Tolkien Collector's Guide
Sign In
Tolkien Collector's Guide
Important links:

Guide to Tolkien's Letters
-
Winner of the 2019 Tolkien Society award for Best Website

12

Farmer Giles Nelson 1961

8 Jul, 2017
2017-7-8 7:23:06 AM UTC

Wondering if anyone can please help me clarify information about this edition from Hammond's Bibliography. It says A&U offered Thomas Nelson & Sons the rights to Farmer Giles (after Houghton Mifflin let it go out of print) in 1961. "Beginning in March 1962, Nelson's sold at least 3,000 copies of FGH, of which 2,000 were imported from Allen & Unwin with cancel titles, and at least 1,000 appear to have been sheets of the first impression (dated 1950) imported by Houghton Mifflin..." (Hammond/Anderson, p78).

Does that mean that the 1,000 copies will have the same title verso as the 1950 1st edition? Does it mean there are two different states of this 1961 Nelson edition? The 1950 HM 1st edition title verso states, "First published in the USA in 1950" and the Nelson 1961 states, "First published in USA in 1961". I've seen a handful of the Nelson copies but I've never seen one with a copyright page other than the 1961 (pictured below). Also, none of the copies I've seen have had cancel titles.

Also, I've never seen a 2nd or 3rd printing of the 1950 HM 1st edition. Do they exist? I'm guessing they don't. The 1961 Nelson edition comes with a 4th impression jacket (with US price). I suppose that's counting from the A&U printings?

And lastly, does "Beginning in March 1962, Nelson's sold..." mean that this edition was first published in 1962 even though the copyright page states 1961? I assume it does... but for this and for everything else, I'd love some clarity.

Sorry if this is a bit hairy... not expecting too much but I really don't know where else to look for answers to these sorts of questions. If anyone can point me to another source, that might be even more helpful. Thank you!!

4451_596088514d3de.jpg 325X500 px
4 Oct, 2020
2020-10-4 8:45:11 AM UTC
Hey Berelach, I have managed to get a copy of this 1961 Nelson Edition, which is actually an uncorrected proof.
I also have the "First published in USA in 1961" on the copyright page
The back of the DJ is blank. Is it common for this edition or not?
4 Oct, 2020
2020-10-4 10:56:47 AM UTC
I didn't read the Nelson correspondence in the A&U Archive and I'm not at home to check addenda and corrigenda in The Tolkien Collector, but it seems odd that Nelson would have been able to obtain 1000 sets of sheets from the 1950 HM edition when, according to the correspondence, HM reported that they were out of stock in 1960, and allowed the rights to revert to A&U.

The Nelson edition appeared in the The New York Times Book Review on May 13. This prompted HM to ask A&U how Nelson had been able to obtain the rights - they had not recorded the reversion of rights - another reason it seems odd that Nelson would have been able to obtain the 1000 sets of 1950 sheets.

It seems unlikely, but could they be sheets of the 1957 A&U edition? 2000 of the 3950 were bound in 1957. The records I have don't cover anything later.

The back/lower cover of the FG jacket has details of other Tolkien books, so would have had to have been omitted from Nelson copies - HM held the American rights.

Something odd happened with impression numbers on the jackets for FG in the 1960s - 3rd impressions in 4th jackets, 4th impressions in 5th jackets, etc.

My theory is that A&U had already printed their jackets for the 3rd impression in 1961, so when they sold sheets to Nelson they had to print a batch of jackets as well and, to keep costs down, printed jackets for the A&U 4th impression at the same time - so both the A&U and Nelson 3rd impression copies have jackets that state 4th impression even though that was not printed until 1965.
4 Oct, 2020
2020-10-4 11:44:17 AM UTC
Thank you Deagol, your theory seems really convincing.
If that could help, here is the card of the review copy of mine :

It indicates, April 9th, 1962 as publication date.

By the way, don't know if (and what's) the difference between a review copy and uncorrected proof.

4888_5f79b58be1bd4.jpg 1600X1066 px
4 Oct, 2020
2020-10-4 11:54:22 AM UTC
An uncorrected proof is used by the Publisher and the Author to check what the book will look like when it is printed.

A review copy is sent to people for them to write a review to be published in a newspaper or journal. Today, it would also include an on-line review.
4 Oct, 2020
2020-10-4 12:25:48 PM UTC
Thanks Trotter, this is all clear.
4 Oct, 2020
2020-10-4 2:27:43 PM UTC
Let me try to make this clearer, at least as clear as the Nelson-Allen & Unwin correspondence will allow.

A&U offered the American rights to Nelson on 10 June 1961 after determining that Houghton Mifflin had allowed Farmer Giles to go out of print. A&U appear to have done a printing just for Nelson, with the title-leaf integral (as it is in my and Christina's copy, which does indeed have a blank lower panel on the jacket); this was shipped to Nelson on 29 December 1961, and a March 1962 letter from Nelson records that the quantity was 1,000 copies. My comment in the Bibliography about cancel titles appears to have been an incorrect assumption, or I muddled the first 2,000 copies with the job lot (see below); I hadn't seen a Nelson copy at the time of writing.

On 15 March 1962, Nelson wrote to A&U that sales of their edition were greater than anticipated, and ordered a second 1,000 copies. (Despite the official publication date of 9 April, advance sales began in March, hence my phrasing in the Bibliography -- without, then, knowledge of the official date -- "Beginning in March 1962, Nelson's sold".)

On 27 March 1962, Nelson reported to A&U that they had found "a large quantity" of Farmer Giles with a jobber (an intermediary used by publishers to distribute books to booksellers and libraries) at a clearance price. On 4 April they informed A&U that these copies had the Houghton Mifflin imprint and a 1950 date. On 13 April, they ordered 1,000 copies from A&U -- my notes from way back when say only this, but it probably meant 1,000 title-leaves for cancellation, because Nelson made sure that A&U knew that Nelson's original title-leaf had had a "first published . . . 1961" notice. (It may be that Nelson never distinguished their printings on the copyright page. But I haven't seen enough copies to make a judgement.)

On 22 May 1962 Nelson told A&U that they had had a complaint from Houghton Mifflin, who claimed that their American rights to Farmer Giles had never been rescinded, and they were planning to reprint. I can't find in my (scattered and now ancient) notes any confirmation of A&U informing Houghton Mifflin officially of the loss of rights, though Rayner Unwin reported to Tolkien on 30 May 1961 (Chronology, p. 607) that Farmer Giles was out of print in the USA, and A&U were trying to get it placed with some other American publisher. My guess is that Houghton Mifflin's sales weren't as good as they wanted them to be, and let it go, if a jobber could have a large number of copies available at clearance; and if they did that, Houghton Mifflin probably did let the title go out of print, or at least out of stock which would have amounted to the same thing.

The next word I've found in the A&U files is a note from 1963 that Houghton Mifflin may want to reprint Farmer Giles soon, by offset, but A&U evidently waited until Nelson's stock was depleted before returning the rights to Houghton Mifflin in 1964.

Publishers have often sent out uncorrected proofs as review copies, rather than wait for finished copies to be available.

Wayne
4 Oct, 2020
2020-10-4 3:32:21 PM UTC
Thanks, that really helps to fill out the story.

To fill in a couple of the blanks, a bookseller from California contacted A&U in August 1960 to try to obtain copies of FG because HM had returned their order as "Out of stock indefinitely, order cancelled".

On 25 August, A&U offered HM copies and asked if they could sell to US customers if HM did not want to continue. HM declined to take copies on 2 September and on 8 September A&U said they would assume that the rights had reverted to them.

My next notes are for May 1962, when there is an exchange between H&M and A&U where HM raise objections to the Nelson edition and A&U refer them back to the 1960 correspondence.

I never got around to typing up my non-LR notes for 1963 onwards, so after that I can't say without digging in box files.
4 Oct, 2020
2020-10-4 4:34:48 PM UTC
All of that sounds familiar, Deagol, and is probably in my notes somewhere, but overlooked when I reviewed my scribbles this morning. I have a drawer full of notebooks filled with bibliographical research over a period of years -- in the Unwin Hyman and HarperCollins offices, at Reading, Marquette, Harvard (their HM archive), etc., etc. -- before there was such a thing as a personal computer. And then I too have my box files.
4 Oct, 2020
2020-10-4 10:29:52 PM UTC
Thanks Findegil and Deagol for the detailed information. I've enjoyed reading this thread today.
12
Jump to Last
All original content ©2024 by the submitting authors. Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Cookie Policy | Contact Us