A Tale of Two Books

I have a very strange copy of the otherwise over-produced book "A Tale of Two Cities." Was wondering if you guys knew anything about it.

As you may know, there are three different covers for this book. The oldest (I think) is a green one with a generic EP flourish on it. The next is a burgendy colored book with Charles Dickens's portrait on the front. Both of these are from the 100 Greatest collection. The last features an embroirded "CD" monogram on the front, and is part of the newest (but still discontinued) "Complete Works of Charles Dickens;" A pricey collection of which our friend engineer-69 just unloaded a hefty set. (The cover with the portrait of Dickens was also part of an older complete Dickens SET.

I own a copy of the green cover. So, am I vain enough to start a thread just to announce that? Perhaps so, but it is not the case this night. My copy is different, and here's how.

For some reason, my title page is not stamped with the "100 greatest" moniker, but simply with the words "Collector's Edition." There are a few other differences as well. The gilt on the page edges is, as in the case of the FE Sherlock book, a lighter silver color instead of the usual gold. Also, the frontispiece portrait of Dickens is entirely black and white instead of in color as in all other editions of the book. Hop on ebay right now if you don't believe me...there's a thousand pictures of the inside of the book like this one, but not one like mine. Here's the pics:



Book Exterior is identical to all other pictured volumes I have seen.



Difficult to see the silver color, so I put it next to another book from the "100 greatest" collection:





So, anyone know what's up with my copy? Is it worth five thousand dollars, and if so, wanna buy it? :)

Sludgtrough, you continue to confound me.

I wonder if the very early books from the '100 Greatest', possibly when there only was the '100 Greatest' were simply labeled collector's edition. It is, in fact, the same as the '100 Greatest' edition later released with the same cover, except with the enhancement of two color rendering of the frontispiece portrait and the change to '100 Greatest' v. 'Collector's Edition' on the title page.

The only other explanation would be that there was another collection released, unbeknownst to me, that contained a copy of A Tale Of Two Cities, for which they used the template of the '100 Greatest Edition'.

I guess that's a long way of saying, "I don't know and I'm afraid I can't help you." Hopefully someone can enlighten you and me together; perhaps someone that purchased the same copy you have directly from Easton Press and recalls for which collection it was issued.

Ok, so you're saying the book IS worth a thousand bucks? Great news, up on ebay it goes :)

I guess one of the things that makes EP books fun to collect is the amount of strangeness like this that goes in in the different series. Figuring out what you bought can be half the fun! In this case, I got the book from ebay, so I cannot help determine its origins. It was not still in the plastic wrap, but the book is in such good condition, I can't imagine it's old. It creaks when you open it, it smells like a paper factory, and there is not one flaw of any kind on the gilt or pages. I acquired it about 4 years ago on ebay, so who knows where it came from.

Have you ever seen another book from the 100 greatest collection that was not indicated as such on the title page? I have not.

Oh well, just another one for the archives of weirdness, I guess.

Yes. Were it not for you folks I would never have been aware that the Pride And Prejudice that matches the 'Jane Austen Collection' was also used for the '100 Greatest'. I probably wouldn't have believed it had I not seen it here with my own eyes. And now you tell me that the portrait edition of A Tale Of Two Cities was also used for the '100 Greatest'? I've probably seen it a kajillion times on eBay and just presumed that it was from 'The Complete Works'. It never occurred to me to look further.

To (not) answer your question, how would I know if I've ever seen another book from the '100 Greatest' collection that was not indicated as such on the title page? I've always used that as one of the identifiers'. If it didn't say it was I would have presumed it wasn't. I will have to be skeptical of that presumption now, at least until someone can confirm to which collection a book similar to that which you have belongs through first hand knowledge of having purchased it directly from Easton Press. As you've indicated, it has every appearance of being one of the '100 Greatest' even though it doesn't say so.

What I do recall having seen are auction listings were sellers have indicated a book was from the '100 Greatest' collection that I dismissed as being misinformation, a supposition on the sellers part of which I thought I knew better. It might be worthwhile in the future to inquire of such sellers to determine if the '100 Greatest' moniker is included on the title page.

My guess is that it's simply an older print of their 100 Greatest. It's likely from the 70s or 80s. I think the newer Dickens books have far nicer covers, but obviously the content is the same!

cheers,

-astropi

For what it is worth, I took a closer look at my white edition of Little Women, which I always presumed to be an early edition of the '100 Greatest'. While the copyright information does confirm that the book was published for the '100 Greatest Books Ever Written', the title page describes it as a 'Limited Edition', as opposed to a 'Collector's Edition' or '100 Greatest'. I wonder if early on Easton Press was experimenting with different notations before they settled on labeling the '100 Greatest' as such.

Sludgetrough, take a look at the copyright information and see what your edition of Tale Of Two Cities says.

I find it intriguing that the white edition is labeled 'Limited Edition', as opposed to 'Collector's Edition'. Was it really intended to be limited? I've noted previously, as have others, that this is the only white leather edition Easton Press has ever published until the recently released, limited edition Kelmsott Canterbury Tales.

I paid $5000 for my copy. = )

Hey, I think you're on to something. Just checked my copyright page, and it does indeed say the book is from the 100 greatest! Guess I have an early edition, maybe the first, and that the color in the portrait and 100 greatest moniker on the title page was added in later runnings.

Funny you should mention Little Women, though. I also have the white cover edition, and as you can see from the pictures I posted in this thread, my title page says "collector's edition," not "limited edition" like yours. This means there were at least TWO separate runs of this white cover!!! The plot thickens like a butter roux!

Now that I'm onto this little charade, I checked my Ivanhoe copy, and again, it says "collector's edition" on the title page, but also says 100 greatest above and on the copyright page. I am going to agree with Wailofatail on this one...these are probably just early copies that were experimenting with different names before settling on the final one. Here is an ebay auction for the exact title page I have. An identical cover, but the updated title page can be seen here. The fact that the portrait was improved later implies that it was improved in later printings. If EP does retool their 100 greatest books from time to time, perhaps they change the name on the title, too. I guess if you want to be 100% sure, you have to check that copyright page.

I actually have a good number of books that say only "collector's edition" on the title page, yet indicate that they were published as part of "The 100 Greatest Books Every Written" series on the copyright page. In fact, most of the first books that I received from this series (early 80s) appear to have been printed in this manner.

Among these titles are: On the Origin of Species (1976), Moby Dick (1977), Tales of Maupassant (1977), The Alhambra (1978), The Odyssey (1978), The Iliad (1979), Aesop's Fables (1979), The Aeneid (1979), Aristophanes's Bird & Frogs (1979), Great Expectation (1979), The Federalist (1979), Two Plays For Puritans (1979), Uncle Tom's Cabin (1979), Ibsen's Plays (1979), Wuthering Heights (1980), Tristam Shandy (1980), Grimm's Fairy Tales (1980), Rousseau's Confessions (1980), and War & Peace (1981).

Nearly all of these were delivered as part of my subscription in 1983 & 1984.

The dates on the books are not nearly as important, I think, as the fact that I received them within 3 and 5 years of those dates. Was this was the initial printing of each of these titles (within the 100G series, that is)? I also have many copies of books from this series that were also first printed during this time, yet which I bought at a later date (e.g., early 1990s and beyond). All of these later purchases indicate on the title page that they are part of the 100 Greatest Books series. It's odd that the earlier printings don't list the series because Easton Press had already established this practice with their earlier series (Famous Editions, Masterpieces of American Literature, etc.).

Sorry, folks -- either these books aren't as rare as you were hoping or...I'm RICH!!!

wailofatail:

How white is the white cover of your Little Women? Pearly white? Dirty white? Creamy white? I have copies of Daisy Miller and The Sketchbook of Geoffrey Crayon (Easton Press's first printing of Washington's Irving's tales under Irving's original pseudonym--included in the Masterpieces of American Literature series) that look white on the shelf, especially when set beside a light gray book, but look like dust and creamy blonde, respectively, when set beside a true white.

Also, while looking though my older 100 Greatests volumes, I took a glance at the title page of a copy of Leaves of Grass that I bought earlier this year on ebay. I bought this volume specifically because it was a very fine copy of a 1977 edition of this book (with deeply textured dark green leather and lime green moire silk endpapers). On the title page, it mentions neither the 100 Greatest collection, nor "collector's edition" -- instead, it indicates that it is "A Limited Edition." On the copyright page, it indicates that this "limited edition" (again) is part of the 100 Greatest collection. As far as I know, of all the books I own in this series (bought periodically over three and a half decades), this is the only one that mentions it being a "limited edition." Is this what you are seeing on your white Women?

Yes, SilentInAWay, that is what I am seeing on my white edition of Little Women. The title page refers to it as a 'Limited Edition' whereas, if you read the fine print copyright text on the opposing page it states that this edition, i.e. copyright, is for the '100 Greatest' collection.

Regarding how white Little Women is, it is not pure white but perhaps off-white or creamy white. Check out Sludgetrough's link in post #8 above and you will see it. If your Sketchbook Of Geoffrey Crayon is indeed a white version would you post a pic. so I can see it with my own eyes. I've seen some light tans on several editions but never anything close to the white of little women.

The more we discuss this the more convinced I am that Easton Press simply used different terms to describe early editions of the '100 Greatest'. If I had to speculate, I would guess that the very first editions used the phrase 'Limited Edition'. Perhaps they didn't know how successful it would be or if they would reproduce it again and again and again. Later, when they realized that it would be a profitable on-going subscription, they likely changed it to 'Collector's Edition', because they really couldn't earnestly call it limited any longer. Even later, I suspect they began to distinguish the '100 Greatest' as just that, possibly because it was their flag ship product and wanted to more clearly brand it.

I believe the copyright dates listed in the '100 Greatest' are the dates that the original '100 Greatest' edition was published. E/P does not update copyright information for later printings. I'm curious if they update the copyright when they make a revision, such as to the frontispiece art that sludgetrough brought to our attention to begin this post.

Finally, I don't think that older versions are particularly more valuable than later editions, except on an individual basis where one favors an older cover design or has a preference for a colored portrait v. the black and white renderings. As a collector myself I could rationalize a premium for a complete set of truly first printing Easton Press '100 Greatest', though you could never really verify their authenticity. You would have to rely on the word of someone who was an original subscriber for their provenance. Still, you could compile a collection of editions that match the template of the original publications, whether they were or not, which could demand a premium simply for its historical novelty.

Actually, I wouldn't call the Sketchbook either white or tan -- it's more of a caramel or blonde. It's certainly not a color that I've seen used before. Same with Daisy Miller: to my eye, it is a gray that leans slightly toward the yellow end of the scale, rather than the blue end (like most of the light gray books published by EP).

I wasn't trying to claim that these books were white (although, on the shelf, next to all those darker and richer colored covers, these two might be described as white from a distance). I was more curious about the color of your Women (unfortunately, my browser doesn't display the pictures in Sludgetrough's link). My copy of the Alcott is the gold/tan covered one--and I'd love to get my hands on a white one (at a reasonable price, of course)!!

On a brighter note, I do own a Frankenstitch -- I didn't even realize that it was a highly regarded edition.

Your speculations about the cover pages are consistent with mine -- that the 100 Greatest collection was originally printed (in the mid-1970s) as a one-time, subscriber-only publication (hence the "Limited Edition" on the cover page). Then, after EP determined that there was enough interest to make the collection a standing series (like the Famous Editions and Masterpieces of American Lit.), they began to put "Collector's Edition" on title pages. Perhaps they were unsure if a 100-title series of leather books would have staying power and wanted the flexibility to offer the books separately if the series fell through.

And, although I too drool over the idea of a full set of "Limited Edition" 100 Greatests (I wonder how many of the collection were printed with "Limited Edition" on the title page?), I am also curious if any titles in the series had been previously published by Easton Press. For that matter--what are the earliest EP books? The earliest printed volumes in my collection are a 1968 copy of Cooper's The Prairie, the 1967 Crayon/Irving Sketchbook (both part of the MoAL series--with marbled endpaper) and a 1962 Marco Polo (not part of a series). I have other volumes with special contents copyrighted in the 1960s (including Frankenstitch--which is dated 1962, but which I purchased new from Easton Press in 1984), but the trimmings on these volumes indicate that these are later reprints.

Curiously, for those who care about such things, I opened my copy of Sinbad The Sailor, which I received as part of my subscription to 'The Collector's Library of Famous Editions' only to discover that it is indicated to be a 'Collector's Edition' on the title page rather than a 'Famous Edition' with the usual wreath emblem. However, there is a Notes From The Archives pamphlet tucked in the book with the wreath emblem. I highly suspect that this is the edition of Sinbad that was published for the 'Illustrated Treasury Of Fairy Tales And Legends' collection and that Easton Press recycled it as a Famous Edition. There is another, older version of The Seven Voyages of Sinbad the Sailor that does include the wreath on the title page.

I must say, I'm a little disappointed, Easton Press.

As if we needed more evidence, I found a very interesting string of ebay auctions all by the same seller. What's interesting is that he actually took pictures of every single title page, and he specifically says that the books are 28 years old, placing them sometime in the early 80's. If you look at the title pages, not ONE of them is labelled "100 greatest books ever written" though they are all obviously from that series. I think this is the last bit of proof we were looking for that it is the OLDER printings from this series that are missing the "100 greatest" marking. Now, whether anything else has changed or evolved over the years (besides the obvious cover redesigns), is more difficult to say. I believe it is different for every book. Plus, I still get the feeling that there are still some more recent printings that are missing that "100 greatest" stamp on them. Even so, this solves the mystery for me to satisfaction.

>13 sludgetrough:

But didn't we establish precisely this three weeks ago? My message #9 says pretty much the same thing as your ebay source (except that the volumes I mention are 26 and 27 years old, rather than 28). Of course, if you'd rather trust a bookseller than a collector...

At any rate, the 100G volumes distributed in the early 80s did not mention the series name on the title page. I have a couple dozen books in my collection that attest to this. But these are not the OLDER volumes in this series.

The OLDER volumes in this series were printed in the 1970s and say "Limited Edition," rather than "Collector's Edition," on the title page. As you know from our messages above, I own one of these (as does wailofatail). Yet even these are not the oldest Easton Press books.

Books in the Masterpieces of American Literature were available from, I believe, the late 1960s to the mid 1980s. I subscribed to this series for about a year before it was cancelled. The "later" editions of books in this series (from at least the early 80s, perhaps from the late 70s) look pretty much like books in the 100G series. The earlier editions in this series, however, are truly OLDER editions from Easton Press. These books have a super-thin spine (like thin carboard), yet thick boards. They also have marbled paper endpapers, rather than fabric. Although I own quite a few of the later (early 80s) printings from this series, I only own two of these early-generation MoAL books.

Finally, I own a copy of The Travels of Marco Polo that I obtained from someone who claimed to have bought it from EP in the 1960s. Well, the contents are copyrighted 1934 and 1962. The first is the date of the original Limited Editions Club publishing of this title. The second, I assume, is the date that this edition was first published by EP. I can't put my finger on it, but the book simply "feels" different from every other EP book that I've ever held. The spine is not as thick as those of the late 70s, but certainly thicker than those of the early MoAL. Also, it has the fabric endpapers that would mark it as a later publication than those early MoALs. Perhaps it's the paper -- the texture of the paper is very different from most other EP books. At any rate, something in the book's heft, weight and design leads me to believe the claim that this was printed not long after its 1962 date. This book is my enigma.

Unfortunately, unlike the Folio Society, Easton Press seems to have no knowledge of its own history. There are no published histories of the press and no collectors catalogs of past offerings. In fact, if I were to ask someone in customer service, I doubt that they could supply any details about the Masterpieces of American Literature series, since it was cancelled over 25 years ago.

ETA:

I have subsequently found a paper sent to me by Easton Press in the early 1990s, listing all of the books that were then in the MoAL series. This obviously negates my claim above that the series was discontinued in the mid 80s. After reviewing what little paperwork I have from back them (and straining my memory), I can't determine whether the series was temporarily cancelled and then resurrected a few years later, or whether in the mid 80s the series was given a major overhaul and filled with an entirely new list of titles.

At any rate, what I remember for sure is that EP sent me a box of discontinued MoAL titles sometime in the mid 80s. These were books that I was scheduled to receive as part of this series, but were now being retired. (Incidentally, EP sent them to me as if they were a set, allowing me to pay for them over several months).