invincibleoverlord wrote: Stephen,So along those lines of thinking would you think there would be three different 1st print boxes?A. 1st print with all 1st print supplements and no errata sheet.B. 1st print with "variant" 1st print U&WA, and errata sheet.C. 1st print hybrid with 1st print M&M's, M&T's, and a 2nd print U&WA, with the errata sheet.All with the horizontal woodgrain pattern on the box.BTW... does anyone have a "true 2nd" with horizontal pattren?
invincibleoverlord wrote:Peter wrote in his auction description:The third book is a 1st ed. second printing. All research has lead me to think that this was a very late 1st ed. 1st printing. Most likely, the set was cobbled together when the first run of the third book was out (hence the addition of the errata sheet.)So along those lines of thinking would you think there would be three different 1st print boxes?
The third book is a 1st ed. second printing. All research has lead me to think that this was a very late 1st ed. 1st printing. Most likely, the set was cobbled together when the first run of the third book was out (hence the addition of the errata sheet.)
invincibleoverlord wrote:Do you think the variant 1st was printed to make up for the noted "lack of a 1000" needed to complete the 1st print run, or maybe there was a surplus of M&M's and M&T's; say 100 or so of each, and a few more U&WA were whipped up to further sales or carry over to the second prints?
invincibleoverlord wrote:A. 1st print with all 1st print supplements and no errata sheet.B. 1st print with "variant" 1st print U&WA, and errata sheet.C. 1st print hybrid with 1st print M&M's, M&T's, and a 2nd print U&WA, with the errata sheet.All with the horizontal woodgrain pattern on the box.BTW... does anyone have a "true 2nd" with horizontal pattren?
afoolandhis$ wrote:It sounds reasonable. Of course, there's the "true first" as well, apparently distinguished from your "A" above by the box only (?).
Have you asked Peter what source he's citing for his research?
The "variant 1sts" were not actually "reprinted". The text block remains the same: it's just a "new" cover, as far as I can tell.
(Still needing to recheck the copies closely and would encourage anyone with multiple 1sts and 2nds to do likewise, please )
for the other two volumes, where there appears to be a variation in the ink colors, with darker colors in the earlier print; especially noticeable on the M&T as stated. The variant 1st U&WA usually (would say always, but I'm only going by a few sets and auction scans which ain't gospel) goes along with the lighter green M&T.
Why the variant U&WA should be so common (relatively) is difficult to explain if it was the "last usage" of surplus 1st print stock.
Ah, fun topic... Was previously trying to trying to see whether these could be pinned down, but feedback was that there was a degree of variation/inconsistency in grain direction. Was first mentioned to me in the context of 1sts with vertical grain, then reinforced by that pre-pub with the same. Don't recall seeing a 2nd with horizontal, though. Had a check through a few old auction scans, too. * Still on the research back-burner, but mix-and-match copies will probably cause as much grief with those as they might with the books. Personally, am not trying to attribute presence/absence of the errata sheet (or ref sheets, indeed) to a specific stage of those "releases". Would expect either/both sheets to have been inserted into the assemblage when they were ready; and that's not likely to tie in neatly to a given stage. (It is easier to "explain away" their absence on the earliest release(s), though).
ymmv.
Wizzyblackmore wrote:btw anyone know what J. Eric Holmes is doing these days?
grodog wrote:I corresponded with him two or three years ago: he sent me some unpublished Boinger and Zereth stories, but didn't reply to any other letters that I sent, alas
grodog wrote: I haven't read his scientific writings. Sounds like they may be worth digging up (unless the ERB content is really short??).