Re: Second edition or second printing

["John R. Yamamoto-Wilson" <j-<yamamo@SOPHIA.AC.JP>>]

C.J. Scheiner wrote:

> >If a publication is an exact photo-lithographic copy of an out of print
> >typeset book that was never previously reprinted in any form, would the
> >new version be  technically a second edition or a second printing...?
> >
> >So often I see this issue [no pun intended, presumably!] skirted by the
> >descriptive phrase "first edition as such".

David Klappholz replied:

> I can't imagine why it would be anything but "photo reproduction
> of first edition."

Isn't that just another way of skirting the issue? As you say, it's a
different edition if a different typesetting was used. Typesetting - as I
understand it - means, not just how it looks on the page, but the actual
print blocks used. Since those print blocks were not used in the
photo-lithographic reprint surely it should be described as a different
edition?

Or - to reach the same conclusion by a different route - instead of taking
the example of a book which had never gone into later printings and
editions, let us suppose the opposite. Suppose it had gone into ten
printings of the first edition and then here had been several reprint
editions. Wouldn't it be rather absurd for someone a century or so later to
describe a facsimile edition of the first edition as an eleventh printing? I
would expect to see it described as a separate edition.

John R. Yamamoto-Wilson
http://rarebooksinjapan.com