I believe the 4000 was correct for the first printing. What prompted someone contacting HarperCollins was that the second printing also said it on the sheet. Clearly from your above post, the third has no change. Technically HarperCollins hasn’t lied, but it is naughty and deceiving by them.

huan68 wrote:

I believe the 4000 was correct for the first printing. What prompted someone contacting HarperCollins was that the second printing also said it on the sheet. Clearly from your above post, the third has no change. Technically HarperCollins hasn’t lied, but it is naughty and deceiving by them.

Yeah, they absolutely haven't lied. We always knew the "first printing limited to" statement was so they could print further copies if/when there was demand (though I saw plenty of people online not twig that they would just keep printing more). But to leave the statement on all the blurb on shrink-wrapped product after the first printing is - at best - lazy. They should really change the ISBN, as that is the only way to get the online blurb corrected.

I'd be much happier if they would just drop the entire faux-limitation pretence for future editions. It is just a cheap trick. The books will sell just fine without any of this nonsense. At the end of the day, 4,000 copies is just a normal first print run for a book like this.

I agree. Although, they shouldn't change ISBN, as it's the same book. That would be totally against publishing convention.

Khamûl wrote:

I agree. Although, they shouldn't change ISBN, as it's the same book. That would be totally against publishing convention.

Actually, it wouldn't (well, not entirely). The signed and unsigned Tales of the Perilous Realms were *identical* and had different ISBNs. Both ISBNs are printed in the book, but the difference allowed for different blurb to be associated with each version and allowed stock-ordering systems to distinguish them. With the blurb for one saying signed 500 copies and the blurb for the other saying unsigned. I guess one could argue that the 4000 copies limited edition Sil didn't change at all - only the paper blurb did. Whereas the TftPR had a blurb change and Alan Lee signed it. But really those tftPRs were printed identically and there were no other modifications, yet two ISBNs.

The simple solution is to stop pulling this kind of dumb marketing crap.

Sure, but signed & unsigned copies do normally merit different ISBNs; it only feels odd (with PR) because there was so little material difference between the two copies e.g. they could have incorportated the signature on a seperate signed plate. That's not against normal publishing convention, although HC made very little effort to distinguish them. You're also talking about empheral throw-away (to normal folks) bits of paper that accompany books. That's a whole other level of minutiae...

I agree with your conclusion.