Faramond wrote:

I would also like to hear your Great Tales idea. Even the wildest speculation interests me.

Hi Faramond - we are trying to keep these threads free of unfounded speculation and guesses - it was getting out of hand and becoming hard to distinguish fact from fiction.

Wants and desires are fine within reason, but should be in their own thread, not mixed in with factual information about existing or forthcoming editions.

Well, my copy arrived from booksetc (about a month from ordering). The packaging was poor (wraparound cardboard mailer, not very well secured) and the book and slipcase were damaged, despite the Harpercollins box. So we shall see how the returns process goes (painfully, I suspect, but we shall see). Edit: returns process simple enough and they have been responsive.

With regards to the book itself, others have commented on the poor (Edit: or maybe "lacklustre" is a better word) quality of the printing/paper for the plates, and I have to say that I agree. Interestingly, the paper is not the same as the paper used for the text pages, so it is a bit baffling that they didn't go with a glossier paper on the plates (so positioning does not appear to have been the problem). That said, I wonder if the problem is the paper or the print process itself.

It appears to be a nice book overall, but as an illustrated edition, the illustration reproduction is a real letdown. If we had the image reproduction from the slipcase in the book itself, it would be far better.

Stu, a few questions for you, speaking of plates and placements:

Do the illustrations in this year's illustrated edition of The Hobbit + The Lord of the Rings have anything on the other side of the plates? (I know for The Hobbit sketches and text have always appeared together, like the great tales books) Same question for the 2014 illustrated slipcased edition of The Lord of the Rings from 2014.

Emilien - May I ask what impression your Story of Kullervo is and where it was printed?

I couldn’t help but zoom in and I noticed that (perhaps?) the slipcase doesn’t have the angular notches that form the curve. Could it be that they changed something after the first impression?

@Eorl
All my deluxe editions are first impressions. But you’re right my Kullervo slipcase doesn’t have notches and the paper inside of the slipcase is not cut to form the curve. It’s longitudinal. Maybe it's a second batch/state for which the slipcase has been improved. I bought it from book depository in march 2019.

Thanks for sharing more pics. This is definitely the first time I’m seeing this slipcase without the horrible notches.

Just an update on booksetc, they have ordered me a replacement and they simply asked me to put the damaged copy back in the original packaging and mark as RETURN TO SENDER and chuck it in the mail, so that is pretty straightforward for me (even if I'm not 100% sure that is how "Return to Sender" is supposed to work).

Stu wrote:

Just an update on booksetc, they have ordered me a replacement and they simply asked me to put the damaged copy back in the original packaging and mark as RETURN TO SENDER and chuck it in the mail, so that is pretty straightforward for me (even if I'm not 100% sure that is how "Return to Sender" is supposed to work).

I think, if it makes it back to them, they would be obligated to pay for the cost of shipping upon receipt.

eorl wrote:

Thanks for sharing more pics. This is definitely the first time I’m seeing this slipcase without the horrible notches.

I saw these first appear a year or more after it came out. Someone posted a pic on Reddit (IIRC) and I queried them for more info. I don't believe it is a second state, so much as a mislabelled second printing. I suspect that when they did the second print run they didn't change the "1" to a "2", either deliberately (in order to pretend the first print didn't happen) or accidentally as has happened with some of the first Chinese reprints of Euro-printed editions that have retained a "1".

Berelach wrote:

Stu wrote:

Just an update on booksetc, they have ordered me a replacement and they simply asked me to put the damaged copy back in the original packaging and mark as RETURN TO SENDER and chuck it in the mail, so that is pretty straightforward for me (even if I'm not 100% sure that is how "Return to Sender" is supposed to work).

I think, if it makes it back to them, they would be obligated to pay for the cost of shipping upon receipt.

Yeah, you are probably correct. Certainly when I send things overseas, I have the option of destroy on non-delivery or return at senders expense.

Their shipping return cost is probably much cheaper this way, as it is probably a payment to the Parcelforce in the UK, rather than to NZ post. NZ post is very expensive.