Mr. Underhill wrote:

onthetrail wrote:

northman wrote:

On the bright side: a flawless first printing copy of this edition is now something to collect ?

If Stu is right and it ends up with around 40% having errors and they upped the number from 6,000 to 10,000 as some have suggested we'll just be back at their original 6,000 number ?

I don't think these volumes will be collectable or valuable for a looooong time, if ever.

Yeah, I don't see them ever being worth anything, especially assuming they will be reprinted ad-nauseam --and if HarperCollins learns anything rather than putting head-in-sand, the reprints will be better.

Stu wrote:

Mr. Underhill wrote:

onthetrail wrote:

northman wrote:

On the bright side: a flawless first printing copy of this edition is now something to collect ?

If Stu is right and it ends up with around 40% having errors and they upped the number from 6,000 to 10,000 as some have suggested we'll just be back at their original 6,000 number ?

I don't think these volumes will be collectable or valuable for a looooong time, if ever.

Yeah, I don't see them ever being worth anything, especially assuming they will be reprinted ad-nauseam --and if HarperCollins learns anything rather than putting head-in-sand, the reprints will be better.

Just as an observation, when has quality of the book itself ever been a factor in collectibility in the wider market? ?

Off the top of my head, the Ace and Puffin paperbacks (or any paperback of that vintage), the seven volume Millennium edition, the first attempt at a Hobbit facsimile edition...

Urulókë wrote:

Just as an observation, when has quality of the book itself ever been a factor in collectibility in the wider market? ?

Off the top of my head, the Ace and Puffin paperbacks (or any paperback of that vintage).

Ok ya...60 yrs from now, a loooong time.

Urulókë wrote:

Stu wrote:

Mr. Underhill wrote:

onthetrail wrote:

northman wrote:

On the bright side: a flawless first printing copy of this edition is now something to collect ?

If Stu is right and it ends up with around 40% having errors and they upped the number from 6,000 to 10,000 as some have suggested we'll just be back at their original 6,000 number ?

I don't think these volumes will be collectable or valuable for a looooong time, if ever.

Yeah, I don't see them ever being worth anything, especially assuming they will be reprinted ad-nauseam --and if HarperCollins learns anything rather than putting head-in-sand, the reprints will be better.

Just as an observation, when has quality of the book itself ever been a factor in collectibility in the wider market? ?

Off the top of my head, the Ace and Puffin paperbacks (or any paperback of that vintage), the seven volume Millennium edition, the first attempt at a Hobbit facsimile edition...

No one *really* collects the 7 volume, except for noobs who don't know any better and completists who take the garbage with the good. I don't think the Hobbit facsimile is collectable (at all). True re Ace paperbacks and maybe a couple of other paperbacks, but on the whole paperbacks aren't collectable (in the sense of having any monetary value).

Stu wrote:

Mr. Underhill wrote:

onthetrail wrote:

northman wrote:

On the bright side: a flawless first printing copy of this edition is now something to collect ?

If Stu is right and it ends up with around 40% having errors and they upped the number from 6,000 to 10,000 as some have suggested we'll just be back at their original 6,000 number ?

I don't think these volumes will be collectable or valuable for a looooong time, if ever.

Yeah, I don't see them ever being worth anything, especially assuming they will be reprinted ad-nauseam --and if HarperCollins learns anything rather than putting head-in-sand, the reprints will be better.

I think it will depend on how many runs HC decides to do of these. Are they going to cut their losses and decide not to reprint? Or are they going to go the HMH route with their "red" copy and do 33 print runs?

Mr. Underhill wrote:

I think it will depend on how many runs HC decides to do of these. Are they going to cut their losses and decide not to reprint? Or are they going to go the HMH route with their "red" copy and do 33 print runs?

Assuming they think they can produce copies without a huge return rate, I can't see why they wouldn't reprint, assuming the strong demand remains. Other than the Catlin deluxe and the super-deluxes, are there any that haven't had many reprints, except when the style is being phased out for a replacement (e.g. 2002 Sil) .

Yeah, I'm not being too serious here of course, but......

Every single copy of the millenium edition listed on eBay in the last 90 days has sold, I just did a quick check. One was a great deal, the rest were well over list price.

Also the first facsimile is the same way - every ended listing in the last 90 days was a successful sale. Those are not as pricey yet, but still definitely in demand.

Go figure, for whatever this info is worth.

As for reprinting the current deluxe - as long as they keep selling, I fully expect more impressions until the next deluxe edition is released.

Urulókë wrote:

Also the first facsimile is the same way - every ended listing in the last 90 days was a successful sale. Those are not as pricey yet, but still definitely in demand.

Aren't those still in print and or can be bought new?

Mr. Underhill wrote:

Urulókë wrote:

Also the first facsimile is the same way - every ended listing in the last 90 days was a successful sale. Those are not as pricey yet, but still definitely in demand.

Aren't those still in print and or can be bought new?

Yep. Doesn't stop people from overpaying on eBay...

I know there are obvious problems with the printers here. And HC can be accused of quality control issues in respect to this, but ultimately they're not physically manufacturing these products. That's firmly on the printer. And it is odd that books with this many printing issues have been allowed to enter distribution.

But specifically, in respect to some other features (particularly paper) — are people genuinely making the argument that HC are ordering one material & the printer is using something else? Are we seriously saying that printers like L.E.G.O. SPA (& others) don't understand the materials they're using, don't understand paper types? I'm curious to why this is believed & why these conclusions are being drawn.

Take an historical example like the HoME series of publications. This shows you everything you need to know about the decisions a big publisher like HC can & do make. As someone mentioned, the drop off in quality from the earlier GA&U/UH volumes to the later MR, WotJ, and PoME volumes is marked. That drop in quality was because HC chose to use those materials; chose that binding process. Those volumes were printed & bound in Glasgow at HC's own facilities. They couldn't have had any more control over the production process. It's not a coincidence.

Do they still, today, make decisions that prioritise timelines & perceived markets over objective quality for some editions? It kind of looks like it. The fact that a discussion of any deluxe edition quality is being discussed in the context of 1960's paperbacks says everything.