Bonkers

Urulöké : This is a great way to add ebay auctions, thanks for doing this

eBay Item #400549882844

"It's worth a lot. Because it's SIGNED. REALLY. ON A PIECE OF PAPER I TAPED INTO THE BOOK."

eBay Item #251314843895

P.S. Nothing wrong with tipped in signatures (assuming this one is real), but I don't think it adds anywhere near this amount of value, if much of any.

Urulöké wrote:
"It's worth a lot. Because it's SIGNED. REALLY. ON A PIECE OF PAPER I TAPED INTO THE BOOK."

eBay Item #251314843895

P.S. Nothing wrong with tipped in signatures (assuming this one is real), but I don't think it adds anywhere near this amount of value, if much of any.

I would say a tipped in signature devalues the book. It makes it less original.

How do you feel about signed bookplates then, Stu? Not meaning the published limited editions with bookplates, but there have been original bookplates (such as at the Children of Hurin release parties) that people added to books.

Urulöké wrote:
How do you feel about signed bookplates then, Stu? Not meaning the published limited editions with bookplates, but there have been original bookplates (such as at the Children of Hurin release parties) that people added to books.

Well, I tend to think that those release party bookplates were always intended to be put into copies of CoH, so I think they do add value to the intended recipient books as they have an intended relationship.

When it comes to other signatures, I always feel that the tipped in signature would be better wherever it originated and the book would be better original also. The individual unmolested items are better than the whole (a kind of reverse synergy!) I just don't see the need to stick two essentially unrelated items together to pretend that something is signed.

Sorry,

"2nd edition, 1961 13th overall impression with 13th impression jacket. Lovely book and jacket. No marks on book, binding tight , slight fading/darkening to book spine. Jacket is nice, unclipped, paper loss to spine ends, slight darkening to spine colors and edges. Not noticeable in its protective mylar (sorry about the flash on the mylar). These 2nd editions are quite rare compared to the later 1966, 3rd editions where tens of thousands more copies were printed due to the popularity of the Lord of the Rings paperback release in the US. Please ask for photos. Tolkien specialist. "

More photos should be provided.

Second Editions are rare (1951-1959 copies), but like most books it is the earlier copies that are rare.

This is a later copy and over-priced with a bad dust-jacket, and only one picture

eBay Item #261214709158

Stu wrote:
Well, I tend to think that those release party bookplates were always intended to be put into copies of CoH, so I think they do add value to the intended recipient books as they have an intended relationship.

I have a UK hardback Farmer Giles of Ham from 1972 with a label stuck into it signed by Pauline Baynes, the self-adhesive label was designed to go into one of her illustrated books, and they picked this one (would have preferred first printing of Tom Bombadil or Farmer Giles)

I am not a fan, like Stu of tipped-in signatures, I feel that these original items (letters, books, etc) should be left as they were and not mutilated to put signatures into books.

I am not a fan, like Stu of tipped-in signatures, I feel that these original items (letters, books, etc) should be left as they were and not mutilated to put signatures into books.

I agree. I think there is a difference, though, between a flat signature ("please sign this index card I have handy") that is essentially a bookplate without adhesive, and a letter or book that has been modified (and essentially had all value destroyed) to "sophisticate" a book by combining the two.

They are both "sophistications" (flat signatures or cut ones). In fact, technically, a bookplate is a sophistication too, just one that is broadly accepted in most situations. My personal preference is to only have/collect books with signed bookplates tipped in by the publisher or as intended by the publisher.

I have some bookplates coming to me from a modern author. I will keep them with my books of his, but not adhere them - just loosely laid in. I think that is best, personally, for this situation as it preserves the association between "the author was here" and the separation of "but not with this exact book".

I'm sure I have seen this 'bargain' before.

"The Hobbit by J.R.R. Tolkien - with the Rare Original Dustjacket"

eBay Item #380698931067

I broadly agree.

The CoH bookplates are a slightly troublesome example though. These were pre-signed but actually stuck in by the publisher (as has been said) at the point of purchase. Nobody (although, I'm sure there may have been one or two) received these signed bookplates loose with the book they purchased in Piccadilly, London on publication day. Sophistication, maybe; but certainly of publisher origin, & not some later cobbled together cut-letter + book nonsense. So, I certainly agree these belong together. The bookplate certainly doesn't belong in any other book.

That said, I think it's really splitting hairs, for example, to suggest Christopher signing a pile of loose sheets in the South of France that would later be bound into a completed book (i.e. the signed limitation pages of all "super" deluxe editions), is really that different from him signing a little sticky piece of paper, as with CoH. These seem more legitimate, but CT certainly never had a book in hand. A 1977 Silmarillion flat-signed at Museum St. prior to its release is, on the other hand, a proper signed book.

BH