Mr. Faith, I'm sorry that you feel the way you do. It seems like you have a lot of negativity towards various organizations.
I generally find TCG to be extremely informative and useful, and the people that frequent it are extremely knowledgeable and gracious.
I strongly disagree with most of what you've stated because your arguments and assertions are erroneous or fallacious, all or in part.
You state, "All Tolkien first and early editions are easily identifiable and there are few snares for new collectors to be aware of, except JRR Tolkien signatures."
This is simply not true.
Case in point: unless you own the early issues of The Tolkien Collector, which I don't (I wasn't collecting at that time & they haven't been reissued by Scull and Hammond, to my knowledge), it is EXTREMELY challenging distinguishing between the early American printings of the first edition (after the first printing, of course) of FotR, TT, and RotK. I own a first edition, second printing of the American edition of The Two Towers, but I was unable to discern the exact printing, until those at TCG assisted me with this.
These two assertions are inherently contradictory:
"Things are only worth what people will pay."
"It is the scarcity (supply) and condition that determines the value..."
You state, "Most new editions have little or no value because there were too many copies printed and too little demand."
You are assuming that value only equates to monetary value, but new and old editions alike are valued for MANY other factors including (but not limited to) new content (like the extended edition of Smith of Wootton, for example) or aesthetics (some older editions are quite attractive, like Farmer Giles, even though they may not be worth a lot).
"The opinion of somebody who is not actually buying or ever intending to i.e. does not have the means, is useless."
This is fallacious logic. You could amass the largest collection of Tolkien first editions ever and still not know a single thing about collecting; this theoretical person could simply be filthy rich and enjoy buying super expensive Tolkien books for his or her library.
On the other hand, a person could devote his life to researching, studying, and viewing every single Tolkien first edition in existence, and according to you, because he or she doesn't own a single book, his or her opinion is useless.
"There are no secret sources anymore."
All I can say is I wholeheartedly disagree. The whole fun of Tolkien collecting (for me) is in the hunt, the deal, the find. I'm amazed to see what many in this community have uncovered or discovered at some unknown niche or cranny here or there.
I once bought a Pauline Baynes (Tolkien) poster that I've never seen anywhere before, on Craigslist from some person I'd (obviously) never met, wondering if I'd ever receive it in the mail after I took a risk of paying the person for it.
I bought an unused copy of Middle English “Losenger” from some small international bookstore (that I found online), which was a fraction of what it usually sells for.
You stated, "As knowledgeable as a few [in the Tolkien Society] are about Professor Tolkien and his scholarly history, they know nothing about collecting and current or future values."
You are setting up a false dichotomy. Scholars are and can be collectors and vice versa. Surely, you are not referring to Hammond and Scull, two of the most knowledgeable Tolkien scholars (authors of The Tolkien Companion and Guide) and two of the most knowledgeable collectors (founders of The Tolkien Collector). All this to say, like most of what you've stated, you overgeneralize, assume, and rarely qualify, which leads to a lot of sloppy assertions and fallacious logic.
I generally find TCG to be extremely informative and useful, and the people that frequent it are extremely knowledgeable and gracious.
I strongly disagree with most of what you've stated because your arguments and assertions are erroneous or fallacious, all or in part.
You state, "All Tolkien first and early editions are easily identifiable and there are few snares for new collectors to be aware of, except JRR Tolkien signatures."
This is simply not true.
Case in point: unless you own the early issues of The Tolkien Collector, which I don't (I wasn't collecting at that time & they haven't been reissued by Scull and Hammond, to my knowledge), it is EXTREMELY challenging distinguishing between the early American printings of the first edition (after the first printing, of course) of FotR, TT, and RotK. I own a first edition, second printing of the American edition of The Two Towers, but I was unable to discern the exact printing, until those at TCG assisted me with this.
These two assertions are inherently contradictory:
"Things are only worth what people will pay."
"It is the scarcity (supply) and condition that determines the value..."
You state, "Most new editions have little or no value because there were too many copies printed and too little demand."
You are assuming that value only equates to monetary value, but new and old editions alike are valued for MANY other factors including (but not limited to) new content (like the extended edition of Smith of Wootton, for example) or aesthetics (some older editions are quite attractive, like Farmer Giles, even though they may not be worth a lot).
"The opinion of somebody who is not actually buying or ever intending to i.e. does not have the means, is useless."
This is fallacious logic. You could amass the largest collection of Tolkien first editions ever and still not know a single thing about collecting; this theoretical person could simply be filthy rich and enjoy buying super expensive Tolkien books for his or her library.
On the other hand, a person could devote his life to researching, studying, and viewing every single Tolkien first edition in existence, and according to you, because he or she doesn't own a single book, his or her opinion is useless.
"There are no secret sources anymore."
All I can say is I wholeheartedly disagree. The whole fun of Tolkien collecting (for me) is in the hunt, the deal, the find. I'm amazed to see what many in this community have uncovered or discovered at some unknown niche or cranny here or there.
I once bought a Pauline Baynes (Tolkien) poster that I've never seen anywhere before, on Craigslist from some person I'd (obviously) never met, wondering if I'd ever receive it in the mail after I took a risk of paying the person for it.
I bought an unused copy of Middle English “Losenger” from some small international bookstore (that I found online), which was a fraction of what it usually sells for.
You stated, "As knowledgeable as a few [in the Tolkien Society] are about Professor Tolkien and his scholarly history, they know nothing about collecting and current or future values."
You are setting up a false dichotomy. Scholars are and can be collectors and vice versa. Surely, you are not referring to Hammond and Scull, two of the most knowledgeable Tolkien scholars (authors of The Tolkien Companion and Guide) and two of the most knowledgeable collectors (founders of The Tolkien Collector). All this to say, like most of what you've stated, you overgeneralize, assume, and rarely qualify, which leads to a lot of sloppy assertions and fallacious logic.
Hi locchyman, thanks for joining and chiming in! I just want to reiterate (again) that no-one here other than Mark is doubting the authenticity of your book. I hope you find a buyer for it!
Jlong wrote:
unless you own the early issues of The Tolkien Collector, which I don't (I wasn't collecting at that time & they haven't been reissued by Scull and Hammond, to my knowledge), it is EXTREMELY challenging distinguishing between the early American printings of the first edition (after the first printing, of course) of FotR, TT, and RotK.
Just a quick aside, the specific back issues of The Tolkien Collector that detail the distinguishing characteristics of the 1st US Edition of The LotR (nos. 20, 21 & 22; pertinent articles by Steven Frisby) are (last time I checked) still available to order from Hammond & Scull's website. Other issues (nos. 2-6, 8-17, 19, 24) are most likely still unavailable. Some information on the 1st Edition differences (though less exhaustive) can also be found here: https://www.tolkienbooks.us/lotr/us/hc/hm1954/.
Berelach, thanks for that; it is much appreciated. I'll have to see if I can get copies of those Tolkien Collectors.
Also, there is a typo in my comments above. I meant monetary value, not momentary. :) Trotter fixed typo
Also, there is a typo in my comments above. I meant monetary value, not momentary. :) Trotter fixed typo
28 Feb, 2018
(edited)
2018-2-28 1:22:39 PM UTC
Edited by Trotter on 2018-2-28 3:15:06 PM UTC
Edited by Trotter on 2018-2-28 3:23:21 PM UTC
Edited by Trotter on 2018-2-28 3:23:47 PM UTC
Edited by Trotter on 2018-2-28 3:26:11 PM UTC
Edited by Trotter on 2018-2-28 3:30:30 PM UTC
Edited by Trotter on 2018-2-28 3:23:21 PM UTC
Edited by Trotter on 2018-2-28 3:23:47 PM UTC
Edited by Trotter on 2018-2-28 3:26:11 PM UTC
Edited by Trotter on 2018-2-28 3:30:30 PM UTC
2018-2-28 1:22:39 PM UTC
Mark D. Faith wrote:
We made a mistake commenting on the lies on this forum. We won’t do it again. Contact us directly if you wished to discuss matters further. We do want to qualify the comment above as its important and some may misunderstand.
Mark,
Hopefully, you may answer my question this time, instead of the last response that you gave.
1) You have replied by using "We", Who else, apart from yourself, is making these accusations?
2) It was stated that "lies on this forum" were given, can you quote some or any of the "lies on this forum"?
Please could you, if you answer, try to keep your response to the questions that have been asked of you?
Please don't digress from the questions that have been asked, as you have done so far with replies, we want to see you answering questions that were asked?
To get back to the very first post that started all this, from Stu; I thought this was going to happen & it has. Someone is bidding on that 1998 Deluxe copy, with the opening bid being AU$1,700. No comment on whether it's worth this or not, but why bid on this when there is a copy on AbeBooks for basically the same price?
https://affiliates.abebooks.com/c/9724 ... 3Dsnippet-_-srp1-_-title6
If the ABE dealer is looking for around that price one might even secure it for less. Seems a lot of money to be throwing around in an auction.
BH
https://affiliates.abebooks.com/c/9724 ... 3Dsnippet-_-srp1-_-title6
If the ABE dealer is looking for around that price one might even secure it for less. Seems a lot of money to be throwing around in an auction.
BH
Khamûl wrote:
To get back to the very first post that started all this, from Stu; I thought this was going to happen & it has. Someone is bidding on that 1998 Deluxe copy, with the opening bid being AU$1,700. No comment on whether it's worth this or not, but why bid on this when there is a copy on AbeBooks for basically the same price?
https://affiliates.abebooks.com/c/9724 ... 3Dsnippet-_-srp1-_-title6
If the ABE dealer is looking for around that price one might even secure it for less. Seems a lot of money to be throwing around in an auction.
BH
I see this all the time, where books get bid on for more than you could buy the same thing on Abe for. The bidder only as "11" feedback, so likely to be inexperienced. Will be interesting to see where it goes from here. I fully expect to hear from Mark (but that's OK, as I have mined his prior posts and website for inconsistent statements...)
[Edit: Sold, one bidder. They would almost certainly have been better just talking the lower priced of the Abe sellers. The Abe CC fees are so high that many will give 10% off just for not going via Abe.
I guess we will see with the next one whether this price was an abberation or they genuinely got more expensive. Hard to tell when there is only one bid
]
8
2963