Given that we're not doing axiomatic mathematics, but, rather,
bibliography, there will always be lots of reasonable
arguments/opinions on such issues -- and no "provably correct"
answers. So, I guess what we're looking for is the terminology
accepted by "professional bibliographers" if there is one on this
issue. (Are there any on this list? Is there one?)
Since I'm not a professional bibliographer, all I can do, like you,
is to construct a reasoned argument. Mine is that if it "looks"
exactly like issue X of printing Y or edition Z, and not as a result
of (near) exact reproduction of the original type imposition, but,
rather, via any method of reproducing the already-printed page, then
I can't see why it should be called anything but "reproduction of
issue X of printing Y or edition Z," especially since the whole
notion of issue/printing/edition is traditionally tied directly to
the setting of type.
Dave
At 08:32 AM 1/29/2006, you wrote:
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.