Dagoth wrote:

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.

I'll acknowledge up front that this entire discussion about the unpriced dustjacket is all theorizing (reasoning out possibilities with such evidence as we currently have at hand). When there's no evidence given (or reasoning as to what evidence may exist), that's when the conversation is going into pure speculation. That isn't helpful, and can be harmful to the wider community who don't read pages and pages of discussion and just pull quotes for sharing on social media.

Without banning any discussion at all about something not already documented, of course the conversation is going to be exchanging ideas and reasoning behind them as to what this could be. Your ideas and theories are welcome as well. When you theorized it could be a facsimile, we questioned the theory (based on our prior knowledge) to see if you had information to back it up. You are now theorizing that it cannot be a review copy ("too far along in the process") but theorize instead that there could be prototype jackets. I think "prototype" a much better theory than facsimile, but I question your assumption that they would put prototype jackets on retail books but not on review copies because that was "too far along in the process". Isn't putting them on retail copies even further along in the process?

Dagoth wrote:

"I read some of the correspondence once, and apparently they were ALL about cutting costs."

Can you provide more details on the above statement? Where and when did you have access? Whose correspondence (from and to)? What time period did the correspondence cover?

Dagoth wrote:

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?

There are many bibliographical details that we have hints of (or are blissfully unaware of) that show up from time to time. The collectors and scholars here are constantly finding tidbits of information that open doors or close off theories - that is a huge amount of the pleasure that I, for one, get from this hobby. If everything were known, then for me it would just be accumulating processed dead trees.

You are here at the moment of making history ? - a new (potentially) bibliographically interesting variant has been discovered. Perhaps more copies will emerge now that collectors know to look. Perhaps additional documents will emerge from the archives refuting or confirming this (again, now that those with access are made aware that they should go look). Time will tell.

I don't know if it means anything. But I just noticed that "V - 6" is written in pencil in the margins of the front inner dust jacket flap.

Also that front flap looks like it possibly has a registration mark near where the price would have been. According to The Tolkien Collector Number 21: “Occasionally one-quarter-inch blue or brown printer’s registration marks appear on the dust-jacket spine or flaps. These were used to keep the different colors properly aligned during multiple passes through the press, and do not appear in every jacket from a given impression.”

Not sure that means anything, but to compare, the latest Two Towers 1st/1st that sold on eBay a few days ago does not appear to have that mark.

LanceFormation wrote:

Also that front flap looks like it possibly has a registration mark near where the price would have been. .

Never noticed this. Indeed there is a small blue line present (Registration Mark).

Thanks for the high res photo of the Hobbit. No Cuff link or gap in the hat, white lines top and bottom, notch in "R". Consistent with a true 1st impression dustjacket, just lacking the price. Perhaps Wayne & Christina might have knowledge on this topic, they have more experience and knowledge than the rest of us put together I'd dare say.

dunedain wrote:

Thanks for the high res photo of the Hobbit. No Cuff link or gap in the hat, white lines top and bottom, notch in "R". Consistent with a true 1st impression dustjacket, just lacking the price. Perhaps Wayne & Christina might have knowledge on this topic, they have more experience and knowledge than the rest of us put together I'd dare say.

Thank you dunedain for that information.

I did not know about the Cuff Link or gap in the hat identification points.

I have done a quick pass on Scull and Hammond's Chronology, to gather what information is present about American review copies for the 1st editions of The Lord of the Rings. Note in particular the entry for 29 November 1954 and 5 January 1955.

• 20 September 1954 "Rayner will ask Houghton Mifflin about obtaining American reviews"
  
• 21 October 1954 "The Fellowship of the Ring is published in the United States."
  
• 2 November 1954 "Paul Brooks writes to Tolkien. He expresses his vast pleasure in reading The Fellowship of the Ring and pride in having it on Houghton Mifflin's list of publications.... is pleased by reviews it has received, some of which he sends to Tolkien."
  
• 29 November 1954 "Rayner Unwin sends Tolkien a proof of the Houghton Mifflin dust-jacket for The Two Towers."
  
• 2 December 1954 Tolkien writes to Rayner Unwin. He has had time to only glance at the Houghton Mifflin dust-jacket." (A few lengthy paragraphs continue with Tolkien's comments on the blurb, but there is no mention of price)
  
• 7 December 1954 "[Rayner] has sent Tolkien's revisions of the American blurb for The Two Towers to Houghton Mifflin with a strong plea that they accept them."
  
• 5 January 1955 "Houghton Mifflin seem to have accepted most of his corrections to their blurb for The Two Towers; [Rayner] sends a revised copy of the jacket."
  
• 21 April 1955 "The Two Towers is published in the United States."
  

From this, it seems clear that at least two proof versions of the jacket for The Two Towers were made in the 6 months prior to release. The second, quite possibly, could match the final production version, or it might not - until one is seen definitively, I don't think any further speculation is productive here. remy, your copy cannot be the first proof version as your blurb matches the production jacket as far as I have looked, but I think a careful comparison is called for!

[Edit to add] A quick review of Richard West's Tolkien Criticism: An Annotated Checklist does not note any US reviews published before or near the release dates - all of the reviews (worth noting by West!) are dated after the 2 November letter above, so there are clearly other reviews not in West.

PS I split this topic into it's own thread as it is very interesting and I didn't want it getting lost.

So, I have a couple questions for the group.

The Two Towers jacket appears to have registration marks. Would this suggest it was printed via whatever process was used for the actual published run?

So then, regarding dust jacket proofs, would they have typically used that same printing process to create these proofs or would they have done something instead such as artist mockups due to churns in design (and perhaps cost and time also)?

I am not that knowledgeable about printing and thought maybe you all would have some insights in to the process (albeit a process from 70 years ago.)

Thanks

LanceFormation wrote:

So, I have a couple questions for the group.

The Two Towers jacket appears to have registration marks. Would this suggest it was printed via whatever process was used for the actual published run?

So then, regarding dust jacket proofs, would they have typically used that same printing process to create these proofs or would they have done something instead such as artist mockups due to churns in design (and perhaps cost and time also)?

I am not that knowledgeable about printing and thought maybe you all would have some insights in to the process (albeit a process from 70 years ago.)

Thanks

Good questions!

Registration marks are used for making sure each pass of the printing process aligns correctly - each colour had to be printed separately (back before inkjet and other modern technologies). I guess all you can really say when you see a registration mark is that what you have is industrially printed. Its easier to see that something it wrong looking at a registration pattern than at complex art where small misalignments might be hard to see. Typically, when I see "proof" used in regards to book publishing, they are talking specifically about something made using the same process that the end product will use, so everything can be validated before they crank out thousands of copies. Would love to hear from anyone else who knows more!