Emilien wrote:
An unusual version.
Maybe an Uncorrected Proof but it doesn't seem to be described as such.
https://ebay.us/m/ygYY7T
At a guess (speculating) - someone produced a "Home Made" copy using a Print On Demand Company. Normally the POD Companies state some printing information on the last page (Maybe this is why the last page is ripped out to hide this fact)... All guessing....
remy wrote:
Emilien wrote:
An unusual version.
Maybe an Uncorrected Proof but it doesn't seem to be described as such.
https://ebay.us/m/ygYY7T
At a guess (speculating) - someone produced a "Home Made" copy using a Print On Demand Company. Normally the POD Companies state some printing information on the last page (Maybe this is why the last page is ripped out to hide this fact)... All guessing....
If this is indeed an unauthorized copy, I think Wayne G. Hammond should get this sale taken down.
remy wrote:
Emilien wrote:
An unusual version.
Maybe an Uncorrected Proof but it doesn't seem to be described as such.
https://ebay.us/m/ygYY7T
At a guess (speculating) - someone produced a "Home Made" copy using a Print On Demand Company. Normally the POD Companies state some printing information on the last page (Maybe this is why the last page is ripped out to hide this fact)... All guessing....
Well spotted on that last page being torn out. Tagging Findegil here for their attention.
Thanks you guys...
I made an offer before retracting it. Having a bad feeling about it. Something looked wrong to me too. The paper wrapping seems too much modern to be a proof from 1993 (It seems to have a 'rubber' aspect which was simply not existing at the time). Paper looks also too recent. Also well spotted Remy for the last page being ripped of. Makes sense.
I made an offer before retracting it. Having a bad feeling about it. Something looked wrong to me too. The paper wrapping seems too much modern to be a proof from 1993 (It seems to have a 'rubber' aspect which was simply not existing at the time). Paper looks also too recent. Also well spotted Remy for the last page being ripped of. Makes sense.
Emilien wrote:
An unusual version.
Maybe an Uncorrected Proof but it doesn't seem to be described as such.
Not a proof IMO, aside from what has already been said about it, no proof markings or indication as such from the publisher (which is standard for proof copies) and lacking any publisher’s documentation. Looks like someone printed it at home on a photocopier.
I wish Wayne G. Hammond would do a mass reprint. It would let more collectors have this work for its intended purpose and the original edition could be for those that like to collect all things to do with Tolkien. Seems like an easy sell to a print on demand shop or a Kickstarter (to avoid risk).









5368