Urulókë wrote:

Khamûl wrote:

Should be a new edition.

I agree, personally, but note that the publisher description is a “reprint” and the copyright date is still 1999.

It is a bit borderline, really. If the jacket was the same as the original (and I kind of wish it was), I'd classify it as a reprint, despite the minor additions.

Stu wrote:

Urulókë wrote:

Khamûl wrote:

Should be a new edition.

I agree, personally, but note that the publisher description is a “reprint” and the copyright date is still 1999.

It is a bit borderline, really. If the jacket was the same as the original (and I kind of wish it was), I'd classify it as a reprint, despite the minor additions.

For me it is very much a reprint. I think a new edition should have significant changes or new content.

onthetrail wrote:

Stu wrote:

Urulókë wrote:

Khamûl wrote:

Should be a new edition.

I agree, personally, but note that the publisher description is a “reprint” and the copyright date is still 1999.

It is a bit borderline, really. If the jacket was the same as the original (and I kind of wish it was), I'd classify it as a reprint, despite the minor additions.

For me it is very much a reprint. I think a new edition should have significant changes or new content.

I do tend to agree. Unfortunately edition means different things to different people.

Stu wrote:

Urulókë wrote:

Khamûl wrote:

Should be a new edition.

I agree, personally, but note that the publisher description is a “reprint” and the copyright date is still 1999.

It is a bit borderline, really. If the jacket was the same as the original (and I kind of wish it was), I'd classify it as a reprint, despite the minor additions.

I agree about the jacket. Nothing wrong with the photo, but there doesn't seem to have been much thought put into the design. Were I seeing them both for the first time, I'd likely guess the green was the design from 1999.

Urulókë wrote:

Khamûl wrote:

Should be a new edition.

I agree, personally, but note that the publisher description is a “reprint” and the copyright date is still 1999.

The copyright page states

First published privately by Rayner Unwin, 1999
This edition published by Merlin Unwin Books, 2021
Copyright (c) Rayner Unwin

I take this as a new edition of the book, i.e. second edition.

If the book has new material or has been reset then it really should be defined as a new edition, I think. The argument for this being the second impression of a privately printed book in 1999 is pretty weak. The DJ is irrelevant to the status of a book though. Having said all this, if (as Trotter states) it reads like that, then it looks like Merlin Books are calling this a new edition anyway.

Khamûl wrote:

If the book has new material or has been reset then it really should be defined as a new edition, I think. The argument for this being the second impression of a privately printed book in 1999 is pretty weak. The DJ is irrelevant to the status of a book though. Having said all this, if (as Trotter states) it reads like that, then it looks like Merlin Books are calling this a new edition anyway.

I disagree entirely that the DJ is irrelevant to the status, as (a) we are talking about something where there is no clear definition, and (b) often the only difference from edition to edition in Tolkien is the overall packaging (and I'm not talking about edition in the 1st/2nd edition text sense). We use the word as it suits us - if we are talking about a medical textbook, for example, edition means something very different than it does when we are talking about a novel (an extra page would not a second edition of a medical text make!).

By status I specifically meant edition. "Edition" is relatively well defined bibliographically. And a new DJ doesn't make a new edition.

Book Depository never fails to disappoint. *sigh*

Philomythos wrote:

Book Depository never fails to disappoint. *sigh*

Aoutch! hoping you can get it replaced (or refunded) without having the problem again ?