A great opportunity to grab this eBay 'Acceptable' copy of the Hobbit, though the seller appears to have forgotten to mention that this item is by eBay terms 'Acceptable'.
He does not point out these salient facts, but gives some guidance for budding collectors, and in his excitement forgot to post any pictures of the ex-library stamps.
"THE HOBBIT BY J.R.R. Tolkien
worthy of any collection
11th impression
would make an excellent addition to any collector / fans collection
some sun marks as per pics and some spine lean, previous owners inscription to FEP, ex-library with stamps, damage to spice(sic) as per pics, some brown (age) spots and dusty page edges
worth much more than the asking price
low starting price, this value only likely to increase with the impending film release."
eBay Item #141373097390
He does not point out these salient facts, but gives some guidance for budding collectors, and in his excitement forgot to post any pictures of the ex-library stamps.
"THE HOBBIT BY J.R.R. Tolkien
worthy of any collection
11th impression
would make an excellent addition to any collector / fans collection
some sun marks as per pics and some spine lean, previous owners inscription to FEP, ex-library with stamps, damage to spice(sic) as per pics, some brown (age) spots and dusty page edges
worth much more than the asking price
low starting price, this value only likely to increase with the impending film release."
eBay Item #141373097390
Jlong wrote:
I saw that one. Is it even possible to determine which edition that came from?
It would probably be possible to narrow it down based on the typeface of the GA&U lettering on the spine and the alignment of the three colours in the artwork which varies from impression to impression.
Definitely isn't from any of the first edition printings - can say that much.
Jlong wrote:
I saw that one. Is it even possible to determine which edition that came from?
Not really, as the main clues would be on the flaps which have been cut off.
You can tell that it was a dust-jacket from a 2nd edition 1954 or later impression, from the George Allen & Unwin on the spine being typed and not hand-written, and it was no later than the last printing of the 3rd edition in 1975, as the size of the word Tolkien and Hobbit on the spine are smaller from 1978.
23 Aug, 2014
(edited)
2014-8-23 1:50:18 AM UTC
Edited by Stu on 2014-8-23 2:39:19 AM UTC
Edited by Stu on 2014-8-23 11:51:52 AM UTC
Edited by Stu on 2014-8-23 11:52:48 AM UTC
Edited by Stu on 2014-8-23 11:51:52 AM UTC
Edited by Stu on 2014-8-23 11:52:48 AM UTC
2014-8-23 1:50:18 AM UTC
For me, this is a "Wonders of" on so many levels
http://www.tolkienlibrary.com/tolkien-book-store/001266.htm
"History of Middle-Earth 3 Volume Box Set, by J.R.R. Tolkien.
Published by Harper Collins in 2002, these are later printings, #1 is a 6th impression, #2 a 5th impression and #3 is a 5th impression".
The wording is ambiguous, but I think this at least hints that this is a 2002 set, but with those impressions, it is the reprint boxed set published a couple of years back (2012, I think), which is still available brand new, and for a lot less money. At least, this should be made clear, especially given the comments about how hard to find the set it is (which definitely implies it is the original set, as that IS hard to find).
"The 3 volumes are all in Near Fine condition, in Near Fine dustjackets, now protected in archival protectors, except for a large bump to the upper left corner of the slipcase and the same corner of book number 1 is bumped as well."
Er.... No. The 3 volumes are NOT in Near Fine condition. Volume 1 is completely knackered. You can't just add "Except for [INSERT MASSIVE DAMAGE HERE]" to the description "Near Fine", otherwise every book in the world could be classed as Near Fine with some qualifier attached.
It has not split the seams of the case or anything more than wrinkled the rear boards of the book. Unfortunately the shipping damage of this type is quite common, due to the very heavy weight of this set, and the fairly fragile nature of the case.
Seriously, this set is knackered, and it is supposed to be OK because "loads of them are knackered". I have to say that mine turned up undamaged from Book Depository, so they didn't all get bumped in the post!
"A very hard to find set, let alone one with the publishers slipcase."
No, it isn't hard to find. Without the slipcase these are two-a-penny and available cheaply. The slipcased set is still available new, given that this is not the original version of this boxed set. Try Book Depository (USD 224 inc. shipping), Amazon ($241), tolkien.co.uk (RRP GBP 180).
It has not split the seams of the case or anything more than wrinkled the rear boards of the book
As per the pictures, the case and first volume are toast from a collectabilty perspective. There are genuinely two near fine volumes there, plus a slipcase and single volume that are fit for the bin. I understand that seriously damaged books can have value to collectors, especially when genuinely rare, but these aren't rare, despite the claims that they are.
I get irked by dealers playing down faults in books, and some dealers are worse than others, especially for the "near fine, except" trick. I know the pictures are all here in this case, so nothing is being hidden, but why the need for the marketing spin?
http://www.tolkienlibrary.com/tolkien-book-store/001266.htm
"History of Middle-Earth 3 Volume Box Set, by J.R.R. Tolkien.
Published by Harper Collins in 2002, these are later printings, #1 is a 6th impression, #2 a 5th impression and #3 is a 5th impression".
The wording is ambiguous, but I think this at least hints that this is a 2002 set, but with those impressions, it is the reprint boxed set published a couple of years back (2012, I think), which is still available brand new, and for a lot less money. At least, this should be made clear, especially given the comments about how hard to find the set it is (which definitely implies it is the original set, as that IS hard to find).
"The 3 volumes are all in Near Fine condition, in Near Fine dustjackets, now protected in archival protectors, except for a large bump to the upper left corner of the slipcase and the same corner of book number 1 is bumped as well."
Er.... No. The 3 volumes are NOT in Near Fine condition. Volume 1 is completely knackered. You can't just add "Except for [INSERT MASSIVE DAMAGE HERE]" to the description "Near Fine", otherwise every book in the world could be classed as Near Fine with some qualifier attached.
It has not split the seams of the case or anything more than wrinkled the rear boards of the book. Unfortunately the shipping damage of this type is quite common, due to the very heavy weight of this set, and the fairly fragile nature of the case.
Seriously, this set is knackered, and it is supposed to be OK because "loads of them are knackered". I have to say that mine turned up undamaged from Book Depository, so they didn't all get bumped in the post!
"A very hard to find set, let alone one with the publishers slipcase."
No, it isn't hard to find. Without the slipcase these are two-a-penny and available cheaply. The slipcased set is still available new, given that this is not the original version of this boxed set. Try Book Depository (USD 224 inc. shipping), Amazon ($241), tolkien.co.uk (RRP GBP 180).
It has not split the seams of the case or anything more than wrinkled the rear boards of the book
As per the pictures, the case and first volume are toast from a collectabilty perspective. There are genuinely two near fine volumes there, plus a slipcase and single volume that are fit for the bin. I understand that seriously damaged books can have value to collectors, especially when genuinely rare, but these aren't rare, despite the claims that they are.
I get irked by dealers playing down faults in books, and some dealers are worse than others, especially for the "near fine, except" trick. I know the pictures are all here in this case, so nothing is being hidden, but why the need for the marketing spin?
"THIS IS THE REAL DEAL & WILL NOT LAST. BUY ONE AS AN INVESTMENT, TO READ YOURSELF, OR AS AN AMAZING GIFT!!!"
Stu,
Please note that the set of HoME that you found fault with my description is no longer listed on my web site. I have notified Beren that they are no longer available. Also, did I miss somewhere where it said 'rare'. I may have said "hard to find", but certainly not rare. At the time they were listed, they were much harder to find then now after many more were issued by Harper Collins.
Dunedain
Please note that the set of HoME that you found fault with my description is no longer listed on my web site. I have notified Beren that they are no longer available. Also, did I miss somewhere where it said 'rare'. I may have said "hard to find", but certainly not rare. At the time they were listed, they were much harder to find then now after many more were issued by Harper Collins.
Dunedain
dunedain wrote:
Stu,
Please note that the set of HoME that you found fault with my description is no longer listed on my web site. I have notified Beren that they are no longer available. Also, did I miss somewhere where it said 'rare'. I may have said "hard to find", but certainly not rare. At the time they were listed, they were much harder to find then now after many more were issued by Harper Collins.
Dunedain
Thanks - I appreciate you removing the listing, and doing so so promptly.
You are correct about the word "rare" - that was me incorrectly conflating "rare" and "hard to find" in my summary paragraph. As I quoted the text from the advert verbatim, I don't think I misrepresented the spirit of the advert, though (but I should have been more careful in order to avoid hypocrisy!). I do accept what you say, in that the current( 6/5/5) incarnation of the set became briefly unavailable some time back and it seems that co-incided with your listing, which is just unfortunate timing.
I do believe my other two points about the listing were completely valid, especially with regards to description of condition. And I know you put up very good pictures on all your listings (so people can certainly see what they are getting - no argument there), but IMHO the specific words do still matter.
I know book grading can be a contentious subject which no one can agree on, but the definition from the IOBA website reads:
"NEAR FINE: a book approaching FINE (or AS NEW or MINT) but with a couple of very minor defects or faults, which must be noted."
If this were an eBay listing, I firmly do believe it would have been picked up and flagged onto this thread by someone here.
Stu