as a first has a printing line 98765432 and
also lacks any reference to "First" or any subsequent edition. I contend that
this edition is not a first because the printing line ends with the number 2.
The counter-argument I am recieving is that this is really a "First Edition
with a later priniting."
Am I missing something? Who is right?

Just to add to the previous explanations, no, you're not missing anything.
The "counter-argument" is spurious from a collector's point of view. The
problem is that publishers use one language (in which various printings of
the first editon all count as "first edition") and book-collectors use
another language (in which only the first printing of the first edition
counts as "first edition").

Really, anyone selling to the book-collecting market who resorts to the
counter-argument you cite is either ignorant or devious (or, possibly,
both). Sellers who advertise a book as "first edition" when in fact it is
only the first edition from that particular publisher, and preceded by other
editions, are equally suspect.

In this case, the edition with the numberline down to 1 is the only copy
worth bothering with from a collector's point of view. Different publishers
have different norms (such as only ever having the number line down to 2,
and replacing the 1 with the statement "first edition") but unless the book
is the first printing of the first edition it is generally not collectible.
There are exceptions, where a book took off so unexpectedly (or is so rare
and in demand) that later printings also have collectible value, but that's
the basic rule.

This book (of which a good quality first printing can apparently be obtained
for $50, or perhaps a little more
http://dogbert.abebooks.com/abe/BookSearch) is no exception to the rule.
Exceptions would tend to be books of which the first printing would cost
thousands of dollars, and later (but still early) printings fetch a decent
price because there are plenty of collectors who would like a copy but
cannot afford the price of a true first.

--
John
http://rarebooksinjapan.com

Post by ChessRMe
Please help me resolve an inquiry over whether a book is a first or second
The book is "Point of Impact" by Stephen Hunter, published by Bantam books in
One has a printing line 987654321 with no reference on copywrite page as to
"First Edition" or any later printing. It is my belief that this is a First
Edition of this book based on the number 1 in the printng line.

[ChessRMe]

My thanks to both Rodger and John (who replied in detail below). As to the
"ignorant and devious" seller John refers to, I would hope that the seller of
the edition with the printing line ending in 2 has only made an honest mistake,
but the fact that I, as a fairly new buyer/seller, would have picked up on the
first edition point is a bit scary. The seller lists books on Amazon.com and
shows several sales completed with an almost 5-star rating, and I would add
that they did credit my account with no problem. I just wonder how many others
are buying "first editions" from various sellers when in actuality the books
are not true firsts in the sense of "first edition/first printing." It is
exactly for this reason that all of the books I list as collectable first
editions carry specific information to back that claim, such as a 1 or A or
first edition/firstprinting notation on the copywrite page and no indication of
the book being a book club copy.

Post by John Yamamoto-Wilson
Just to add to the previous explanations, no, you're not missing anything.
The "counter-argument" is spurious from a collector's point of view. The
problem is that publishers use one language (in which various printings of
the first editon all count as "first edition") and book-collectors use
another language (in which only the first printing of the first edition
counts as "first edition").
Really, anyone selling to the book-collecting market who resorts to the
counter-argument you cite is either ignorant or devious (or, possibly,
both). Sellers who advertise a book as "first edition" when in fact it is
only the first edition from that particular publisher, and preceded by other
editions, are equally suspect.
In this case, the edition with the numberline down to 1 is the only copy
worth bothering with from a collector's point of view. Different publishers
have different norms (such as only ever having the number line down to 2,
and replacing the 1 with the statement "first edition") but unless the book
is the first printing of the first edition it is generally not collectible.
There are exceptions, where a book took off so unexpectedly (or is so rare
and in demand) that later printings also have collectible value, but that's
the basic rule.
This book (of which a good quality first printing can apparently be obtained
for $50, or perhaps a little more
http://dogbert.abebooks.com/abe/BookSearch) is no exception to the rule.
Exceptions would tend to be books of which the first printing would cost
thousands of dollars, and later (but still early) printings fetch a decent
price because there are plenty of collectors who would like a copy but
cannot afford the price of a true first.
--
John
http://rarebooksinjapan.com

Post by ChessRMe
Please help me resolve an inquiry over whether a book is a first or second
The book is "Point of Impact" by Stephen Hunter, published by Bantam books

in

Post by ChessRMe
One has a printing line 987654321 with no reference on copywrite page as

to

Post by ChessRMe
"First Edition" or any later printing. It is my belief that this is a

First

Post by ChessRMe
Edition of this book based on the number 1 in the printng line.

[John Yamamoto-Wilson]

Post by ChessRMe
My thanks to both Rodger and John (who replied in detail below).
As to the "ignorant and devious" seller John refers to

Well, not both. One or the other.

Post by ChessRMe
I would hope that the seller of the edition with the
printing line ending in 2 has only made an honest mistake

He did make amends, so that is in his favour, but I think there's a point at
which mistakes become culpable ignorance. If people undertake to sell books
they owe it to their potential customers to describe those books correctly.
Exploiting the loophole between what publishers mean and what book
collectors mean by "first edition" (whether consciously or through not
having done their homework) isn't really excusable. I'd say the same thing
of a seller who gives the copyright date in the description but ignores the
publishing statement, especially when this indicates a later printing.

Post by ChessRMe
I just wonder how many others are buying "first editions"
from various sellers when in actuality the books are not
true firsts in the sense of "first edition/first printing."

I would imagine quite a few novice buyers make this mistake. In their case
we can assume it is almost always going to be a result of ignorance. Again,
it's really up to them to know better. Whatever people spend their money
on - investing in the stock market, buying a house, booking a holiday - they
need to examine the matter thoroughly, knowing that if they fail to consider
every angle they can end up losing out, either by default or because someone
exploited their gullibility. Book-collecting is no exception.

Post by ChessRMe
all of the books I list as collectable first editions carry
specific information to back that claim, such as a 1 or A or
first edition/firstprinting notation on the copywrite page and
no indication of the book being a book club copy.

That will cover most situations, but there are occasions when one can be
tripped up. For example, sometimes the publisher (or printer) fails to
remove the "first edition" statement from subsequent printings, and some
first editions - especially of older books, from the days before there were
number lines - may have confusing or incomplete publishing details and can
be hard to verify. And there may be "issue points" - i.e., the first print
run may have been interrrupted when someone spotted a mistake which was then
corrected, or when a particular type of endpaper or cloth binding ran out,
etc. Later copies will not have the mistake or the particular type of
endpaper or binding (or whatever) and will generally be worth less than the
earlier copies. There was an interesting thread on this a while back, with
people arguing about what would happen if the copies that were printed later
were actually *distributed* first (some people feeling that an undistributed
copy hadn't really been published, since publication implies distribution
[http://tinyurl.com/sdlv]) .

As you can see, it can all get very complicated. The thing to do is to build
up a variety of resources that will usually give the necessary information.
Checking copies being offered on ABE
(http://dogbert.abebooks.com/abe/BookSearch) is a good start, but sometimes
one seller gets it wrong, others follow suit and it's just a case of the
blind leading the blind. Entering a nonsensical title at the ABE search
prompt gives one a kind of back-door entrance to WorldCat (click on the
"find it at a local library" link when ABE draws a blank), which can give
useful information, and sites like COPAC UK (http://www.copac.ac.uk) and the
Library of Congress (http://catalog.loc.gov/) are worth checking. Sometimes
one can get good results just by Googling. And then there are the published
guides, like Ahearn. One can never have too many bibliographical resources,
and most secondhand bookshops will have a shelf of "books about books". The
fact that there are so many only goes to show what a huge field this is, and
most sellers - and pretty much all collectors - will have to specialise if
they want to get anywhere.

And then, when all the above have failed, you can always post a query here!

--
John
http://rarebooksinjapan.com

[H Schinske]

Post by John Yamamoto-Wilson
He did make amends, so that is in his favour, but I think there's a point at
which mistakes become culpable ignorance. If people undertake to sell books
they owe it to their potential customers to describe those books correctly.

To be honest, I don't generally EXPECT general used book dealers to use the
words "first edition" correctly. They so frequently do not, that I simply
expect the words to be used incorrectly unless it is obviously a proper rare
book dealer I'm dealing with (or unless I actually recognize whatever the
points are for what I'm looking at).

I did see a description of a book the other day where much was made of its
being in wonderful condition for it being 160 years old, when in fact it was
very obviously a much later reprint with a copyright date of 1830 or
1840-something. THAT was dumb.

--Helen

[John Yamamoto-Wilson]

Post by H Schinske
To be honest, I don't generally EXPECT general used book dealers to use the
words "first edition" correctly. They so frequently do not, that I simply
expect the words to be used incorrectly unless it is obviously a proper rare
book dealer I'm dealing with (or unless I actually recognize whatever the
points are for what I'm looking at).

Yes, I'm being kind of idealistic.

Post by H Schinske
I did see a description of a book the other day where much was made of its
being in wonderful condition for it being 160 years old, when in fact it was
very obviously a much later reprint with a copyright date of 1830 or
1840-something. THAT was dumb.

Ah, but where would we collectors be without dumb sellers? For every book
they misidentify as a valuable collectors' item there's another they dismiss
as valueless and sell for peanuts!

--
John
http://rarebooksinjapan.com

[Jon Meyers]

"John Yamamoto-Wilson" wrote...

Post by John Yamamoto-Wilson
That will cover most situations, but there are occasions when one can be
tripped up. For example, sometimes the publisher (or printer) fails to
remove the "first edition" statement from subsequent printings...

There are many US publishers that leave the "first edition," "first
printing," or "first printed" statement in place on later printings not by
oversight but as a matter of routine--Mysterious Press; Little, Brown;
Morrow; Dutton; Scholastic; and some others.

I have no reason to suspect that any of these publishers are themselves so
cynical as to try to grab a few more sales by luring the untutored into
thinking they are buying a real first edition (novice walks into a
bookstore, sees a copy of a book that has become an unexpected bestseller or
prize-winner, turns to the copyright page and sees "first edition," and
thinks Aha!)--but it certainly leads to a great deal of confusion and
opportunities for unscrupulous booksellers to tout their unremarkable later
printings by trumpeting "stated first edition," without mentioning the
number line.

The number of umpty-umpth printings of the first US edition of the first
Harry Potter book sold this way on eBay is beyond reckoning.

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

[John Yamamoto-Wilson]

Post by Jon Meyers
There are many US publishers that leave the "first edition," "first
printing," or "first printed" statement in place on later printings not by
oversight but as a matter of routine--Mysterious Press; Little, Brown;
Morrow; Dutton; Scholastic; and some others.

Right. I should have phrased it more carefully. In those cases it is usually
clear from the number line, whereas I was thinking of those cases (can't
call one to mind right now) where it is the publisher's normal policy to
remove the first printing statement and they have failed to do so. This can
cause confusion, especially if it is one of those publishers (like Random
House) which only has the number line down to 2, and uses the first edition
statement instead of the 1. But there are any number of exceptions to the
normal rules - "stated" first editions which aren't, and firsts which are
not identified as such on the publishing page - and confusions can creep in
in all sorts of ways.

Post by Jon Meyers
I have no reason to suspect that any of these publishers are themselves so
cynical as to try to grab a few more sales by luring the untutored into
thinking they are buying a real first edition

No, I don't think that either; publishers have always used the term "first
edition" to cover all the printings of the first edition, it's the book
collectors who made things ambiguous by using the term to mean only the
first printing.

Post by Jon Meyers
but it certainly leads to a great deal of confusion and opportunities
for unscrupulous booksellers to tout their unremarkable later
printings by trumpeting "stated first edition," without mentioning
the number line.

Right. It's the sellers who are at fault here, not the publishers. But the
buyers also owe it to themselves (and their long-suffering spouses!) to do
their homework and check the correct publication details, etc.

Post by Jon Meyers
The number of umpty-umpth printings of the first US edition of the first
Harry Potter book sold this way on eBay is beyond reckoning.

I've been using the Harry Potter books along with the videos in some of my
lower-level classes, so I felt duty-bound to read the latest (weaker than
the others, I felt), which I picked up at an airport bookstore. I was
surprised to find that it was a hardback first printing, even though it had
come out two or three months previously, and even more surprised that it had
a reduced price sticker on the cover. Is the Potter bubble finally bursting,
or what?

--
John
http://rarebooksinjapan.com

[Jon Meyers]

"John Yamamoto-Wilson" wrote...

Post by John Yamamoto-Wilson
I've been using the Harry Potter books along with the videos in some of my
lower-level classes, so I felt duty-bound to read the latest (weaker than
the others, I felt), which I picked up at an airport bookstore. I was
surprised to find that it was a hardback first printing, even though it had
come out two or three months previously, and even more surprised that it had
a reduced price sticker on the cover. Is the Potter bubble finally bursting,
or what?

Nope, they just finally got around to figuring out that a first printing of
a few hundred thousand, or even a couple million, wasn't enough. I don't
know which version you bought, but the first printing of the US edition was
somewhere in the neighborhood of 7 or 8 million.


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

[MindElec]

On Sun, 26 Oct 2003 09:57:34 -0600, "Jon Meyers"

Post by Jon Meyers
"John Yamamoto-Wilson" wrote...

Post by John Yamamoto-Wilson
I've been using the Harry Potter books along with the videos in some of my
lower-level classes, so I felt duty-bound to read the latest (weaker than
the others, I felt), which I picked up at an airport bookstore. I was
surprised to find that it was a hardback first printing, even though it

had

Post by John Yamamoto-Wilson
come out two or three months previously, and even more surprised that it

had

Post by John Yamamoto-Wilson
a reduced price sticker on the cover. Is the Potter bubble finally

bursting,

Post by John Yamamoto-Wilson
or what?

Nope, they just finally got around to figuring out that a first printing of
a few hundred thousand, or even a couple million, wasn't enough. I don't
know which version you bought, but the first printing of the US edition was
somewhere in the neighborhood of 7 or 8 million.

which is why it surprised me to see 3rd printings at a local borders
a month or so after it was released.


robert

"I've been long, a long way from here
Put on a poncho, played for mosquitos,
And drank til I was thirsty again
We went searching through thrift store jungles
Found Geronimo's rifle, Marilyn's shampoo
And Benny Goodman's corset and pen"

[MindElec]

On Sun, 26 Oct 2003 15:22:55 +0900, "John Yamamoto-Wilson"

Post by John Yamamoto-Wilson
This can
cause confusion, especially if it is one of those publishers (like Random
House) which only has the number line down to 2, and uses the first edition
statement instead of the 1.

interesting side note. peter straub's new book, "lost boy, lost
girl," published by random house just within the past month or so, has
a number line of 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 and states "first edition". anyone
know when they started this and if they will remove the first
statement from later printings?


robert

"I've been long, a long way from here
Put on a poncho, played for mosquitos,
And drank til I was thirsty again
We went searching through thrift store jungles
Found Geronimo's rifle, Marilyn's shampoo
And Benny Goodman's corset and pen"

[s***@yahoo.com]

Don't when they started this, or how they plan to indicate later printings,
but I just noticed much the same thing in Molly Ivins and Lou Dubose's
"Bushwhacked," i.e., "2 4 6 8 0 9 7 5 3 1" AND the statement "FIRST EDITION".
"Bushwhacked" was just published by Random House in late September.


On Wed, 29 Oct 2003 17:14:52 -0600, in rec.collecting.books, MindElec

Post by MindElec
On Sun, 26 Oct 2003 15:22:55 +0900, "John Yamamoto-Wilson"

Post by John Yamamoto-Wilson
This can
cause confusion, especially if it is one of those publishers (like Random
House) which only has the number line down to 2, and uses the first edition
statement instead of the 1.

interesting side note. peter straub's new book, "lost boy, lost
girl," published by random house just within the past month or so, has
a number line of 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 and states "first edition". anyone
know when they started this and if they will remove the first
statement from later printings?
robert
"I've been long, a long way from here
Put on a poncho, played for mosquitos,
And drank til I was thirsty again
We went searching through thrift store jungles
Found Geronimo's rifle, Marilyn's shampoo
And Benny Goodman's corset and pen"

[Jon Meyers]

Post by s***@yahoo.com

Post by MindElec
interesting side note. peter straub's new book, "lost boy, lost
girl," published by random house just within the past month or so, has
a number line of 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 and states "first edition". anyone
know when they started this and if they will remove the first
statement from later printings?
Don't when they started this, or how they plan to indicate later printings,

but I just noticed much the same thing in Molly Ivins and Lou Dubose's
"Bushwhacked," i.e., "2 4 6 8 0 9 7 5 3 1" AND the statement "FIRST EDITION".
"Bushwhacked" was just published by Random House in late September.

The Ivins/Dubose book isn't out of the ordinary (and no 0 in that number
line, BTW), since it's nonfiction, and RH has sometimes used 1 number lines
in nonfiction (for recent examples, see the RH-published book on Bill
Clinton, by Nigel Hamilton, and the latest installment of Robert Caro's bio
of Lyndon Johnson).

The Straub book is probably an abberation, since all the other recent RH
fiction titles I've looked at still use the 2 number line. Perhaps they
contracted with a new printer who didn't know how RH likes it done. Then
again, maybe RH is changing. We'll see.


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

[s***@yahoo.com]

On Thu, 30 Oct 2003 11:55:22 -0600, in rec.collecting.books, "Jon Meyers"

Post by Jon Meyers
The Ivins/Dubose book isn't out of the ordinary (and no 0 in that number
line, BTW),

You're right, there is no 0 in the number line - a typo on my part.

[Bob Riedel]

Put an end to first-edition guesswork, and invest $12.95 in a copy of McBride's
indispensable Identification of First Editions, easily obtainable online at:

http://www.mcbridepublisher.com/

unsolicitedly,
Bob Riedel

Post by ChessRMe
It is
exactly for this reason that all of the books I list as collectable first
editions carry specific information to back that claim, such as a 1 or A or
first edition/firstprinting notation on the copywrite page and no indication of
the book being a book club copy.