So what's the deal with the impressions for this then? Are there only those first impression sets kicking around, or has anyone got marked second impressions yet?
In other news: The Folio Society are selling HarperCollins editions of Tolkien; which is a new one on me, since historically they have only sold their own editions. They are exclusively selling the S&G Super Deluxe for £250; have the little flyer in front of me. Not really a very good discounted price; one would expect to be able to pick it up new from HC for this price already. Clearly these really, really didn't shift after initial sales. Curious how many of these they have left & why they don't just discount them right down to, say, £100.
BH
In other news: The Folio Society are selling HarperCollins editions of Tolkien; which is a new one on me, since historically they have only sold their own editions. They are exclusively selling the S&G Super Deluxe for £250; have the little flyer in front of me. Not really a very good discounted price; one would expect to be able to pick it up new from HC for this price already. Clearly these really, really didn't shift after initial sales. Curious how many of these they have left & why they don't just discount them right down to, say, £100.
BH
Based on what reported on their website, they still have 107 copies left
http://www.foliosociety.com/book/LSG/sigurd-gudrun
http://www.foliosociety.com/book/LSG/sigurd-gudrun
I wonder if ~110 is what HC had left & they have handed all that to FS. I'm guessing HC might still be the ones shipping them.
BH
BH
Looks like Book Depository and others have it for a little less:
Book2Anywhere - Sigurd Sp Del
Book Depository - Sigurd Sp Del
Book2Anywhere - Sigurd Sp Del
Book Depository - Sigurd Sp Del
These were originally £250 from HarperCollins back in 2009. The price increased to £350 a short while after release.
As Khamul suggested, I feel they would be better off just remaindering them for £100 (which actually would be a bargain) and getting rid of them.
As Khamul suggested, I feel they would be better off just remaindering them for £100 (which actually would be a bargain) and getting rid of them.
MInd you, looking t their website, they price-discriminate based on location, so the priceI see is £350, and the "exclusive saving" I see is, in fact, £0.
That said, they seem to have sold 16 copies.
That said, they seem to have sold 16 copies.
Don't think they price discriminate based on location. Price shows £350 for every location I tried using a VPN
I think Khamul referenced a flyer from the Folio Society with a special offer price of £250
I think Khamul referenced a flyer from the Folio Society with a special offer price of £250
remy wrote:
Don't think they price discriminate based on location. Price shows £350 for every location I tried using a VPN
I think Khamul referenced a flyer from the Folio Society with a special offer price of £250
Ahh, fair enough. Still, very cheeky to claim this is a special price (on the website), when in fact it is not.
30 Oct, 2017
(edited)
2017-10-30 2:54:21 PM UTC
Edited by Trotter on 2017-10-30 3:04:25 PM UTC
Edited by Trotter on 2017-10-30 3:12:39 PM UTC
Edited by Trotter on 2017-10-30 3:12:39 PM UTC
2017-10-30 2:54:21 PM UTC
Finally got the Middle-Earth Treasury, all three books are 1st printings, and have done a quick comparision with Lord of the Rings Comparison 3, I have included the new page numbers.
https://wayneandchristina.wordpress.co ... f-the-rings-comparison-3/
On pp. xvi–xix, our note on the 50th anniversary edition was reprinted from 2004, though we submitted a slightly amended version. This is in error in our earlier copy, the 6th printing, but was corrected by the 8th printing in our new set.
Page xviii-xxiii This is correct.
On p. 169, l. 7 from bottom, ‘Dear Frodo,’ (the opening of Gandalf’s letter) was still indented, though it should be flush with the left margin. This was corrected by the 8th printing, but the comma after ‘Frodo’ was mistakenly deleted.
Page 222, l. 4, 'Dear Frodo,' is indented.
On p. 170, l. 9, we had noted, in regard to the original 50th anniversary setting, that the first line of the poem (‘All that is gold does not glitter,’) should be indented, that is, brought to the left measure of the poem rather than set (with a standard paragraph indent) at the left measure of the larger text block. The typesetter failed to see that this point had been corrected already in this edition, and indented the line still further, too far to the right. It is still in error in the 8th printing.
Page 222 l. 22, this is correct
For p. 1041, n. 1 (etc.), we had discussed issues with footnotes or parts of footnotes in Appendix A which needed to be within quotation marks, to indicate ‘extracts’ from annals or tales. The typesetter has misread this in regard to n. 1 on p. 1043: here, instead of an ‘extract’, followed by a comment not within quotation marks, followed by another extract, the comment has been enclosed in quotation marks, within a larger not in quotation marks. The note should correctly read, with all quotation marks as they should be printed: ‘The sceptre was the chief mark . . . with a silver fillet’ (p. 146; pp. 848, 861, 967). In speaking of a crown . . . Aragorn’s line. ‘The sceptre of Númenor . . . crowning of Aragorn.’ This is an error in the 6th printing of The Return of the King, but was corrected in the 7th printing.
Page 1365 ' missing from end of silver fillet, rest looks correct.
From Tolkien Notes 13, https://wayneandchristina.wordpress.co ... 5/12/25/tolkien-notes-13/
Page 1430, l. 34 The year 2952 is missing, and text is still indented.
Page 1432, l. 13 The year 3016 is missing, Elrond sends for Arwen, should be on a new line.
On p. 1100, the death date of Bingo Baggins should not be ‘1363’ but rather ‘1360’. The date is incorrect in the 6th printing, but correct in the 7th.
Page 1445, this is correct
On p. 1136, l. 7, the name hámfœst (with an oe digraph) was not corrected to hámfæst (with an ae digraph). The digraph is incorrect in the 6th printing, but correct in the 7th.
Page 1493, l.15 this is correct
On p. 1137, l. 29, ‘butterflies to the falcon’ was not corrected to ‘butterflies to the swift falcon’. The phrase is incorrect in the 6th printing, but correct in the 7th.
Page 1495, l. 23 this is correct
On p. 1173, index col. 2, entry for ‘Spiders’, the see also note should read ‘Shelob; Ungoliant’, with a semi-colon, but was set instead with a comma. This is incorrect in the 6th printing, but correct in the 7th.
Page 1558, index col.2 entry for 'Spiders' has been deleted
The index has been completely reset and at a cursory glance, it has a lot of new issues, resulting from the reset.
https://wayneandchristina.wordpress.co ... f-the-rings-comparison-3/
On pp. xvi–xix, our note on the 50th anniversary edition was reprinted from 2004, though we submitted a slightly amended version. This is in error in our earlier copy, the 6th printing, but was corrected by the 8th printing in our new set.
Page xviii-xxiii This is correct.
On p. 169, l. 7 from bottom, ‘Dear Frodo,’ (the opening of Gandalf’s letter) was still indented, though it should be flush with the left margin. This was corrected by the 8th printing, but the comma after ‘Frodo’ was mistakenly deleted.
Page 222, l. 4, 'Dear Frodo,' is indented.
On p. 170, l. 9, we had noted, in regard to the original 50th anniversary setting, that the first line of the poem (‘All that is gold does not glitter,’) should be indented, that is, brought to the left measure of the poem rather than set (with a standard paragraph indent) at the left measure of the larger text block. The typesetter failed to see that this point had been corrected already in this edition, and indented the line still further, too far to the right. It is still in error in the 8th printing.
Page 222 l. 22, this is correct
For p. 1041, n. 1 (etc.), we had discussed issues with footnotes or parts of footnotes in Appendix A which needed to be within quotation marks, to indicate ‘extracts’ from annals or tales. The typesetter has misread this in regard to n. 1 on p. 1043: here, instead of an ‘extract’, followed by a comment not within quotation marks, followed by another extract, the comment has been enclosed in quotation marks, within a larger not in quotation marks. The note should correctly read, with all quotation marks as they should be printed: ‘The sceptre was the chief mark . . . with a silver fillet’ (p. 146; pp. 848, 861, 967). In speaking of a crown . . . Aragorn’s line. ‘The sceptre of Númenor . . . crowning of Aragorn.’ This is an error in the 6th printing of The Return of the King, but was corrected in the 7th printing.
Page 1365 ' missing from end of silver fillet, rest looks correct.
From Tolkien Notes 13, https://wayneandchristina.wordpress.co ... 5/12/25/tolkien-notes-13/
Page 1430, l. 34 The year 2952 is missing, and text is still indented.
Page 1432, l. 13 The year 3016 is missing, Elrond sends for Arwen, should be on a new line.
On p. 1100, the death date of Bingo Baggins should not be ‘1363’ but rather ‘1360’. The date is incorrect in the 6th printing, but correct in the 7th.
Page 1445, this is correct
On p. 1136, l. 7, the name hámfœst (with an oe digraph) was not corrected to hámfæst (with an ae digraph). The digraph is incorrect in the 6th printing, but correct in the 7th.
Page 1493, l.15 this is correct
On p. 1137, l. 29, ‘butterflies to the falcon’ was not corrected to ‘butterflies to the swift falcon’. The phrase is incorrect in the 6th printing, but correct in the 7th.
Page 1495, l. 23 this is correct
On p. 1173, index col. 2, entry for ‘Spiders’, the see also note should read ‘Shelob; Ungoliant’, with a semi-colon, but was set instead with a comma. This is incorrect in the 6th printing, but correct in the 7th.
Page 1558, index col.2 entry for 'Spiders' has been deleted
The index has been completely reset and at a cursory glance, it has a lot of new issues, resulting from the reset.
3
213