Ligandil wrote:
£850 for a book and you can't contact the seller? That's enough to think something is not right ...
It is enough for me to put up a warning about it. My suspicion is they hope someone will buy it without really paying attention (or knowing enough to understand it isn't quite what it seems at first glance). The only times I have not been able to contact sellers on eBay has been when stuff looked "off".
Berelach wrote:
Stu wrote:
Warning on this one - the dust jacket is from a thirdimpressionedition [@uruloke edit] (and I think the seller could state that a bit more strongly, though they aren't hiding the fact) so it is a £200 book at the most (the DJ is worthless). The seller is conveniently (for them) not accepting contact.
https://contact.ebay.co.uk/ws/eBayISAP ... 7&requested=wishvintage22
Don't you think the book would sell for more than £200 if listed now (sans DJ)? I do, even if it shouldn't. And I disagree that they're not hiding the fact... I think they're trying to ride the line between hiding it and showing/stating it. There should be at least one sentence in the listing that plainly says the jacket doesn't match the book. Not a fan.
Oh, I totally think they are trying to ride that fine line. That's why I posted up the warning. But one can't technically claim they are hiding it when it is in the description and photos.
Price-wise, maybe - probably not that much more. I mean, the last good condition 1951 was sub-£400 (Ithildin will correct me on that). I paid £150 with a jacket for my '54, but that was three years back, perhaps, and Trotter would most likely have gotten a somewhat more at auction, even back then (and it would certainly go for more now). But Jacket vs no-jacket is a big difference.
As additional reference points, I paid a little over £200 for my jacketed '56 a couple of years ago, $170 for my jacketed '57 (also a couple of years ago).
Even if we give the benefit of the doubt and say sans-jacket it was worth £400 (it isn't), that's still £450 for a crappy condition 3rd impression mismatching jacket...
I bought my copy for £80 about 20 years ago, I think it has one of the best dust-jackets of any of my Hobbits. I also find the burned in dust-jacket spine on the binding from the dodgy paper used for the dust-jacket, to be interesting. Glad they use better paper these days.
Description:
Some sort of "VG" grading you'd think?
Nope. "As new"!
1977 First UK edition with £4.95 on flap. The international version was released first, is more scarce and has no price on the flap. Not as good overall as my other listed copy, thus lower price. The jacket has little fading of the spine title. As with most modern books, the jacket covers are usually fine, The book has been read many times the page edges are grubby but, binding tight, no serious flaws worth mentioning
Some sort of "VG" grading you'd think?
Nope. "As new"!
eBay is selling it for £441..!
Uh, that screenshot, that you posted, is for an Amazon listing. Still, "other places" are selling it for over £250. It must be worth something in between those two fantastically high prices, surely?
Khamûl wrote:
eBay is selling it for £441..!
Uh, that screenshot, that you posted, is for an Amazon listing. Still, "other places" are selling it for over £250. It must be worth something in between those two fantastically high prices, surely?
But it is vintage -- comes from all the way back in 1995...
Khamûl wrote:
Indeed. It's from the last century. The word you're looking for is antique, Stu.
Well "vintage" outside of wine-making doesn't *really* mean anything (and in wine-making it doesn't mean anything either -- they could just use the word "year" like anyone else). But I'm still not accepting 1995 as meeting the more conventional use of the word.
Mind you, antique doesn't really mean antique any more.