Foxrook wrote:
Definitely first time seeing it go over four digits… even high triple digits is pretty insane imoÉarendel wrote:
Emilien wrote:
Sold for £1030!
Although it’s a clean copy, that is mental.
I’d be happy to offload my copy for anyone who wants to pay that much for it 😅
(1955, 2nd GA&U Edition)
13 April
(edited)
2026-4-13 1:18:33 PM UTC
Edited by Mr. Underhill on 2026-4-13 1:18:54 PM UTC
Edited by Mr. Underhill on 2026-4-13 1:19:30 PM UTC
Edited by Mr. Underhill on 2026-4-13 1:21:18 PM UTC
Edited by Mr. Underhill on 2026-4-13 1:21:47 PM UTC
Edited by Mr. Underhill on 2026-4-13 1:19:30 PM UTC
Edited by Mr. Underhill on 2026-4-13 1:21:18 PM UTC
Edited by Mr. Underhill on 2026-4-13 1:21:47 PM UTC
2026-4-13 1:18:33 PM UTC
(Foyles Hobbit)
Trotter wrote:
Mr. Underhill wrote:
It is actually a third impression, no date on the title page.
Good catch, that detail always slips my mind for some reason...
For this set, multiple photos show The Hobbit is taller than the LotRs, but once in the box they are the same? Can someone with this set (or earlier version) speak on this?
Luckyshot wrote:
For this set, multiple photos show The Hobbit is taller than the LotRs, but once in the box they are the same? Can someone with this set (or earlier version) speak on this?
It’s just an optical illusion because The Hobbit is broader than LotR, so it’s sticking out further when they’re on end out of the box. The box itself is designed to compensate for this difference (it has a little extra cardboard on the lotr side).
Edit: Here are pics of my set, with the illusion recreated when looking at the spines, and in the other pic you can see inside the box and also the different lengths of the books sideways.







.jpeg)
6