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
1 hour 59 minutes ago

laurel
2 hours 41 minutes ago

Trotter
4 hours 16 minutes ago

Karl
5 hours 51 minutes ago

Berelach
6 hours 21 minutes ago

Findegil
12 hours 51 minutes ago

Stu
14 hours 6 minutes ago

Urulöké
16 hours 58 minutes ago


« 1 2 3 (4) 5 6 7 ... 158 »


Re: The Wonders of...
Shirrif
Joined:
2008/8/10 2:07
From Queenstown, New Zealand
Group:
Shirefolk
Fellowship
Shirrif
Posts: 828
Offline

Trotter wrote:
It has been described in a slightly different way in the past, which I think clarifies three stamped dates at the front of the book and three at the rear.

"1937 1st edition, 1st impression. Very good book and jacket. Book has usual age related wear, but no serious damage. There are small rubber date stamps to the front and rear end pages, 3 each. We would say it belong to a private club library as there are no other indication of library stamps or excessive wear. The dust jacket has a 3 inch paper section missing from the rear top edge of the jacket. This could be restored, but we don’t recommend it. Overall, a very presentable copy and more affordable for the flaws mentioned. You could spend £35,000 plus just on this edition.".

I can't tell from the pictures if any leaves are missing at the front of the book, the page with 'First Published 1937' is the fourth page in the book.


Looks like the "first published 1937" page is the third leaf in this copy. Can't tell for sure, mind.

Still, the changing of the description from "stamps front and rear/private library" to "child playing with a rubber stamp" absolutely stinks.

Attach file:



jpg  front.jpg (60.66 KB)
228_568f683eabb85.jpg 1404X1144 px

Posted on: 1/8 0:41:50


Re: The Wonders of...
Shirrif
Joined:
2008/8/10 2:07
From Queenstown, New Zealand
Group:
Shirefolk
Fellowship
Shirrif
Posts: 828
Offline

Khamûl wrote:
To be fair, Stu, if there are "no other marks or indications to explain them", then this is a pretty odd ex-library copy. My natural assumption would be that this is an ex-library copy; stamping was started at the front; they ran out of space & eventually ended up at the back ("1969"); but the front endpaper has been removed. Note there is no photograph of the half-title pg. That said, dogfark says there are no other marks or indications...

I also don't think it's accurate to describe that jacket as "unrestored very good". What's left of it might be very good; what's left of it might be very good for a 1937 1st impressions H. The jacket cannot have that amount missing from it & be described as VG though.

BH


I agree, but then I do have two ex-lib books that only have marks at the back on a single page (none at the front at all, and no missing pages), so it does happen. My assumption is that those books had some kind of cover on at some point and bits of paper were attached to the cover, rather than the books, hence the lack of corresponding stamps and damage.

I had wondered if an end paper had been removed on this one, but not having a first to compare to, hard to tell (you can see how many pages are there in the picture, though, so someone with more knowledge than me might be able to tell??).

Also, in his "most likely explanation" spiel, he says the marks are "front and rear". Not clear if "front" is a mistake, as there is no picture, and the description does not mention marks at the front (Edit: Actually he does, I misread), so it's anyone's guess.

My problem is that his most likely explanation is nothing more than pure speculation, based on no evidence whatsoever. 99.9% of date stamps in a book indicate some kind of library system had the book at some point in its life prior to the stamped dates. I just don't like the way he always seems to spin things.

Posted on: 1/7 16:14:09

Edited by Stu on 2016/1/8 0:44:58


Re: The Wonders of...
Shirrif
Joined:
2008/8/10 2:07
From Queenstown, New Zealand
Group:
Shirefolk
Fellowship
Shirrif
Posts: 828
Offline
http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/J-R-R-Tolki ... bed35b:g:mN0AAOSwl8NVWIJu

Yep, when i find library-style date stamps in the back of a book, I think the most likely explanation is "three small date stamps front and rear end pages, not noticeable at first glance. Looks like a child was playing with their rubber stamp as there are no other marks or indications to explain them."...

That the book is ex-libris is clearly impossible. I'm guessing Mark F. clearly hasn't heard of Occam's razor.

Posted on: 1/7 15:38:07


Re: Recommendations for Tolkien facsimile dust jackets
Shirrif
Joined:
2008/8/10 2:07
From Queenstown, New Zealand
Group:
Shirefolk
Fellowship
Shirrif
Posts: 828
Offline
I produced a restoration of the Pleasure In Reading Hobbit boards so I could jacket my copy (obviously this book didn't have a jacket originally). Restoring the dragon was a bit challenging. At 600dpi, the image is very clearly made of diagonal rows of dots, so replacing all the missing bits involves lots of cloning, coupled with dodging and burning. Came out OK, though -- and a by-product was the discovery that the first/second impressions differ in that the dragon image wraps around the board more on the 2nd (with the "n" of "Tolkien" pretty much reaching on the edge of the board), and the "s" is missing from Longmans on the spine on the 2nd. Otherwise, I couldn't see anything different.

Attach file:



jpg  1970_pleasure_in_reading_2nd_boards_restored_V2_small.jpg (514.54 KB)
228_568cc2fe1d852.jpg 2898X1193 px

Posted on: 1/6 0:32:14


Re: The Appendices of The Lord of the Rings
Shirrif
Joined:
2008/8/10 2:07
From Queenstown, New Zealand
Group:
Shirefolk
Fellowship
Shirrif
Posts: 828
Offline

onthetrail wrote:
Sorry but I don't see how any software can help unless a digital reproduction is used of all the versions being cross referenced.

Software will not find errors from a paper document that has been scanned unless it is OCR'd, at which point the resulting document would then need to be referenced against a digital version and the errors that come from OCR corrected or the scanned and OCR'd document corrected by eye. I do not own one digital copy that has no errors and some are quite major so this would not represent a sound base copy with which to correct the OCR'd document. My own ongoing digitals are still full of errors and I have been working on them as long as they have been available.

I do see your point and you are quite correct about software finding differences in source code but I feel this is quite different when dealing with paper books. Humans are notorious for missing finer detail but some are well practiced in seeing errors on a page and can quickly identify changes in text that should ultimately be the same.



Yes, I was suggesting OCR. OCR can be very accurate, depending on the quality of the original (fonts, quality of printing, etc). It can also be very inaccurate, as you say, especially if the quality of the original type is poor. However, comparisons of OCRd copies are going to give you false positives, not false negatives, so if the OCR process itself is not arduous, there is essentially zero down side (unless the number of OCR errors is so high as for it to be useless -- which seems unlikely at this point in time). Plus, presumably current versions of the Appendices are already digital, so if the goal is to work backwards from what is there now and understand what has changed to get there, digital is the only sane choice (IMHO).

That said, I won't be doing any of the work (digital or otherwise), so my opinion is somewhat unimportant compared to those who will actually get involved.

Posted on: 2015/12/31 23:38

Edited by Stu on 2015/12/31 23:49:03
Edited by Stu on 2015/12/31 23:51:49
Edited by Stu on 2015/12/31 23:55:09



 Top
« 1 2 3 (4) 5 6 7 ... 158 »




© 2015 TolkienGuide.com and respective authors. Contact Us