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

wellinghall
4 minutes ago

tolkienbrasil
42 minutes ago

Trotter
45 minutes ago

Deagol
52 minutes ago

remy
59 minutes ago

laurel
1 hour 14 minutes ago

Khamûl
1 hour 45 minutes ago

Jlong
2 hours 4 minutes ago


« 1 ... 1923 1924 1925 (1926) 1927 1928 1929 ... 2065 »


User profile pages
Thain
Joined:
2006/5/26 20:36
From California, USA
Group:
Thain
Shirefolk
Fellowship
Posts: 1202
Offline
I noticed that the user profile pages were not showing all the information you could add, so I adjusted a few things. You can see an example of what I threw together here:

Rowns user profile page

Feel free to use it if you like. When you are logged in, you can click on the Edit Account link in the left menu.

That's also where you can set if you want to receive emails from the site, which I will be testing soon for newsletter-style updates.

Thanks!

Posted on: 2007/7/23 12:02
_________________
- Jeremy


Re: "signed" book on eBay
Home away from home
Joined:
2007/2/10 7:19
Group:
Shirefolk
Fellowship
Posts: 166
Offline
These two auctions are pretty funny (though sad, at the same time). The first one (with the name mis-spelled) is a classic, and even comes with a COA! The second one is a shear bargain at 990.00 GBP. I am sold!!

Posted on: 2007/7/23 5:25


Re: "signed" book on eBay
Shirrif
Joined:
2006/6/5 22:04
From Essex, England
Group:
Shirefolk
Fellowship
Shirrif
Posts: 1500
Offline
This one is quite sad as well.

Unwin Hobbit Paperback with Facisimile Signature

The seller does not believe that this book has a facisimile signature because "(i personally am not convinced as it seems the only people who advise about these books are also the people that sell them for thousands and thousands of dollars!)" i.e. an X-files conspiracy theory to make out that the book is not signed when it is.

Hopefully any potential buyer will read Beren's or Deagol's website and work out that they are talking nonsense or they may notice the same book book from other sellers all described as having a facisimile signature.

Posted on: 2007/7/22 22:42


Re: Children of Hurin movie discussion continues
Just popping in
Joined:
1969/12/31 17:00
From SoCal, USA
Group:
Shirefolk
Fellowship
Posts: 12
Offline
I strenuously agree with Alpingloin!

After being hideously scarred by the animated Hobbit travesty in the 70's (shown to my 5th grade class at school - I put up a fuss and was excused 20 minutes in) I swore never to see Tolkien on film again. So many people insisted that I simply MUST see Fellowship, even knowing of my objection, that when somebody bought me a ticket and told me I was going, I went (fully expecting to have to walk out in disgust). To my vast relief, I was wrong; in my view, the movies were not the book, but a beautiful cinematic work, which didn't make complete hash of the book or mar my perception of it in a significant way. Probably the exposure, multiple awards, and resulting consumer frenzy didn't hurt any. Maybe. But -

Tolkien intended these writings to be a singular experience for each reader. Specifics were purposefully left open to interpretation, to be drawn by the imagination and from the past experiences of each person. I like my own images, of Beleriand and the elves of the first age in particular. I do not believe they can be improved upon, and they might be altered beyond recovery by another interpretation. I would not want to see cinematic representations of the first or second ages, lovely or not, and I feel very strongly that it would be a terrible disservice to the next generation of readers to create complete backgrounds for them through all the ages of Middle-Earth. May they let it rest - at least for 20 years or so - and let us each keep our own little piece of Middle-earth.

Posted on: 2007/7/22 17:46


Re: Looking for someone with a 15th impression of The Hobbit
Just popping in
Joined:
1969/12/31 17:00
From SoCal, USA
Group:
Shirefolk
Fellowship
Posts: 12
Offline
Oh crumbs... I wrote a reply to this a few days back, but I guess the server kicked it. Here's a quick attempt at reproducing it...

Thanks for the reply!
That wiki was the source used to come to the conclusion that it was a 14th - I should have qualified my statement to say that it conforms in all measurable respects... it's library bound. All the identifiers are missing, altered, or not unique to a 14th - except for page 315. It's not my usual collection purchase, but I just couldn't leave it sitting there...

Like I said, I'm pretty sure... but my thought was to compare it to the next printing, which is known not to have a frontispiece, and if no inconsistencies exist I would feel certain. Perhaps an American printer is credited in 15-17, or the measurement on page 315 is definitive..? Anybody know?

Thanks

Posted on: 2007/7/22 15:59



 Top
« 1 ... 1923 1924 1925 (1926) 1927 1928 1929 ... 2065 »