1billburden
Did everybody get the email where "Song of Achilles" first printing only has two hundred or less copies? I guess this is a sub-topic of the previous one of FS business practices, but this one really gets under my skin. I don't know how many Standard Editions are now in this paradigm of "first printings", etc. We saw it with "Jonathan Strange and Mr. Norell." It's one thing to have limitations and to tell people about it. It's quite another to all of a sudden announce, "By the way, we actually only printed a small amount of these compared to previous FS Standard Edition printings. Cheers!" As these new limitations are all not being explicitly explained by Folio, how does their printing in batches affect the total amount of Standard Editions printed for each title? Is Folio going to test the market with these "first printings" and if they don't sell well not actually printing a "second printing." This is so confusing as the policy hasn't been explained and my personal purchasing habits for standard editions is based on previous history where things didn't sell out quickly for a couple of months at least, if not a year.
2Cat_of_Ulthar
>1 billburden: I haven't seen that email but, if I remember correctly, they said the first print run of Strange & Norrell was 1600 copies. That struck me as rather low given that a typical LE run is 500 or 750 but then I have no idea what a normal print run is for a standard Folio book.
I agree that it's not one of their more appealing marketing strategies. Not unless there are actual physical differences between printings which make them distinct and add value (ugh, marketing speak).
I agree that it's not one of their more appealing marketing strategies. Not unless there are actual physical differences between printings which make them distinct and add value (ugh, marketing speak).
3cronshaw
>1 billburden: Folio seem to be trying ever harder to lose my custom with their increasingly cynical attempts to trigger customers to buy. I have felt like the proverbial frog in gradually heating water*. FS have been stealthily changing their marketing practices (not to mention LE quality and pricing) over the past decade while clearly hoping to retain all the goodwill garnered over half a century by a company with the same brand name but quite different business ethics.
*I've already leapt from the beaker and am now at a safe distance, looking back at it with intrigue and a nostalgic hope that they'll recover before the whole brand evaporates, though I'm not holding my croak.
*I've already leapt from the beaker and am now at a safe distance, looking back at it with intrigue and a nostalgic hope that they'll recover before the whole brand evaporates, though I'm not holding my croak.
5HonorWulf
Personally, I'm glad that they are communicating better. In the past, they've simply gone to stealth second printings, often in the same year of release due to early sell outs. But since there's a segment of the market that values the first printing, this is a benefit to those customers. For those that don't care, it shouldn't make a difference since the second printings will be available in short order.
7wcarter
Some years ago a spy within the FS revealed that between 3000 and 8000 copies of a standard edition were printed, depending on how well they expected the book to sell. Those numbers may have changed now.
8antinous_in_london
>1 billburden: FS don’t differentiate on the books themselves between ‘first printings’ and subsequent printings in the same print run so I'm not really sure what the problem is unless they start doing this or they are altering the quality of materials or switching printers between initial runs & a slightly later run etc.
Technically ‘ first printing only has two hundred or less copies’ isn’t true - the first printing will be whatever they planned it to be but for logistical reasons they may only receive an initial first delivery from the printers of a few hundred of the print run (as also happened with the LOTR LE , 1984 LE , Norrell and others).
Usually this kind of thing is always down to logistics rather than some ‘sinister plan’ - there are fewer printers/binders than there used to be & those left are busier than ever & are juggling jobs from different publishers as well as other logistical problems.
Often it also makes more economic sense (especially for SE’s) to print in tranches rather than print an entire run in one hit (and then have to also pay for warehousing thousands of books until they are required) especially for a new release where you can’t always be sure how fast the sales may be.
Technically ‘ first printing only has two hundred or less copies’ isn’t true - the first printing will be whatever they planned it to be but for logistical reasons they may only receive an initial first delivery from the printers of a few hundred of the print run (as also happened with the LOTR LE , 1984 LE , Norrell and others).
Usually this kind of thing is always down to logistics rather than some ‘sinister plan’ - there are fewer printers/binders than there used to be & those left are busier than ever & are juggling jobs from different publishers as well as other logistical problems.
Often it also makes more economic sense (especially for SE’s) to print in tranches rather than print an entire run in one hit (and then have to also pay for warehousing thousands of books until they are required) especially for a new release where you can’t always be sure how fast the sales may be.
9abysswalker
>8 antinous_in_london: "FS don't differentiate on the books themselves between first printings and subsequent printings"
Depending on exactly what you mean by this, I don't think it's true. Folio Society editions do generally include print run info in front matter, for printings beyond the first. Sometimes this matters for various reasons, and sometimes the desirable printing is later, not earlier.
But I share the sentiment of the original poster that this is, in intent, a customer unfriendly attempt to harness the mainstream association of "first printing" with some increased desirability, even when that makes only weak sense in the Folio context.
Depending on exactly what you mean by this, I don't think it's true. Folio Society editions do generally include print run info in front matter, for printings beyond the first. Sometimes this matters for various reasons, and sometimes the desirable printing is later, not earlier.
But I share the sentiment of the original poster that this is, in intent, a customer unfriendly attempt to harness the mainstream association of "first printing" with some increased desirability, even when that makes only weak sense in the Folio context.
10antinous_in_london
>9 abysswalker: ‘ Depending on exactly what you mean by this, I don't think it's true. Folio Society editions do generally include print run info in front matter, for printings beyond the first.’
In my comment i was not taking about ‘print runs beyond the first’ as the original poster was not talking about print runs beyond the first. I was responding to the wording used by the original poster where they specifically said ‘the first printing only has two hundred or less copies’. The first block of stock they receive from the printer may only be 200 copies but this does not mean the first printing is only 200 copies.
If you buy one of the first 200 or so copies it will be exactly the same as if you buy the 300th copy or the 400th that was printed a few weeks later. If you buy one of the first few hundred copies of Song of Achilles it may state ‘first printing’ but if you get one of the later copies from the same edition that are being printed a few weeks later it will not state ‘second printing’ as they are not a second printing - they are all the same ‘first printing’ just spread out over several production runs/deliveries. The LOTR LE shipped in 2 batches several months apart - the second batch was not a ‘second printing’ of the LE just because it was bound & shipped several months after the first delivery.
If all of the 3000- 8000 initial printing (using the numbers wcarter mention's above - or whatever they print in an SE run now) all state ‘first printing’ then I'm not sure in what way they are weaponising ‘first printing’ as you suggest, as all of the first print run of many thousands will all state ‘first printing’ whether you get one of the first 200 or the 5000th copy.
As i said, if they were specifically saying that the first 200 would be marked as ‘first printing’ & everything after the initial 200 unit delivery would be labelled as ‘second, third, fourth printing’ or that the first 200 were being printed by Smith Settle & all subsequent copies were being printed in China then you may have a point, but that’s not what they're doing.
In my comment i was not taking about ‘print runs beyond the first’ as the original poster was not talking about print runs beyond the first. I was responding to the wording used by the original poster where they specifically said ‘the first printing only has two hundred or less copies’. The first block of stock they receive from the printer may only be 200 copies but this does not mean the first printing is only 200 copies.
If you buy one of the first 200 or so copies it will be exactly the same as if you buy the 300th copy or the 400th that was printed a few weeks later. If you buy one of the first few hundred copies of Song of Achilles it may state ‘first printing’ but if you get one of the later copies from the same edition that are being printed a few weeks later it will not state ‘second printing’ as they are not a second printing - they are all the same ‘first printing’ just spread out over several production runs/deliveries. The LOTR LE shipped in 2 batches several months apart - the second batch was not a ‘second printing’ of the LE just because it was bound & shipped several months after the first delivery.
If all of the 3000- 8000 initial printing (using the numbers wcarter mention's above - or whatever they print in an SE run now) all state ‘first printing’ then I'm not sure in what way they are weaponising ‘first printing’ as you suggest, as all of the first print run of many thousands will all state ‘first printing’ whether you get one of the first 200 or the 5000th copy.
As i said, if they were specifically saying that the first 200 would be marked as ‘first printing’ & everything after the initial 200 unit delivery would be labelled as ‘second, third, fourth printing’ or that the first 200 were being printed by Smith Settle & all subsequent copies were being printed in China then you may have a point, but that’s not what they're doing.
11billburden
>8 antinous_in_london: I think I miswrote "first printing only has two hundred or less copies." I didn't mean to communicate that they had a first printing that was only two hundred copies. The email was that of the first printing, whatever number that might have been printed, there are now only two hundred copies left.
I know that there are books that have been in FS circulation for years and the only explanation is that there have been subsequent printings to the first. The Brontes "Wuthering Heights" and "Jane Eyre" have been available for a while now without any change in design. I assume this is because printings have occurred when the stock is low.
It could be the case the "Song of Achilles" has sold unexpectedly quickly. However, before "Jonathan Strange and Mr. Norell" and "Song of Achilles" I don't remember FS alluding to a first printing. They just said that a quickly selling book was low in stock or approaching sell out. The designation of first printings, implying a second printing, is new and the ground rules are not clear. Is a second printing guaranteed? A third printing?
The new information on "first printing" also implies batches of printings. Previously, a FS book was in print until it sold out and it was discontinued. FS's notification that one should buy now because the "first printing" is ending, to me, implies a block of time between printings. This seems to be new. Yes sometimes books have sold out and FS has reprinted them. But they were never referred to as "first printing" or "second printing". And, yes, if you look inside the books of FS titles that have multiple printings or have been "reintroduced" after a period of years, you do find information about reprints. But, this "first printing" label seems deliberate, whereas previously it just happened behind the scenes of a print run and there was no indication that a "first printing" was special.
I appreciated that with FS you don't have to watch the clock closely for a release and need to be quick with adding a title to the cart in order to get it as the limitation is low and it is not being reprinted, as is normal with other publishers. I know that this expectation doesn't apply to recent LE's that have sold out in hours. But, even then, it was notable that a LE sold out in a number of hours. They didn't sell out in one second as it seems to happen with other publishers.
I have an affection for FS as they print books that are from previous centuries to previous decades. They print books of fiction and non-fiction. And the fiction generally is not limited to science fiction. I applaud Suntup for his occasional forays into non-sci-fic and non-horror, such as with the current "Of mice and men." And I applaud Suntup for adding extra value to some books that normally one only encounters with Norton Critical Editions. And, I applaud FS for the reasons I mentioned at the beginning of this paragraph. I love books and reading and am interested in FS staying in business for years to come. As such, I am very interested if my book collecting days come to an end because Amazon snuffs out printed books or FS goes out of business because of ill-informed marketing experiments.
As an aside, I do own quite a number of e-books and am surprised that they have yet to reach their potential and that they are still littered with typos, formatting problems, and even though my iPad can play movies, it can't seem to render correctly mathematical expressions or foreign languages with dependable consistency.
I know that there are books that have been in FS circulation for years and the only explanation is that there have been subsequent printings to the first. The Brontes "Wuthering Heights" and "Jane Eyre" have been available for a while now without any change in design. I assume this is because printings have occurred when the stock is low.
It could be the case the "Song of Achilles" has sold unexpectedly quickly. However, before "Jonathan Strange and Mr. Norell" and "Song of Achilles" I don't remember FS alluding to a first printing. They just said that a quickly selling book was low in stock or approaching sell out. The designation of first printings, implying a second printing, is new and the ground rules are not clear. Is a second printing guaranteed? A third printing?
The new information on "first printing" also implies batches of printings. Previously, a FS book was in print until it sold out and it was discontinued. FS's notification that one should buy now because the "first printing" is ending, to me, implies a block of time between printings. This seems to be new. Yes sometimes books have sold out and FS has reprinted them. But they were never referred to as "first printing" or "second printing". And, yes, if you look inside the books of FS titles that have multiple printings or have been "reintroduced" after a period of years, you do find information about reprints. But, this "first printing" label seems deliberate, whereas previously it just happened behind the scenes of a print run and there was no indication that a "first printing" was special.
I appreciated that with FS you don't have to watch the clock closely for a release and need to be quick with adding a title to the cart in order to get it as the limitation is low and it is not being reprinted, as is normal with other publishers. I know that this expectation doesn't apply to recent LE's that have sold out in hours. But, even then, it was notable that a LE sold out in a number of hours. They didn't sell out in one second as it seems to happen with other publishers.
I have an affection for FS as they print books that are from previous centuries to previous decades. They print books of fiction and non-fiction. And the fiction generally is not limited to science fiction. I applaud Suntup for his occasional forays into non-sci-fic and non-horror, such as with the current "Of mice and men." And I applaud Suntup for adding extra value to some books that normally one only encounters with Norton Critical Editions. And, I applaud FS for the reasons I mentioned at the beginning of this paragraph. I love books and reading and am interested in FS staying in business for years to come. As such, I am very interested if my book collecting days come to an end because Amazon snuffs out printed books or FS goes out of business because of ill-informed marketing experiments.
As an aside, I do own quite a number of e-books and am surprised that they have yet to reach their potential and that they are still littered with typos, formatting problems, and even though my iPad can play movies, it can't seem to render correctly mathematical expressions or foreign languages with dependable consistency.
12amp123
I always thought a first printing only mattered when dealing with the actual first edition of a book and that the "logic" behind that was to get the earliest first run of a book in print. Later editions, even with added illustrations and introductions, are still considered later, and therefore generally less valuable, even if they are first printings. There are, of course, some exceptions, such as the 1935 edition of Ulysses illustrated by Matisse and signed by both or one of them.
I own a 1895 first edition, first printing (or first "issue") of The Time Machine and a 1931 later edition with illustrations, a new introduction by the author and a slipcase. The former is worth around $4,000 while the latter is worth around $40, even though it is a first printing of that later edition. So I think worrying about whether you're getting a first or later printing of anything FS puts out would not make much sense (although FS apparently thinks it makes sense to enough people to make it worthwhile for them to highlight it in their ads.)
As someone correctly mentioned above, sometimes a stated later printing can actually be worth more than a first printing. My LE copy of the FS Moby Dick says that it is the fifth printing of the FS editions of MD. The LE is probably worth more than the prior four printings combined. But even that is a small fraction of the value of the 1851 first edition, first printing of MD.
Later printings can also have the advantage of having the publisher correct typos, omissions and even binding defects that quality control missed in the first printing. Oddly, those kinds of defects in a true first printing of a collectable (antiquarian) book can add a lot of value, such as where the printing is not stated because it provides proof that you have the earliest printing. (Huckleberry Finn is a good example of this.) Anyway, I don't think this first printing thing has much relevancy to FS books.
I own a 1895 first edition, first printing (or first "issue") of The Time Machine and a 1931 later edition with illustrations, a new introduction by the author and a slipcase. The former is worth around $4,000 while the latter is worth around $40, even though it is a first printing of that later edition. So I think worrying about whether you're getting a first or later printing of anything FS puts out would not make much sense (although FS apparently thinks it makes sense to enough people to make it worthwhile for them to highlight it in their ads.)
As someone correctly mentioned above, sometimes a stated later printing can actually be worth more than a first printing. My LE copy of the FS Moby Dick says that it is the fifth printing of the FS editions of MD. The LE is probably worth more than the prior four printings combined. But even that is a small fraction of the value of the 1851 first edition, first printing of MD.
Later printings can also have the advantage of having the publisher correct typos, omissions and even binding defects that quality control missed in the first printing. Oddly, those kinds of defects in a true first printing of a collectable (antiquarian) book can add a lot of value, such as where the printing is not stated because it provides proof that you have the earliest printing. (Huckleberry Finn is a good example of this.) Anyway, I don't think this first printing thing has much relevancy to FS books.
13Jeremy53
>12 amp123: agree - in the case of Folio first printing doesn’t seem to matter much. Certainly not to me. A big part of the allure of first editions is their scarcity, of course, and that the titles weren’t famous at the point of release, so often had a small print run and I’m imagining that collectors also get that feeling of, “I have an edition of this book before everyone had it.”
