Re: Second edition or second printing

[Jerry Morris <mylibrary@WEBTV.NET>]

An interesting topic!  As John Yamamato-Wilson knows, this subject
frequently pops up on the rec.collecting.books newsgroup under the
terms, "first thus" or "first edition thus."  "First thus" receives
258,000 hits on Google, while "First edition thus"  receives 58,500 hits
on Google.  "First thus" might even be listed in several book collecting
glossaries.

IMHO, these terms can be used by booksellers when something new is added
to a publication by another publisher, such as a new introduction;
however,  the bookseller should refer to the original edition and make
note of the added material.  In most cases, these terms should not be
used to describe the publication C.J. Scheiner refers to:

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".

If the publication was reprinted by a different publisher, many
booksellers will use the terms "first edition thus" or first thus;"
however, you will not see those terms used on the copyright page by the
publishers.  Many reprint publishers will include the date originally
published and the date reprinted or republished.  They may even add the
phrase "facsimile edition" if it is an exact replica of the first
edition.

If the same publisher republished an exact photo-lithographic copy of an
out of print typeset book that was never previously reprinted in any
form, technically, the new version might be considered a second
impression or second printing; however, I believe something would have
been added or amended to the publication.  The term, "anniversary
edition" comes to mind.

Cheers,
Jerry Morris
....back to writing my paper on Mary Hyde...


Dave wrote:
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."


John wrote:
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


Moi's Books About Books http://www.tinyurl.com/hib7
Moi's Library http://www.moislibrary.com My Sentimental Library:
http://www.picturetrail.com/mylibrary
Florida Bibliophile Society
http://www.floridabibliophilesociety.org