A few interesting signed Tolkien items on Abebooks

Urulókë wrote:
Not commenting on prices asked, just pointing out that these are available.

That Doris Sykes sale is a really odd one. The letter sold in 2013 for £15,000 with the envelope.

Odd to separate them.

No disagreement. Likely someone wanted to recoup some of the cost of the auction purchase? I would prefer they be kept together, personally.

Urulókë wrote:
No disagreement. Likely someone wanted to recoup some of the cost of the auction purchase? I would prefer they be kept together, personally.

That is all I can think too and I also would opt to keep them together. It is a real shame to separate an item like this.

onthetrail wrote:

Urulókë wrote:
No disagreement. Likely someone wanted to recoup some of the cost of the auction purchase? I would prefer they be kept together, personally.

That is all I can think too and I also would opt to keep them together. It is a real shame to separate an item like this.

It is, but equally, the items are documented and photographed, given they have been publicly auctioned. In many ways, that is more important than the physical items themselves, which will likely sit in someone's private collection anyway. Stuck in two dark holes vs one doesn't really make much odds.

Stu wrote:

It is, but equally, the items are documented and photographed, given they have been publicly auctioned. In many ways, that is more important than the physical items themselves, which will likely sit in someone's private collection anyway. Stuck in two dark holes vs one doesn't really make much odds.

Are the pages of the January 1956 letter photographed? I thought it was just the final page and the other two partially covered. Which is what surprises me that it is being split from the envelope given it makes such a 'complete' item.

onthetrail wrote:

Stu wrote:

It is, but equally, the items are documented and photographed, given they have been publicly auctioned. In many ways, that is more important than the physical items themselves, which will likely sit in someone's private collection anyway. Stuck in two dark holes vs one doesn't really make much odds.

Are the pages of the January 1956 letter photographed? I thought it was just the final page and the other two partially covered. Which is what surprises me that it is being split from the envelope given it makes such a 'complete' item.

Not sure, tbh -- but the relationship between envelope and letter is clearly established, so even though they may have different owners in the end, that they started out together as a unit is clear. It only really impacts the owner(s) that they are not together. I don't see this as vandalism in the same way as I see people cutting and separating signatures from letters to stick them in books, which I consider to be despicable profiteering assholery (that is hopefully becoming less common now the letters have such monetary value).

Linked documentary evidence like this shouldn't be separated if there was the choice to keep them together. Only makes it worse that this was motivated by money.

Stu wrote:

Not sure, tbh -- but the relationship between envelope and letter is clearly established, so even though they may have different owners in the end, that they started out together as a unit is clear. It only really impacts the owner(s) that they are not together. I don't see this as vandalism in the same way as I see people cutting and separating signatures from letters to stick them in books, which I consider to be despicable profiteering assholery (that is hopefully becoming less common now the letters have such monetary value).

I feel the envelope is clearly a part of the one item in this instance. Spending the kind of money that was spent to then remove one part of it is a poor decision in my opinion.

onthetrail wrote:
I feel the envelope is clearly a part of the one item in this instance. Spending the kind of money that was spent to then remove one part of it is a poor decision in my opinion.

Would I do it myself? No. But on the other hand, some person owns the item and wants to sell it on, which is really their business, IMHO. Nothing is being remotely destroyed here -- stuff is just being moved around different private collections as happens every day. Also, I don't really think the envelope has any special significance. It is a nice item, but equally, it just an envelope with a name and address on. I think it is important to keep perspective. All it really means is that some collector in the future might not be able to purchase both items for their own private collection. I find it hard to get too concerned about that outcome.

I keep my scorn for those book dealers who willfully destroy items to make a fast buck. I mean even they have the right to do so, but it feels to me like a much different line has been crossed.