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

Urulöké
10 minutes ago

Deagol
33 minutes ago

Glorfindel
2 hours 23 minutes ago

wellinghall
2 hours 33 minutes ago

Khamûl
2 hours 52 minutes ago

Trotter
4 hours 16 minutes ago

tolkienbrasil
5 hours 23 minutes ago

Morgan
8 hours 32 minutes ago
   All Posts (Findegil)


« 1 ... 26 27 28 (29) 30 31 32 ... 34 »


Re: HarperCollins update
Home away from home
Joined:
2008/5/21 19:36
Group:
Shirefolk
Fellowship
Posts: 180
Offline
Christina and I also bought our copy of the new Tree and Leaf through the Book Depository. It arrived quickly, was well packed, and has the correct (new) cover. We use the Book Depository most of the time now for U.K. book orders, though Amazon.co.uk sometimes has the edge in availability and price.

Wayne

Posted on: 2009/3/15 20:09


Re: HarperCollins update
Home away from home
Joined:
2008/5/21 19:36
Group:
Shirefolk
Fellowship
Posts: 180
Offline
The link has been repaired. Someone must watch this forum! If so, they should also note that the main Tolkien page has a link purporting to be to The J.R.R. Tolkien Companion and Guide, which is actually only to "Vol. 2" (really Vol. 1), the Chronology. Neither the other separate volume, the Reader's Guide, nor the boxed set appears in the "Tolkien and Middle-earth" category in which the Chronology is shown. One can find all of these, not in the "official Tolkien bookstore", but only by a search through the main HarperCollins site -- where, however, the boxed set is dated "November 2008" (actually 2006), the Chronology is correctly listed as Vol. 1 but has a picture and description for the Reader's Guide, and the Reader's Guide is correctly listed as Vol. 2 but has a picture and description for the Chronology. Sigh, indeed.

Wayne and Christina

Posted on: 2009/3/13 4:57


Re: Tolkien Collector
Home away from home
Joined:
2008/5/21 19:36
Group:
Shirefolk
Fellowship
Posts: 180
Offline
Sorry this is taking so long. I'm having to convert the Tolkien Collector's very old desktop publishing files through a program of intermediate vintage so that they'll work with current software, fonts, and printer settings. This is slow going, not so much in the conversion itself but in cleaning up formatting and page breaks altered in the process -- and doing so while also having other jobs to do. Christina and I will make an announcement here (and on our web site) when back issues are ready.

Wayne

Posted on: 2009/2/1 15:42


Re: Yet another signed copy
Home away from home
Joined:
2008/5/21 19:36
Group:
Shirefolk
Fellowship
Posts: 180
Offline
Christina and I have serious doubts about this signature. The script, even down to the blue ink, is very similar to that used in signatures recently discussed in this forum as forgeries. Beren is right, though, that the position of the signature, on the title-page of a book not by Tolkien himself, is suspicious. Also open to question is why Tolkien would have acquired a copy of Sweet’s reader published in 1946: yes, he knew Onions, and this was the first edition of Sweet revised by Onions, but by 1946 Tolkien would have had one or more editions of Sweet already as working copies, and with Michaelmas Term of that year he fully took up the duties of the Merton Professorship in which he no longer taught Anglo-Saxon.

I might mention that I’ve looked on eBay at other autographed items sold by the person offering this book, and am uncertain about some of those signatures as well.

Wayne

Posted on: 2009/1/5 19:41


Re: 1982 Super Deluxe Silmarillion Question
Home away from home
Joined:
2008/5/21 19:36
Group:
Shirefolk
Fellowship
Posts: 180
Offline
In the Descriptive Bibliography entry for the 1982 Silmarillion (A15h) I stated that “Allen & Unwin do not seem to have bound all 1,000 sets of sheets, and some originally unsigned copies were later converted to signed copies. All 100 signed copies appear to have been sold.” This is accurate, but was condensed, to a comfortable level of certainty, from more elaborate data in Allen & Unwin records which had passed to HarperCollins.

It appears that originally 170 copies were bound, numbered 1-70 (signed by Christopher Tolkien) and 101-200. The edition did not sell as well as Allen & Unwin hoped, but there was enough interest (or the publisher anticipated enough interest) that additional copies were bound beyond these 170. Also, there was enough demand for signed copies that some originally meant to be unsigned, i.e. numbered higher than 100, were converted. Just how this was done isn’t clear, and depends on whether those copies numbered 1-100 all have the statement of limitation, with Christopher’s signature, on a separate leaf inserted following the first integral (blank) leaf, or whether some of those low-numbered copies have the numbered and signed statement on a plate (identical to the separate leaf, except without the signature and trimmed) pasted on the recto of the front free endpaper.

When I wrote the Bibliography, Christina and I were not yet married and our Tolkien collections had an ocean between them, so I had never seen my signed copy (no. 9) next to her unsigned copy (no. 134), and didn’t know that although mine has a statement of limitation on a separate inserted leaf -- which I mistakenly assumed was true of all copies, signed and unsigned -- Christina’s has a limitation plate pasted onto the front endpaper. I would be interested to know if anyone who has a signed copy has the signature on one of the pasted-on plates rather than on a separate leaf, and what the copy number is.

I assume, because it would have been the most efficient way, that the separate limitation leaves were signed by Christopher before they were bound into the printed book. The signed copies in fact were available (I had to wait for the one I ordered) after the unsigned copies were put on sale, and I heard that the former were delayed at the bindery -- probably, I’ve thought, because of the extra step of inserting the extra leaf, though it could also be that Christopher took longer than expected to produce a hundred signatures. But were the unsigned limitation plates pasted into copies 101+ at the bindery, or left loose to be pasted in as copies were needed for sale? If they were pasted in, how were unsigned copies converted? Those big plates couldn’t be soaked out without damage to the free endpaper. Were the free endpapers, with pasted-in plates, excised and a replacement endpaper inserted on a stub, while one of the separate limitation leaves with Christopher’s signature was tipped in? Were signed limitation leaves cut down to plate size and pasted over existing plates?

Different possibilities occur to me, but from the Allen & Unwin records it seems certain at least that each of the unsigned copies had a number assigned to it. There seems to have been no rhyme or reason in the selection of copies originally meant to be unsigned for conversion to signed copies, perhaps a random picking from stock. No. 99 was designated as signed all by itself, possibly by special request. Copies 245, 248, 265, 273, and 281 became nos. 71-75, nos. 290-299 became nos. 76-85, and fourteen other copies, again mostly not in sequence, became 86-98 and 100.

The record is fairly clear that all 100 signed copies were sold. Since copies are known to have been available numbered as high as 299, this suggests that maybe 270 were bound up (1-70 + 99 + 101-200 + 201-299), assuming that there was no break in the original numbering after 200. Unfortunately, the Allen & Unwin files did not include sales figures. It’s conceivable that there were unsold copies of the unsigned version, which themselves may have been discarded, and bound copies left deliberately unnumbered (out of series) for distribution to Allen & Unwin officials, friends of the firm, etc. A file note of 4 March 1988 says that 700 sets of sheets were still held at that time, thus (allowing that this may be a rounded figure) 300 sets were used for binding or lost to waste. The question was asked whether these 700 sets should be pulped, and since there was no reply recorded, in the absence of any further indication of binding one could assume that the unbound sheets were indeed pulped -- although a more economical solution would have been to bind up the excess sheets as standard trade copies the next time a new supply was needed.

Wayne

Posted on: 2008/12/29 21:28



 Top
« 1 ... 26 27 28 (29) 30 31 32 ... 34 »