That's another thing I don't understand: why should the first volume be more valuable?

It's 1000 copies each, so in my mind they should have roughly the same value. How is it that the first one is twice more valuable than the third?

I'm relatively new to collecting Tolkien books so I might be asking stupid questions, sorry for that.

I think it's because not everyone bought all 3 together. PRECISELY the reason why I wish The Lord of the Rings would only be published as one book, and a 3-book boxed set, with none of the 3 being available on their own.

insurrbution wrote:

I think it's because not everyone bought all 3 together. PRECISELY the reason why I wish The Lord of the Rings would only be published as one book, and a 3-book boxed set, with none of the 3 being available on their own.

People couldn't buy them together as they were released invdividually across approximately an 18 month period (2000 to 2001).

If The Lord of the Rings was only available in boxed sets (or single volume editions), then sales would drop measurably.

Perhaps...though the idea of only buying part of a novel boggles me

(since it was concluded in 1955, that is)

insurrbution wrote:

Perhaps...though the idea of only buying part of a novel boggles me

I do get your point but one thing I've found following the excellent Luke Shelton and his Tolkien Experience Project and the Marquette fan audio series is that many readers were brought to the books by a loved one buying them a book in the series as a gift. Maybe a parent or grandparent could only afford that one volume. It was why they exist like this after all. So maybe GA&U had a point about splitting them up. It hasn't done Tolkien any harm.

Oh of course, I completely understand.

Also, for the '1 or 3' I see it as:

1-book:

- good as hardback (but not paperback, because too big. Hardbacks have better binding, etc.)
- good as ebook (whether you're reading the 1-book edition, or the 3 separately, doesn't "affect" the physical measurements of the ereader)

3-book boxed set:

- good as hardback, and as paperback

Max wrote:

That's another thing I don't understand: why should the first volume be more valuable?

It's 1000 copies each, so in my mind they should have roughly the same value. How is it that the first one is twice more valuable than the third?

I'm relatively new to collecting Tolkien books so I might be asking stupid questions, sorry for that.

The simple reason is that the first volume was a better seller, either because people weren't wholly happy with it (and decided not to continue with the next two) or because having one was enough (they were - after all quite expensive). I also suspect that volume 3 was remaindered and a good number of copies were sold off cheaply, which is why they so often turn up shrink-wrapped. In the end, there will be an equal number of copies coming to market and there probably won't be much of a price difference. Vol 1 and 2 have both dropped in price considerably since their peak.