onthetrail wrote:

The rubbish they churn out for an easy buck and the things they really could be making money on are left to dry up.

The primary titles (H, LotR) sell like hotcakes every time they put out another version, but the glossary/encyclopedia titles get remaindered after a few years and not selling very many copies. I'm as always trying to change their minds on this as I agree, I think there is room for a new book that would sell well in the current market (look at Mr. Day as an example).

Urulókë wrote:

onthetrail wrote:

The rubbish they churn out for an easy buck and the things they really could be making money on are left to dry up.

The primary titles (H, LotR) sell like hotcakes every time they put out another version, but the glossary/encyclopedia titles get remaindered after a few years and not selling very many copies. I'm as always trying to change their minds on this as I agree, I think there is room for a new book that would sell well in the current market (look at Mr. Day as an example).

This is where I get frustrated, they cite online content as a reason to not reprint important publications and then we see David Day in tens of thousands of Christmas stockings every year.

Urulókë wrote:

onthetrail wrote:

The rubbish they churn out for an easy buck and the things they really could be making money on are left to dry up.

The primary titles (H, LotR) sell like hotcakes every time they put out another version, but the glossary/encyclopedia titles get remaindered after a few years and not selling very many copies. I'm as always trying to change their minds on this as I agree, I think there is room for a new book that would sell well in the current market (look at Mr. Day as an example).

Tolkien as a brand sells, regardless of what the product is. David Day is a great example of this "rubbish" that is being sold on the strength of the Tolkien brand. I'm fairly confident there is a market for reference material that is "official" and the sourcing is reputable and is well written.

For examples is this look at how well Nature of Middle-earth is selling, look at the continued interest in the Companion and Guide, or the Atlas of Middle-earth that still sells quite well. I think that HarperCollins is forgetting the power they have of being the official Tolkien publisher, that carries a lot more weight than just some wiki site being maintained online.

As caudimordax said in another thread:

Caudimordax wrote:

Sort of feel Tolkien himself is the one moving these copies. People love his writing, they love his vision, and they especially like to see where the two dovetail in his illustrations–sketchy as some may be. Heck, even the cool bit with the eye was Tolkien's idea. I'd say it's moving despite HC's design efforts.

HC have an "official" Tolkien website that doesn't have their own titles in stock. They have now contrived to mis-print a totally unacceptable % of a supposed deluxe edition. "Tolkien" is shifting these books, not HC's marketing. The reason the rest of their "difficult" Tolkien publications absolutely tank is because they have made little effort to establish themselves as the publisher of quality secondary material despite having being custodians of Tolkien's genius for over thirty years. They think facsimile signatures on bindings are a major priority.

Khamûl wrote:

They think facsimile signatures on bindings are a major priority.

Part of the problem is that it is. At least to average readers who think that this release is the best book in a hundred years. Most people seem to think this edition is wonderful. Yet take away all the production errors and what is left is an illustrated edition, the first illustrated by the author and the images are rubbish.

I am starting to feel that it is we few who have to shift our expectations because I doubt we will ever get editions again that truly reflect the content.

Khamûl wrote:

As caudimordax said in another thread:

Caudimordax wrote:

Sort of feel Tolkien himself is the one moving these copies. People love his writing, they love his vision, and they especially like to see where the two dovetail in his illustrations–sketchy as some may be. Heck, even the cool bit with the eye was Tolkien's idea. I'd say it's moving despite HC's design efforts.

HC have an "official" Tolkien website that doesn't have their own titles in stock. They have now contrived to mis-print a totally unacceptable % of a supposed deluxe edition. "Tolkien" is shifting these books, not HC's marketing. The reason the rest of their "difficult" Tolkien publications absolutely tank is because they have made little effort to establish themselves as the publisher of quality secondary material despite having being custodians of Tolkien's genius for over thirty years. They think facsimile signatures on bindings are a major priority.

Couldn't agree more, this is exactly what I mean when I say there is a market out there for more "official" and informational Tolkien publications that are well produced. Even with all the stated problems with this latest LOTR people are still buying it in droves.

I see comments online like "I have placed my order and fingers crossed I get a copy with no problems" the market is there and it's resilient even in the face of all this. HarperCollins needs to re-think how they are handling Tolkien's material IMO and do a complete reset after the global supply chain becomes normal again.

I am really surprised that the Nasmith illustrated Guide is thought to be unshiftable. I would have thought it would sell like hotcakes if they did an edition matching the recent illustrated editions. Commission a couple of new paintings and print money.

I agree. I think that most people buy the book less for the content than for the illustrations. And the image reproduction in that edition is really great (especially compared to what HC has been releasing lately). I have it and I like it and I also understand that people are willing to slightly overpay for that at the moment (maybe not £100, though).

Khamûl wrote:

It should also be noted it's a reprint.

Sorry, but how do you tell? That is, how does the first impression copyright page differ from that of the listing to which this comment was in reference? (I don't see the word "reprinted" or the like on here, nor on this one (which is identical), so I'm assuming there's some super secret way to know this information.)

Philomythos wrote:

Khamûl wrote:

It should also be noted it's a reprint.

Sorry, but how do you tell? That is, how does the first impression copyright page differ from that of the listing to which this comment was in reference? (I don't see the word "reprinted" or the like on here, nor on this one (which is identical), so I'm assuming there's some super secret way to know this information.)

The line "3 5 7 9 8 6 4 2" on the copyright page has the lowest number "2", which indicates that it is the second impression. These numberlines asre the most common way of indicating print history on modern books. Each new print, the next number is removed. It is becoming more popular to just have a single number these days, so you would likely just see "2" on the reprint of a more recent title.

The reason for the strange order is so that the printers can remove the numbers alternating from side to side and the remaining line stays broadly centered. Obviously with modern digital typesetting, this isn't really an issue any more.