Actually, such a printing as Cliff describes is supposedly a second
impression of the first edition. To quote Carter:
EDITION AND IMPRESSION
"Strictly speaking, an edition comprises all copies of a book printed any
time or times from one setting-up of type without substantial changes
(including copies printed from stereotype, electrotype or similar plates
made from that setting of type); while an impression comprises the whole
number of copies of that edition printed at one time, i. e., without the
types or plates being removed from the press.... Thus a 'tenth impression'
printed from the same type-setting five years after the first, would still
be part of the first edition--and so, for the matter of that, as Professor
Bowers and other pundits have warned us, would be a photo-lithographic or
xerographic off-set impression printed five hundred years after the first."
With all due respect to my bibliographical betters, I disagree with that.
To my mind, reprinting from a set of photo-lithographic plates is a new
setting of type technically. The process must of necessity result in a new
set of printing plates, even if they are nothing but photographs of the
original setting of type. I think that's an entirely different matter from
printing a book from standing type of some sort, such as stereotyped plates.
I'd call the situation Cliff describes a "second edition" rather than a
second impression.
----- Original Message -----
From: "C.J. Scheiner" <cjscheiner@POL.NET>
To: <EXLIBRIS@MAIL.ECW.NAME>
Sent: Sunday, January 29, 2006 6:17 AM
Subject: [EXLIBRIS] Second edition or second printing
I have a question concerning modern reprints.
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 of the
first (and only) edition? So often I see this issue skirted by the
descriptive phrase "first edition as such".
Thank you.
C.J. Scheiner