Seems I was too fast clicking on "buy" -- I've contacted the seller to see if it's possible with a refund (s/he has likely not sent the book yet). Thank you, Stu. I should have known better than order something appearing in this thread! 
Morgan wrote:
Seems I was too fast clicking on "buy" -- I've contacted the seller to see if it's possible with a refund (s/he has likely not sent the book yet). Thank you, Stu. I should have known better than order something appearing in this thread!
The book was incorrectly described, so may be able to get your money back from Paypal if the seller is unwilling to co-operate.
Morgan --you're mental! When did you start collecting US editions anyway?
In regard to the description (Stu), pretty hard to argue that this is mis-described. With number line use there is no stated date for the impression itself --so what other date, besides the copyright date, is the seller going to give? e.g. LotRs 2004 50th Anniversary Deluxe Edition (like the matching H you're talking about in the other thread Stu). If this was number lined "3456789", people would still refer to it as the "2004 3rd impression", despite the printing date of the 3rd impression probably not being 2004; but 2005, 2006 etc. It doesn't say. Only collateral information (e.g. from correspondence with HC) would allow you to confidently state the actual date of this impression's physical printing.
[If this is what you refer to in regard to any mis-describing!
]
BH
EDIT: Of course, if the jacket isn't original to this particular copy, then you might have a case.
In regard to the description (Stu), pretty hard to argue that this is mis-described. With number line use there is no stated date for the impression itself --so what other date, besides the copyright date, is the seller going to give? e.g. LotRs 2004 50th Anniversary Deluxe Edition (like the matching H you're talking about in the other thread Stu). If this was number lined "3456789", people would still refer to it as the "2004 3rd impression", despite the printing date of the 3rd impression probably not being 2004; but 2005, 2006 etc. It doesn't say. Only collateral information (e.g. from correspondence with HC) would allow you to confidently state the actual date of this impression's physical printing.
[If this is what you refer to in regard to any mis-describing!
]BH
EDIT: Of course, if the jacket isn't original to this particular copy, then you might have a case.
The sale stated "1966 HC/DJ", so it was easy to miss. The seller understood and kindly made a refund just now. 
Ok, I am creeped out here...
HOBBIT-----OOAK-----Doll # 1-----BILBO BAGGINS
US $39.99 (0 Bid)
End Date: Saturday Apr-28-2012 12:46:27 PDT
HOBBIT-----OOAK-----Doll # 1-----BILBO BAGGINS
US $39.99 (0 Bid)
End Date: Saturday Apr-28-2012 12:46:27 PDT
Khamul wrote:
Morgan --you're mental! When did you start collecting US editions anyway?
In regard to the description (Stu), pretty hard to argue that this is mis-described. With number line use there is no stated date for the impression itself --so what other date, besides the copyright date, is the seller going to give? e.g. LotRs 2004 50th Anniversary Deluxe Edition (like the matching H you're talking about in the other thread Stu). If this was number lined "3456789", people would still refer to it as the "2004 3rd impression", despite the printing date of the 3rd impression probably not being 2004; but 2005, 2006 etc. It doesn't say. Only collateral information (e.g. from correspondence with HC) would allow you to confidently state the actual date of this impression's physical printing.
[If this is what you refer to in regard to any mis-describing!
BH
EDIT: Of course, if the jacket isn't original to this particular copy, then you might have a case.
That is what I was referring to. The 25th impression should not have a modern $14.95 jacket with a barcode. The book and jacket don't match, but there is nothing in the listing to state that. It is moot anyway as the seller has done the right thing.
Well at least he spelt the title of the book correctly - and the author's name. And he's right about the date too (presumably) so - what more could a punter ask?
http://www.ebay.com/itm/The-Hobbit-J- ... tible&hash=item4ab6fc2e52
quote: "To reiterate: every page is blank, there is no printing in or on the book. There is no actual printing on the dust jacket, except for a label. It is a blank printer's dummy. "
Clearly the vendor is hoping for a buyer who is both rich, and stupid.
quote: "To reiterate: every page is blank, there is no printing in or on the book. There is no actual printing on the dust jacket, except for a label. It is a blank printer's dummy. "
Clearly the vendor is hoping for a buyer who is both rich, and stupid.
274
66101