Login

Or
Register Now


Already have an account?
Username:

Password:

Remember me

Lost Your Password?
Main Menu
Collector's Guide Table of Contents
Recent Visitors

Findegil
1 hour 24 minutes ago

Urulöké
4 hours 23 minutes ago

Stu
4 hours 46 minutes ago

Trotter
8 hours 43 minutes ago

remy
13 hours 4 minutes ago

Morgan
14 hours 36 minutes ago

wellinghall
17 hours 35 minutes ago

Khamûl
1 day 1 hour 48 minutes ago


(1) 2 3 4 ... 2156 »


Re: New Book Releases
Shirrif
Joined:
2006/6/5 22:04
From Essex, England
Group:
Shirefolk
Fellowship
Shirrif
Posts: 1608
Offline

Trotter wrote:
Believe that this is probably the last of the pocket books, though I suppose Leaf by Niggle, Mr Bliss, Father Christmas Letters are also candidates as well for this book format.

Smith of Wootton Major

Published on 26th February 2015.


I received the book today and it looks to be very similar to the 2005 hardback.

http://www.tolkienbooks.net/php/details.php?reference=54350

but with one extra section, which is an additional gallery showing Pauline Baynes redrawn illustrations that appeared in Poems & Stories

http://www.tolkienbooks.net/php/details.php?reference=63790

Attach file:



jpg  Pocket.JPG (151.89 KB)
10_54ef3e690ec0c.jpg 1270X792 px

Posted on: Today 4:32:55

Edited by Trotter on 2015/2/26 8:40:25


Re: "The Lord of the Rings", first edition: differences in TTT and ROTK
Shirrif
Joined:
2006/6/5 22:04
From Essex, England
Group:
Shirefolk
Fellowship
Shirrif
Posts: 1608
Offline
One of The Two Towers in the pictures looks to be the third impression, it does not have 1954 on the title page

http://www.tolkienbooks.net/php/details.php?reference=41110

I think you have may have a point about the printers for the second impression, my copy is Jarrold and not K&W, but just because it was printed by one printer does not mean that it was bound by them, and the article refers to binders.
http://www.tolkienbooks.net/php/lotr-print-runs.php

Your points about the ROTK are answered by Deagol on this page http://www.tolkienbooks.net/php/1st-rotk.php

"This was not the case - all later impressions included the damaged text, although the signature mark was removed after the second impression."

Posted on: 2/24 10:26:06

Edited by Trotter on 2015/2/24 12:55:45
Edited by Trotter on 2015/2/24 13:03:55
Edited by Trotter on 2015/2/24 13:11:23
Edited by Trotter on 2015/2/24 13:12:02
Edited by Trotter on 2015/2/24 13:19:29
Edited by Trotter on 2015/2/24 13:21:02


"The Lord of the Rings", first edition: differences in TTT and ROTK
Just popping in
Joined:
2014/2/15 9:47
Group:
Shirefolk
Posts: 7
Offline
Some days ago, I bought a first edition of "The Lord of the Rings", 1954-1955 (2/2/1). I've also the first edition 4/2/2.

I've compared the "The Two Towers" (2/2) and "The Return of the King" (1/2), and I have found some differences, that I reported in a note on my website.

http://tolkieniano.blogspot.it/2015/0 ... i-e-differenza-nella.html

What do you think about that?

Posted on: 2/24 10:17:31


Re: Mystery Page in 50th Anniv Hobbit I Bought
Just popping in
Joined:
2/23 19:12:57
Group:
Shirefolk
Posts: 2
Offline
Thank you both. Like Stu wrote, it's such a shoddy job that I don't think the book's seller was trying to pull one over on me. The rest of the book is perfectly like new, really sweet considering it's nearly three decades old. So I bet she didn't even look closely enough to notice the cancel leaf.

Which is certainly what it is, thank you Wayne. I had never heard of a cancel leaf until this morning.

Thank you again for solving my mystery.

Posted on: 2/24 8:53:10


Re: Mystery Page in 50th Anniv Hobbit I Bought
Home away from home
Joined:
2008/5/21 19:36
Group:
Shirefolk
Fellowship
Posts: 195
Offline
Christina and I have a copy of this too, which I document in the Descriptive Bibliography, p. 63, as "another, presumably later impression [of the Houghton Mifflin 50th anniversary edition] (but simultaneous publication?)". The "H" at the foot of the copyright page, absent from other copies, suggests a later or subsequent printing, and I suppose (at this great distance of time) that I had some evidence that this copy came out at the same time as the others we owned, probably from knowing then when we acquired them. Houghton Mifflin may well have needed multiple printings before publication to meet demand. In our copy, the original title-leaf was similarly removed a little roughly, as shown by the tear at the bottom, but the cancel leaf has been pasted in better, so that the rough stub isn't obvious unless one looks closely.

Wayne

Posted on: 2/24 5:11:19



 Top
(1) 2 3 4 ... 2156 »