It also says the book is recased - I wonder whether the map endpapers have survived?

Not sure what they mean by recased, as it also talks about the boards not being in great condition.

Trotter wrote:
Not sure what they mean by recased, as it also talks about the boards not being in great condition.

Yes, I saw that. Had me baffled as well. Unfortunately as the only picture is not actually of the book, but of the worthless jacket (which would still be monetarily worthless even if it was the right one and trimmed correctly), it is hard to tell!

Does anyone happen to know what this is exactly? Is it the offprint that Hammond mentions in his Des. Bibliography (p. 293)?

This site uses affiliate links for which we may be compensated

J R R Tolkien Chaucer As A Philologist: The Reeves Tale 1934 Paperback Book

153699778237

Seller: gil4934

(2)

Ended Nov 2, 2019

This item ended more than 90 days ago

It isn't the offprint (which has above the title "[Reprinted from the Philological Society's Transactions 1934, pp. 1-70.]", and no signature marks, etc. at the foot of pages) but rather the leaves of the essay taken out of a bound copy of the Transactions. Our copy of the offprint is bound in plain light grey wrappers.

Wayne & Christina

Findegil wrote:
It isn't the offprint (which has above the title "[Reprinted from the Philological Society's Transactions 1934, pp. 1-70.]", and no signature marks, etc. at the foot of pages) but rather the leaves of the essay taken out of a bound copy of the Transactions. Our copy of the offprint is bound in plain light grey wrappers.

Wayne & Christina

Thanks very much!!

Findegil wrote:
It isn't the offprint (which has above the title "[Reprinted from the Philological Society's Transactions 1934, pp. 1-70.]", and no signature marks, etc. at the foot of pages) but rather the leaves of the essay taken out of a bound copy of the Transactions. Our copy of the offprint is bound in plain light grey wrappers.

Wayne & Christina

Are we sure it is even that? I saw the auction before anything was posted here, and examining the images, the pages themselves looked an awful lot like photocopies (look at the top edge). I assumed it was just a bound photocopy of the leaves from the bound copy.

You're right, it is photocopied. Notice also the light patch in the text on the first page.

Findegil wrote:
You're right, it is photocopied. Notice also the light patch in the text on the first page.

It looks like a photocopy. A rather expensive auction in the end for a photocopy.