Thanks for that Findegil. I didn't mean to imply that Folio 60 (or any other FS bibliography) would supply impression quantities, just that it would probably give the number of impressions & dates. The detail about the 1750 deluxe is very interesting though.

So, are we to interpret those statements as FS saying that they bound up "some" second & third impressions prior to the actual 1750-numbered deluxe (--with its limitation statement & loose note describing care of the leather)? The only difference would appear to be the earlier brown endleaves. I'm curious as to why they document this if the number released wasn't of reasonable quantity.

On impression quantities --I've asked FS before, but they don't appear to keep (or perhaps just disclose) figures on how many copies make up impressions.

BH

The latest FS bibliography, I think, is Folio 60 btw --it cover to 2006, so would probably have the kind of impression information you're looking for. If I can find a decent copy, for a decent price, I'll buy it & tell you what it says.

BH

Hmm...

There's a lot of copies out there --& with careful & persistent questioning it's pretty easy to nail down 1st impressions (in this format) of all the FS Tolkien editions. I've never really seen the point (personally that is --as I wasn't collecting when they first appeared in the late 90's) of buying direct (FS Tolkien that is), as they can all be picked up second-hand (as you suggest) for comfortably under £50. Not new admittedly; but pretty close, as people probably don't read FS copies too many times, I don't think.

FS have produced some fine books over the years. A good resource is FS's own bibliographies which, again, can be picked up second-hand. I have Folio 50 --a beautiful (an immense) book in its own right (--altho' only covers to 1996, if I recall.)

I've got a Silmarillion first impression signed by Mosley actually...

BH

Is this cheap for the FS? What impression are we on now anyway?

BH

Thanks for posting that clarification aranel_parmadil!


It is indeed a pity. It's perhaps even more of a pity, as Morgan has pointed out, that people don't err on the side of caution & assume that the article (& article author) may be in error & not yourself; particularly when there is so much evidence of this kind of thing online already.


Personally, I wouldn't even bother going to read half of it. The internet is full of garbage & the last thing you should waste your time doing is corrected & challenging ill-informed opinion & views --you'll be at it forever.

BH