Comments on: Mark Faith Offerings http://www.tolkienguide.com/modules/wordpress/archives/81 Tolkien Collector's Guide Collecting News Sun, 05 Feb 2012 10:53:48 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.0.3 by: Rowns http://www.tolkienguide.com/modules/wordpress/archives/81#comment-1551 Thu, 04 Feb 2010 05:04:09 +0000 http://www.tolkienguide.com/modules/wordpress/archives/81#comment-1551 Thanks Findegil! I misread the bibliography entry about which impression typesetting was destroyed. Thanks Findegil! I misread the bibliography entry about which impression typesetting was destroyed.

]]> by: Findegil http://www.tolkienguide.com/modules/wordpress/archives/81#comment-1550 Thu, 04 Feb 2010 03:09:52 +0000 http://www.tolkienguide.com/modules/wordpress/archives/81#comment-1550 It was the typesetting for the *first* impression that was destroyed. The printer was supposed to leave this standing for a possible second impression, and after that to make moulds for plates which would be used for later impressions rather than the original type. When the printer got an order for a second impression, he reset the type without Tolkien's or Allen & Unwin's knowledge, introducing many errors while continuing others. Presumably a proof was taken of the third impression to verify that the eleven corrections submitted for it were made. It was the typesetting for the *first* impression that was destroyed. The printer was supposed to leave this standing for a possible second impression, and after that to make moulds for plates which would be used for later impressions rather than the original type. When the printer got an order for a second impression, he reset the type without Tolkien's or Allen & Unwin's knowledge, introducing many errors while continuing others. Presumably a proof was taken of the third impression to verify that the eleven corrections submitted for it were made.

]]> by: Rowns http://www.tolkienguide.com/modules/wordpress/archives/81#comment-1542 Fri, 29 Jan 2010 05:13:34 +0000 http://www.tolkienguide.com/modules/wordpress/archives/81#comment-1542 It's a proof of the third impression. :-) It is unbound sheets with pencil corrections (from second to third impression), before it went to the printer. Hammond pp. 97-98 calls out that the typesetting from the second impression was undesirably destroyed before plates were made - "eleven corrections submitted for the third impression of FR (January 1955, not seen)". Could be an important copy! I have let Findegil know if he doesn't already. Plates were used from the fourth impression on according to Wayne. It's a proof of the third impression. It is unbound sheets with pencil corrections (from second to third impression), before it went to the printer. Hammond pp. 97-98 calls out that the typesetting from the second impression was undesirably destroyed before plates were made - "eleven corrections submitted for the third impression of FR (January 1955, not seen)". Could be an important copy! I have let Findegil know if he doesn't already. Plates were used from the fourth impression on according to Wayne.

]]> by: Jason Fisher http://www.tolkienguide.com/modules/wordpress/archives/81#comment-1541 Thu, 28 Jan 2010 22:19:26 +0000 http://www.tolkienguide.com/modules/wordpress/archives/81#comment-1541 How can a proof copy be a third impression of the first edition? As far as I undertand the matter, proof copies are, by definition, pre-publication copies — that is, prior to even the *first* impression. The third impression would just have been a reprint of the first; I can't see there being any need for a proof copy of it. There *would* have been proofs, I imagine, of the second edition (1966), since the text was markedly changed. Can you clarify exactly what sort of copy this is? Thanks! :) How can a proof copy be a third impression of the first edition? As far as I undertand the matter, proof copies are, by definition, pre-publication copies — that is, prior to even the *first* impression. The third impression would just have been a reprint of the first; I can't see there being any need for a proof copy of it. There *would* have been proofs, I imagine, of the second edition (1966), since the text was markedly changed.

Can you clarify exactly what sort of copy this is? Thanks! :)

]]>