Morinehtar wrote:
I see a lot of those "true first edition" claims, some priced at around $400 with a faded spine! It is also worrisome that several sellers use "Near Fine" to describe copies ranging from Fine to VG.
Dogfark on eBay is one of the worst for making those claims, and suggesting real collectors would only ever bother with Clowes. Of course, he had an overpriced Clowes for sale..
Khamûl, as you were talking about variations I found the following.
Both of these maps from copies listed as Clawes 1st/1st:
Copy #1: http://i.ebayimg.com/images/g/gYcAAOSwLF1YAhWL/s-l1600.jpg
Copy #2: https://pictures.abebooks.com/WOODS_BOOKS/20655097127_5.jpg
Have you seen this before?
Both of these maps from copies listed as Clawes 1st/1st:
Copy #1: http://i.ebayimg.com/images/g/gYcAAOSwLF1YAhWL/s-l1600.jpg
Copy #2: https://pictures.abebooks.com/WOODS_BOOKS/20655097127_5.jpg
Have you seen this before?
I think it is do with where on the map it is affixed to the back of the book, but I would also like to know.
The fold is opposite on each map. Took me a while to see it as well. Look at the first fold from the left at the bottom, and it will be obvious.
Ah yes, the old folding & affixing...
Copy #1 has the most common folding & affixing. The map is folded top-to-bottom making a full length fold across (west to east) the map. The map is affixed to the RFEP using the SW corner of the map sheet. The map folds "up" (projected above the book) to open.
I can't quite see, but I think copy #2 has the same folding (maybe Stu is correct & it's folded opposite), it's just that it's been affixed using the NW corner of the map sheet. This is probably just affixed in error.
The maps are sometimes folded differently too; I've seen a few different variations to bring the map inside the book. I haven't noted whether these differences are consistently linked to other variations. Other aspects to note are that the Billing maps are on thicker paper, almost card like. The Billing maps are also not affixed to the rear FEP, but to the final blank page.
BH
Copy #1 has the most common folding & affixing. The map is folded top-to-bottom making a full length fold across (west to east) the map. The map is affixed to the RFEP using the SW corner of the map sheet. The map folds "up" (projected above the book) to open.
I can't quite see, but I think copy #2 has the same folding (maybe Stu is correct & it's folded opposite), it's just that it's been affixed using the NW corner of the map sheet. This is probably just affixed in error.
The maps are sometimes folded differently too; I've seen a few different variations to bring the map inside the book. I haven't noted whether these differences are consistently linked to other variations. Other aspects to note are that the Billing maps are on thicker paper, almost card like. The Billing maps are also not affixed to the rear FEP, but to the final blank page.
BH
Stu is correct. The map has 6 squared folds. On Copy #1 the map is glued to the bottom left square, therefore it folds out upwards. On Copy #2 the map is glued to the top left square, therefore it folds out downwards.
I only have a sample of 2 so I wonder how other Clawes 1st/1st look like? Whether these maps were glued by hand so that this discrepancy is normal or whether one copy is "wrong" (maybe the map fell out and it was attached back)?
Edit: I gues we posted at the same time. So none of your copies look like Copy #2? Probably an error, then. If these maps were affixed manually this might not be that uncommon though.
I only have a sample of 2 so I wonder how other Clawes 1st/1st look like? Whether these maps were glued by hand so that this discrepancy is normal or whether one copy is "wrong" (maybe the map fell out and it was attached back)?
Edit: I gues we posted at the same time. So none of your copies look like Copy #2? Probably an error, then. If these maps were affixed manually this might not be that uncommon though.
6 Nov, 2016
(edited)
2016-11-6 1:13:26 AM UTC
Edited by Morinehtar on 2016-11-6 1:31:44 AM UTC
2016-11-6 1:13:26 AM UTC
In taking a closer look to copy 2 the bottom left square is cut diagonally to allow the map to fold out downwards properly (on copy 1 the top left square is cut that way to fold it upwards). If it is an error then at least the intention to attach it that way was there all throughout. Maybe someone cut a batch of maps that way and instead of throwing them away they attached them to fold downwards. The probably figured not many people would care about this anyways.
So what's the final verdict?
So what's the final verdict?
My contribution but honestly I was no clue which version I have. Does anyone have pics of the copyright page? I don't see any mention of Billings or Clowes.
Edit: based on this link it appears I have a lousy 8th edition with the map opposite 168
http://tolkienbooks.net/php/details.php?reference=64140
I would also add that everything about this edition I have is lighter than the one Stu posted. The top staining is lighter but the color of the cloth is also a lighter shade of red.
This seems to be the copy I have based on the copyright page
Edit: based on this link it appears I have a lousy 8th edition with the map opposite 168
http://tolkienbooks.net/php/details.php?reference=64140
I would also add that everything about this edition I have is lighter than the one Stu posted. The top staining is lighter but the color of the cloth is also a lighter shade of red.
This seems to be the copy I have based on the copyright page
The Clowes vs Billings discussion was regarding Silmarillions (confusing due to thread title!).
With regards to yout UT, I believe the blue would have started out the same colour as mine; It is just horribly unstable in UV. Mine had about 3 months in daylight in Perth after I got it, and there was a tiny bit of reduction in brightness of the blue on the spine, so has been in a drawer ever since (and no further change in the 7 or 8 years since then).
With regards to yout UT, I believe the blue would have started out the same colour as mine; It is just horribly unstable in UV. Mine had about 3 months in daylight in Perth after I got it, and there was a tiny bit of reduction in brightness of the blue on the spine, so has been in a drawer ever since (and no further change in the 7 or 8 years since then).
72
