The latest reprint of A Reader's Companion indeed looks a bit poor, judging from your photo. I guess if the printer could manage to make it thinner, it would look much better.

My copies:

The Fellowship of the Ring: 9th printing
The Two Towers: 8th printing
The Return of the King: 8th printing
Reader's Companion: 3rd printing

It's a 60th set, with the printing 'continuing' from the 50th anniversary editions. Date of purchase was for the 60th anniversary of The Return of the King (which I celebrate instead of the anniversary for The Fellowship of the Ring) , which would have been October 20th, 2015.

The only known errors in the entire set - only The Fellowship of the Ring really - are:

- no comma after "my dear Frodo" in Gandalf's letter he gets from butter
- a line of one of the poems is not indented correctly (though nothing wrong with the TEXT)
- in The Leaves of Book Marazubul (sp?) it's spelt incorrectly, like in later printings of the 50th anniversary single-volume edition.

I've checked my copies using the Hammond + Scull addenda/corrigenda.

They are printed in China, however the only indication of such - copyright page aside - is the dustjackets aren't quite the same as my matching Hobbit (70th anniversary edition), The Silmarillion or Unfinished Tales.

oops, a few typos and things need correcting in my above post:

- meant to say "from Butterbur"
- the misspelling of the Book (plates section), is only for the caption/title for the illustration.

I never purchased either of the boxes new but I found a 50th set with its almost entirely destroyed slipcase represented by the back plate only for £30 how could I refuse considering the books were in almost new condition themselves while the slipcase gt the fate it deserved imo.

All printed at LEGO and are 2/5/5 and a 1st companion.

If the numbering of the 60th LEGO followed on from the 50th LEGO that would make my own 50th ed 5th or Lawrence 60th ed 5th Return of the King a little odd right?

It all depends - the dustjacket would SAY "50th anniversary edition" on it under the title, and the lettering would be gold/foil. I believe that the 60th began it's 'print run' starting with the 6th printing, though I could be mistaken.

But the dustjacket is the tell.

insurrbution wrote:
It all depends - the dustjacket would SAY "50th anniversary edition" on it under the title, and the lettering would be gold/foil. I believe that the 60th began it's 'print run' starting with the 6th printing, though I could be mistaken.

But the dustjacket is the tell.

Lawrence quotes a 5th for the 60th ann ed though which would mean we both have a 5th across the two eds. Maybe Lawrence can check again if his 60th Return is a 5th?

onthetrail wrote:

If the numbering of the 60th LEGO followed on from the 50th LEGO that would make my own 50th ed 5th or Lawrence 60th ed 5th Return of the King a little odd right?

onthetrail, I have a 5th impression of RotK that is a 60th Anniversary Edition as well. If you have a chance could we see some pictures of your 50th? (Let me know if you’d like pics of mine.) Copyright page, jacket, inside flap...

Do you think your set was originally sold like that or maybe the books (or some of the books) were bought separately? 2/5/5 doesn’t seem to follow the usual sequence. Maybe just FotR was replaced.

I think it’s safe to say the first impressions of the 60th were 6/6/5/1 but some remaining stock was probably still being used up. I’ve seen one set of 6/6/5/1 with The Fellowship in a 50th DJ.

insurrbution, could I see a picture of your Fellowship page 169 please?

insurrbution wrote:

The only known errors in the entire set - only The Fellowship of the Ring really - are:

These are not the only known errors but hopefully HarperCollins will update the text soon since there seem to be so few remaining.

Here’s a few more comparison pics, taken a couple years ago. Three of various FotR, one of three 60th sets, and the last one of the 1st thus slipcases:

Yeah the poem on that page has one line that isn't indented properly. The words themselves, though, are fine

Don't know if those images help. I think this was not a set tbh. It had a very damaged slip but given the numbers offered here I doubt it all came from one set. I never paid much attention as I paid very little and bought them just to match those Silm/UT editions.

Thank you onthetrail, they do help! Trying to keep records of these changes.