Bad wording. But, they almost certainly developed prototype jackets without prices on them initially, and this is one of those jackets. This is a pretty standard practice today and I'm sure it happened back then. There might not any record of it but prototype jackets probably found their way onto books.

It's a 0 impression jacket (joking). Should be more valuable than a 1st in my opinion. In other collecting communities, unreleased jackets are extremely valuable. See GRRM's A Feast for Crows Stephen Youll Jacket.

Dagoth wrote:

Bad wording. But, they almost certainly developed prototype jackets without prices on them initially, and this is one of those jackets. This is a pretty standard practice today and I'm sure it happened back then. There might not any record of it but prototype jackets probably found their way onto books.

It's a 0 impression jacket (joking). Should be more valuable than a 1st in my opinion. In other collecting communities, unreleased jackets are extremely valuable. See GRRM's A Feast for Crows Stephen Youll Jacket.

So first you thought it could be a facsimile and now you “are certain” it’s a “prototype jacket” curious as to why you are so sure when you weren’t before?

“But, they almost certainly developed prototype jackets without prices on them initially, and this is one of those jackets.“

How can you make this statement with such certainty when no one else has been able to yet? What information do you have to back up that claim? please enlighten us.

Mr. Underhill wrote:

Dagoth wrote:

Bad wording. But, they almost certainly developed prototype jackets without prices on them initially, and this is one of those jackets. This is a pretty standard practice today and I'm sure it happened back then. There might not any record of it but prototype jackets probably found their way onto books.

It's a 0 impression jacket (joking). Should be more valuable than a 1st in my opinion. In other collecting communities, unreleased jackets are extremely valuable. See GRRM's A Feast for Crows Stephen Youll Jacket.

So first you thought it could be a facsimile and now you “are certain” it’s a “prototype jacket” curious as to why you are so sure when you weren’t before?

“But, they almost certainly developed prototype jackets without prices on them initially, and this is one of those jackets.“

How can you make this statement with such certainty when no one else has been able to yet? What information do you have to back up that claim? please enlighten us.

That's along the similar vein of "it's a review copy".

Anecdotal or factual evidence?

Dagoth wrote:

Anecdotal or factual evidence?

Either would suffice, but you don’t appear to have either one.

Dagoth wrote:

That's along the similar vein of "it's a review copy".

Can you provide a link to anyone's post here that said "it's a review copy"? I haven't seen any.

Mr. Underhill wrote:

Dagoth wrote:

Anecdotal or factual evidence?

Either would suffice, but you don’t appear to have either one.

I'm just against the review copy thing because that's far too along in the process. However, if they developed a prototype before setting a price on the jacket, these leftover jackets could have been used on actual books to cut costs. I read some of the correspondence once, and apparently they were ALL about cutting costs.

Pure speculation. Nothing is certain.

Off topic, but when Shasta Publishers went under, there were dozens of unpublished jackets for several of their books taken from a warehouse and came into the hands of Everett Franklin Bleiler. After he died, his family sold them.

Outside of direct correspondence, how could we ever know if more of these unpriced TTT jackets exist outside of someone finally noticing one without a price almost 70 years later?

Urulókë wrote:

Dagoth wrote:

That's along the similar vein of "it's a review copy".

Can you provide a link to anyone's post here that said "it's a review copy"? I haven't seen any.

"Could be a review copy. HMCO did do some advance promotional work for TT ahead of release like this."

Dagoth wrote:

Urulókë wrote:

Dagoth wrote:

That's along the similar vein of "it's a review copy".

Can you provide a link to anyone's post here that said "it's a review copy"? I haven't seen any.

"Could be a review copy. HMCO did do some advance promotional work for TT ahead of release like this."

"Could be" is not anything at all the same as "it is". Please don't change someone's theory into a statement of fact - that's how misinformation gets started, and then it's impossible to stamp out.

Dagoth wrote:

Mr. Underhill wrote:

"Could be a review copy. HMCO did do some advance promotional work for TT ahead of release like this."

My comment was it “could be a review copy because of evidence A “(a link to actual evidence)

If you are going to quote me, I’d appreciate it if you got it correct.

The only person who’s speculating here is you. Which I would like to remind is prohibited on these forums.

Urulókë wrote:

Dagoth wrote:

Urulókë wrote:

Dagoth wrote:

That's along the similar vein of "it's a review copy".

Can you provide a link to anyone's post here that said "it's a review copy"? I haven't seen any.

"Could be a review copy. HMCO did do some advance promotional work for TT ahead of release like this."

"Could be" is not anything at all the same as "it is". Please don't change someone's theory into a statement of fact - that's how misinformation gets started, and then it's impossible to stamp out.

I see what you mean, I take that one back then.

Mr. Underhill wrote:

Dagoth wrote:

Mr. Underhill wrote:

"Could be a review copy. HMCO did do some advance promotional work for TT ahead of release like this."

My comment was it “could be a review copy because of evidence A “(a link to actual evidence)

If you are going to quote me, I’d appreciate it if you got it correct.

The only person who’s speculating here is you. Which I would like to remind is prohibited on these forums.

I'm going to have to disagree with that. What you linked had nothing to do with the dustjacket. All it states is an existence of a review copy. That has nothing to do with what the review copy actually looked like, or if it had a price or it not. So it IS speculation.

Dagoth wrote:

Urulókë wrote:

Dagoth wrote:

Urulókë wrote:

Dagoth wrote:

That's along the similar vein of "it's a review copy".

Can you provide a link to anyone's post here that said "it's a review copy"? I haven't seen any.

"Could be a review copy. HMCO did do some advance promotional work for TT ahead of release like this."

"Could be" is not anything at all the same as "it is". Please don't change someone's theory into a statement of fact - that's how misinformation gets started, and then it's impossible to stamp out.

I see what you mean, I take that one back then.

Mr. Underhill wrote:

Dagoth wrote:

Mr. Underhill wrote:

"Could be a review copy. HMCO did do some advance promotional work for TT ahead of release like this."

My comment was it “could be a review copy because of evidence A “(a link to actual evidence)

If you are going to quote me, I’d appreciate it if you got it correct.

The only person who’s speculating here is you. Which I would like to remind is prohibited on these forums.

I'm going to have to disagree with that. What you linked had nothing to do with the dustjacket. All it states is an existence of a review copy. That has nothing to do with what the review copy actually looked like, or if it had a price or it not. So it IS speculation.

What have you linked to? What have you contributed to this conversation expect vague and Mis leading statements? Where are your examples that are Tolkien publishing related? How have your helped the community here get closer to finding the answer to the original question?

I haven’t seen anything from you.