Urulókë wrote:
That's a good catch. Frisby's article evidently has a mistake - it says in step 2 to check for the joint A&U/HM title-page, and if found, skip to checking between 10th impression through 12th. But then for the 8th/9th check it says the 9th is the first to have the joint title-page.
Yes, that error was corrected in the next issue (no. 21, p. 27).
Trotter wrote:
If only Houghton Mifflin had printed impression details, does anyone know why they did not?
I really don't know. My only not so well-educated guess is that maybe this had something to do with them not importing the 2nd impression from A&U (as well as certain printings of TTT and RotK and the FotR 6th printing) and the confusion that would have caused? With FotR's 2nd imp. they would have had to make this decision relatively quickly after the first printing. Maybe it took them a few years then to get into the rhythm? From the same Tolkien Collector essay by Frisby:
"Given the demand for FR in America, it seems likely that corresponding HM impressions will eventually be found for all or nearly all Allen & Unwin printings. There appears to be at least one exception: the printing of A&U FR 1/2 was ordered (in September 1954) before HM FR 1/1 was published (October 1954)- Houghton Mifflin did not order more copies until December 1954, when the third impression was already in progress."
Does that seem at all plausible to someone who knows more about how these things tend to go?
emilien wrote:
The only point that remains is the jacket. I'm waiting to have it in my hands to analyse carefully the points distinguishing the 3rd and 4th printing DJ.
I checked some pictures of FotR 7th/8th and 9th impressions and none have the picture of Tolkien with a "V"
Don't know about the 5th printing though.
I will try to have a look through my notes later tonight.
Trotter wrote:
If only Houghton Mifflin had printed impression details, does anyone know why they did not?
I don't have detailed notes in front of me, but for a long time Houghton Mifflin indicated "first impression" by having the date on the title page, and then "later impressions" by removing the date. No other impression information was given. At some point they started including impression indication for all of their titles.
Oh right... print numbers weren't stated regularly for their Hobbit edition until 1964, and dates pretty much never!
Urulókë wrote:
I don't have detailed notes in front of me, but for a long time Houghton Mifflin indicated "first impression" by having the date on the title page, and then "later impressions" by removing the date. No other impression information was given. At some point they started including impression indication for all of their titles.
So from what I can tell (and I know this isn't exactly precise) your jacket is either a 3rd, 4th or 5th.
That 'V' on the back cover began with the 3rd impression but was corrected by the 7th (there was no 6th). I think it's reasonable to assume the 10th and 11th didn't revert back to that style since the 12th is seen without the 'V' but you can check: "the left arm of the 'w' in 'will' is clipped on line 11 of the 1/3 and 1/4 front flap blurb. This flaw was corrected by the eighth impression" (Frisby). A 7th impression DJ was later seen and was identical to the 8th.
It's unusual that the jacket and book's date don't match, but it happens often enough. The gap of time would lead me to guess that this was done by a previous owner and not the publisher.
That 'V' on the back cover began with the 3rd impression but was corrected by the 7th (there was no 6th). I think it's reasonable to assume the 10th and 11th didn't revert back to that style since the 12th is seen without the 'V' but you can check: "the left arm of the 'w' in 'will' is clipped on line 11 of the 1/3 and 1/4 front flap blurb. This flaw was corrected by the eighth impression" (Frisby). A 7th impression DJ was later seen and was identical to the 8th.
It's unusual that the jacket and book's date don't match, but it happens often enough. The gap of time would lead me to guess that this was done by a previous owner and not the publisher.
I'm currently researching preparing the next Tolkien Treasury entry for Amon Hen, the theme of which is 1st US editions of the LOTR. I have found this thread helpful as I seek to refine my understandings of the early printings and variants.
My outline as it stands right now is:
1. A bit about the early history of printing LOTR
2. Why HMCO decided to import sheets and how that lead to the confusing US LOTR
3. A bit about the ones that I have
4. How can readers identify theirs or when looking on the market.
Can y'all think of anything else that might be interesting to write about? Or stuff I should take out or add to the outline?
My outline as it stands right now is:
1. A bit about the early history of printing LOTR
2. Why HMCO decided to import sheets and how that lead to the confusing US LOTR
3. A bit about the ones that I have
4. How can readers identify theirs or when looking on the market.
Can y'all think of anything else that might be interesting to write about? Or stuff I should take out or add to the outline?
Do you have access to the Proceedings of Tolkien 2005, The Ring Goes Ever On, published by The Tolkien Society? Read "The Ace Copyright Affair" by Nancy Martsch, 1st entry in Vol 1. This will answer some of your questions.
Another good (though slightly outdated) reference is JRR Tolkien: A Descriptive Bibliography by Wayne G Hammond and Douglas A Anderson (St Paul's Bibliographies, Winchester & Oak Knoll Books, New Castle, Delaware,1993, which might be in the Tolkien Society's library. And THE experts are Wayne G Hammond and Christina Scull.
Another good (though slightly outdated) reference is JRR Tolkien: A Descriptive Bibliography by Wayne G Hammond and Douglas A Anderson (St Paul's Bibliographies, Winchester & Oak Knoll Books, New Castle, Delaware,1993, which might be in the Tolkien Society's library. And THE experts are Wayne G Hammond and Christina Scull.
The English publishers shipped unbound sheets to the USA because the US import tarriffs were lower on unbound sheets than on bound books. The English publisher would license their book to the American publisher. By shipping unbound sheets, the English publisher saved money on binding (and postage) and the US publisher saved on typesetting.
However, the USA had a limit on the number of copies of a foreign book published in English which could be imported into the USA, and a requirement that the book be published (typeset) in the USA, in order for the book to secure US copyright. The English publishers knew this: Allen & Unwin (Tolkien's publisher) went to great lengths to have Kon Tiki published in both the UK and the USA in order to secure US copyright. You will hear Tolkien supporters claim that the LOTR affair was a "technicality", etc, but this wasn't so. The English publishers knew about American law, they just didn't want to comply with it. Stanley Unwin screams about American law in both his biography (The Truth About a Publisher) and his The Truth About Publishing. And, the truth is, at the time of publishing no one expected LOTR to be a best seller.
However, the USA had a limit on the number of copies of a foreign book published in English which could be imported into the USA, and a requirement that the book be published (typeset) in the USA, in order for the book to secure US copyright. The English publishers knew this: Allen & Unwin (Tolkien's publisher) went to great lengths to have Kon Tiki published in both the UK and the USA in order to secure US copyright. You will hear Tolkien supporters claim that the LOTR affair was a "technicality", etc, but this wasn't so. The English publishers knew about American law, they just didn't want to comply with it. Stanley Unwin screams about American law in both his biography (The Truth About a Publisher) and his The Truth About Publishing. And, the truth is, at the time of publishing no one expected LOTR to be a best seller.
Mr. Underhill wrote:
I'm currently researching preparing the next Tolkien Treasury entry for Amon Hen, the theme of which is 1st US editions of the LOTR. I have found this thread helpful as I seek to refine my understandings of the early printings and variants.
My outline as it stands right now is:
1. A bit about the early history of printing LOTR
2. Why HMCO decided to import sheets and how that lead to the confusing US LOTR
3. A bit about the ones that I have
4. How can readers identify theirs or when looking on the market.
Re: #3, I would guess that, including everyone here, we have all the printings or at least pictures of them. So if you need more info you'd probably be ok to ask here. Re: #4, you'd want to see (but not copy) the Tolkien Collector articles by Steven Frisby.
1
105