The Lord of the Rings Illustrated Edition
$69.39
TolkienGuide is a Blackwell's affiliate
Tolkien Collector's Guide
12
Feb 13
2021/2/13 21:47:41 (GMT) Greenwich Mean Time, London, Dublin, Lisbon, Casablanca, Monrovia

Faramond wrote:

This 1982 edition, in seemingly excellent condition, is selling for ~£5415. https://www.tolkienlibrary.com/tolkien-book-store/001414.htm

That has been listed there forever.
Feb 13
2021/2/13 21:51:32 (GMT) Greenwich Mean Time, London, Dublin, Lisbon, Casablanca, Monrovia
Not an original slipcase
Feb 13
2021/2/13 21:59:35 (GMT) Greenwich Mean Time, London, Dublin, Lisbon, Casablanca, Monrovia

Stu wrote:

Worth saying that I've seen two unsigned 1982s sell for a lot less than £3000 in the last two years (£1500 range), but I'm not sure how that translates into today's market, which seems to be nuts.

£1500 for an unsigned 1982 copy would not be bad at all also if not exactly fine, but I think it will be hard to be in the right place at the right time with that amount of money to spare without forewarning, and from what I understood they come up rarely, once or twice a year at best.
Feb 13
2021/2/13 22:00:55 (GMT) Greenwich Mean Time, London, Dublin, Lisbon, Casablanca, Monrovia
Couple of points regarding Tolkien "fine bindings".

The 1982 S (& matching H, although I haven't handled this) is in no way a fine example of bookbinding. Yes, they are rare, and they are collectable. (Prices suggested here I'd largely agree with.) And obviously they aren't "rebinds", they were released as they are. But the quality, in absolute terms, is not great.

The 1982 is a case-binding, as far as I can tell; it's not bound in a traditional sense. Raised bands are fake, obviously. The leather is also highly suspect; I don't believe it's "morocco". Maybe, but the leather pattern I think is embossed. No doubt it's leather, but it's cheap. Other small points regarding the leather work suggest corner-cutting and a lack of finer finishing. There's a gulf in quality between these and the HarperCollins deluxe editions of CH and S&G for example. Those have some nice touches.

In terms of availabilty, it's odd that the 1998 is actually the one that's sufaced less (I think) in recent years. There have been a few 1982's over the last decade pop up, but the 1998 is uncommon to see for sale. It's been just over 20 years so maybe this decade will finally see them hit the market in decent numbers. Doubt the prices will be sensible.
Feb 13
2021/2/13 22:02:42 (GMT) Greenwich Mean Time, London, Dublin, Lisbon, Casablanca, Monrovia

Faramond wrote:

This 1982 edition, in seemingly excellent condition, is selling for ~£5415. https://www.tolkienlibrary.com/tolkien-book-store/001414.htm

I noticed that but the price is really prohibitive and it lacks the slipcase, though I have to admit that the Chealsea Bindery Clamshell looks good and it is one of the signed ones.
Feb 13
2021/2/13 22:06:30 (GMT) Greenwich Mean Time, London, Dublin, Lisbon, Casablanca, Monrovia
Anyway I would like to thank you all for these in depth answers, also one as inexperienced as me feels welcomed.
Feb 14
2021/2/14 0:22:26 (GMT) Greenwich Mean Time, London, Dublin, Lisbon, Casablanca, Monrovia
that's a good bundle of money and with the current market, I don t even imagine what these books would sell for. When I see some editions (not limited and unsigned) selling for ridiculous prices...and I'm not even talking about when the TV series is going to come out and become popular .... but that's another story
Feb 14 (edited)
2021/2/14 1:31:45 (GMT) Greenwich Mean Time, London, Dublin, Lisbon, Casablanca, Monrovia

Khamûl wrote:

Couple of points regarding Tolkien "fine bindings".

The 1982 S (& matching H, although I haven't handled this) is in no way a fine example of bookbinding. Yes, they are rare, and they are collectable. (Prices suggested here I'd largely agree with.) And obviously they aren't "rebinds", they were released as they are. But the quality, in absolute terms, is not great.

The 1982 is a case-binding, as far as I can tell; it's not bound in a traditional sense. Raised bands are fake, obviously. The leather is also highly suspect; I don't believe it's "morocco". Maybe, but the leather pattern I think is embossed. No doubt it's leather, but it's cheap. Other small points regarding the leather work suggest corner-cutting and a lack of finer finishing. There's a gulf in quality between these and the HarperCollins deluxe editions of CH and S&G for example. Those have some nice touches.

In terms of availabilty, it's odd that the 1998 is actually the one that's sufaced less (I think) in recent years. There have been a few 1982's over the last decade pop up, but the 1998 is uncommon to see for sale. It's been just over 20 years so maybe this decade will finally see them hit the market in decent numbers. Doubt the prices will be sensible.


I can confirm that The Hobbit is pretty much the same quality-wise. It really isn't in the same league as the CoH or S&G. The slipcases on the A&U SD editions really never worked for me.

On thing I have noticed with the 87 Hobbit is that there seem to a bright green and a dark green variant, which look very different (mine is one of the dark green ones).
Feb 14
2021/2/14 4:40:32 (GMT) Greenwich Mean Time, London, Dublin, Lisbon, Casablanca, Monrovia

Stu wrote:



On thing I have noticed with the 87 Hobbit is that there seem to a bright green and a dark green variant, which look very different (mine is one of the dark green ones).

That's interesting.. I don't have this yet but am curious anyway. Does this apply to the slipcase as well? You don't happen to have an old picture of yours on-hand you could share, do you? If not, no worries.
Feb 14
2021/2/14 4:50:37 (GMT) Greenwich Mean Time, London, Dublin, Lisbon, Casablanca, Monrovia

Berelach wrote:

Stu wrote:



On thing I have noticed with the 87 Hobbit is that there seem to a bright green and a dark green variant, which look very different (mine is one of the dark green ones).

That's interesting.. I don't have this yet but am curious anyway. Does this apply to the slipcase as well? You don't happen to have an old picture of yours on-hand you could share, do you? If not, no worries.
\\

Yeah, I'll dig it out. The slipcases between the two variants appear identical.
12
Jump to Last