|
|
magicfish Inner circle 7004 Posts |
Why are these men reprinting books without saying they are reprints inside the pages? Bad form.
Of course I know they are reprints- I am a collector- that is beside the point. As a bibliophile I a routinely open the first few pages of any book to find out if it is a first edition or a second printing etc. One will have no such luck with today's magic books. Hamman, Dingle, The New Jinx, Roth... thedse wonderful books have all been reprinted and NONE of them say so... It's bad form. Sincerely, Magicfish. |
sleightofhander Special user 618 Posts |
Interesting, I never thought of that.
|
Tom Jorgenson Inner circle LOOSE ANGLES, CALIFORNIA 4451 Posts |
Don't the series of numbers indicate which edition it is? The numbers will start with '2' or '3' or so...indicating 2nd edition, 3rd, etc.? Or is that not there either?
We dance an invisible dance to music they cannot hear.
|
magicfish Inner circle 7004 Posts |
I'm pretty sure there is no indication whatever. Other than the fact that those in the know will recognize different coloured boards, or an alteration of the publisher's name.
|
Turk Inner circle Portland, OR 3546 Posts |
I'm with you on this one, magicfish.
I own an original first edition of "The Complete Works of Derek Dingle" and recently I purchased a used copy of the work that has been heavily marked up and was obviously a "working copy". The book was advertised as being "marked up" and I knew that "going in". This didn't bother me becuase I purchased the book precisely to have a "working copy". That said, the book was supposedly a first edition (and, in reality, could actually be a first edition). Imagine my surprise to see the back of the dust cover jacket having a big white logo of "Kaufman and Greenburg" printed thereon. Yet, the book itself gives no clue as to this book's "edition status". I know my original first edition is, in fact, a first edition because I purchased it when it first came out (1983?). Of this used copy, I have gives no clue as to its ancestry, etc. Since the book itself has no obvious indication of any printing run (i.e., First Edition, Second Edition, etc.), I have no idea whether or not the book is a 1st edition nor what printing run it is from. Certtainly the person who sold it to me relied upon the fact that there is no 2nd edition or other markings to denote anything other than what is usually done on 1st editions. I certainly am not faulting him in any way over this book's ancestry. I usually do not buy books for collectability but I surely would like to know such information--if only so that proper valuation can be placed on any used efition I might wish to buy. AAAAARGH!! I certainly don't sish to pay a "collector's price" for a "non-collector's" copy of any such book. Mike P.S. In all fairness to Kaufman and others, perhaps the "printing code" does, in fact reveal the ancestry of the book, but, for other than bibliophiles and collectors, such obscure information (if it exists) is not helpful for the average "layman". P.P.S. I just had a flashback to the situation involving John Bannon's "Smoke and Mirrors" book. I seem to recall reading somewhere that, apparently, there are two first editions--one with a black cover and one with a purple(?) cover. One of these apparently is a "first edition, first printing run" and the other is a "first edition, second priniting run". I've been advised that both are printed and entitled "First Eedition" but that my copy (the black covered version) is supposedly the "secong printing run"--and is less desirable from a collectable standpoint. I hope that this is not the case. As a layman, I certainly cannot appreciate the technical industry(?) distinction of having two separate and distinct "first editions" that have been printed at different times. To my layman's logical way of thinking these both CANNOT be "first editions". Double AAARGH!! (Oh! Did I forget to mention that this "Smoke and Mirrors" book is a Kaufman publication?) Can anyone explain this industry standard? How it came about and why it is accepted and acceptable? If so, you have my thanks.
Magic is a vanishing Art.
This must not be Kansas anymore, Toto. Eschew obfuscation. |
joemagic1 New user 2 Posts |
I work for a very large publisher and am an avid collector. Here is the industry low down. There can be many printings of a "First Edition" those of value are usally only those that are a First Edition and a first printing. On most modern books you can tell if it is a first printing by referencing the numbers found, usually, on the bottom of the copywrite page. As an example you may see a run like this:
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 With this run starting with "1" this would designate a first printing. 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 With this run starting with "4" this would designate a fourth printing. Always look for the highest number, that will designate how many printings the book is in. Now both of these could be advertised as a "First Edition", this too is usally stated somewhere on the copywrite page, but in the second case it would be a First Edition, fourth printing, and thus not as collectiable as a true First Edition first printing. Usually the edition does not change unless editorial changes are made, then you would have a second edition and may have various printings as well. I hope this is not too confusing. Again, I am only speaking in general terms, once you get into older books various publishers may have their own way of designating editions and printings. There is no hard standart in publishing that I am aware, only reccomendations. It all gets so complicated with older editions most book dealers will have volumes to expain things. I hope this helps a little. Peace, Joe |
Larry Barnowsky Inner circle Cooperstown, NY where bats are made from 4770 Posts |
Magic books almost always with few exceptions lack the universal publishing standard code to identify the book and the edition. This is the ISBN number. It costs money to have the number and register it. Very few magic books use this. My first book, 21st Century Coin Mechanics, was printed twice. The second printing shares the same ISBN number but it states in the copyright page that it is either the first or second printing. If there are major changes so it becomes a second edition then the ISBN should be changed. My new book Kingdom of the Red is still in it's first printing and the ISBN number is on the back dustjacket and on the copyright page. They recently added new ISBN numbers because they were running out of new ones.
In summary, a second printing should be listed inside the book on the copyright page. If you are a collector you would want the first printing of the first edition. Larry |
JimMaloney Inner circle 1184 Posts |
Quote:
On 2008-04-06 12:20, Turk wrote: My copy of the Dingle book quite clearly states "First Edition" on the copyright page. It does not make any indication as to which printing it is, however. -Jim
Books and Magazines for sale -- more than 200 items (Last updated January 17th, 2014. Link goes to public Google Doc.)
|
MagicSanta Inner circle Northern Nevada 5841 Posts |
Why is this titled "Problem with Kaufman and others"? Why is Richard naned as if he did something wrong? First off Richard isn't doing anything less than is required to do, he is a publisher and knows the business. As others have indicated there are ways to know the edition and print, if you don't know it or don't check it out don't blame Richard or anyone else. I tend to go with little hints myself. For example of a book hasn't been available for ten or 15 years and suddenly there is an add that it is now available from the publisher in large numbers I pretty much am sure it is not a first printing. Here is an idea, before you make a post implying Richard, who I consider a friend, is doing something wrong why not try calling or emailing him? Is that too much to try before such a titled post?
|
Jake Austin Loyal user Colorado Springs 237 Posts |
Joe,
Your post has been very helpful. It looks like Kaufman and Company use the numbers but in reverse order. For example the numbers on my purple edition of Smoke and Mirrors are 6 5 4 3 2 1 and on my Totally Out of Control (which I'm positive is a reprint) is 6 5 4. It looks like they are a first printing and a fourth printing respectively. Thans for the info! Jake
S.A.M Assembly 170, Colorado Springs
170sam.org |
Richard Kaufman Inner circle 2532 Posts |
You're assuming that when I started publishing books 30 years ago, I knew and understood everything that professional publishers, often with hundreds of employees, know. But I didn't.
On most of my books, there is a print code. This is the industry standard: a running line of numbers. The printing is signified by the lowest number in the line. Sometimes the words "First Edition" appear. These words should only appear in the first printing. But sometimes I forget to remove them. That's just the way life is when you're doing everything by yourself. The first printing of Smoke and Mirrors has a purple cover. All subsequent printings have a black cover. There are ways to tell which printing is which: the first printing of CoinMagic has a white dustjacket. The second printing has a maroon dustjacket with silver and white text. The third printing is softcover. All other printings are hardcover, but the text on the cover is all white (no silver). Ditto for Dingle, but there was never a softcover edition. |
Ray Haining Inner circle Hot Springs, AR 1907 Posts |
My first copy of CoinMagic (which I beleive was a 2nd printing) had a dust jacket. The newest copies I've seen have the same design, but printed on the actual cover, no dustjacket. Still the same great material inside.
|
silverking Inner circle 4574 Posts |
I don't really see this as any sort of "problem".
If you buy books as "collectibles" you really should know the playing field well enough to find your way through what is and what isn't a first edition or a re-print. The reality of magic book publishing is that books go out of print and then skyrocket in value......only to be re-printed and assume a marginally higher value than the re-print. The only magic books that seem to maintain their value are ones the never see a re-print. The first Nick Trost book went for $250.00 on Ebay not a month and a half ago....now it's worth $45.00 again. Collecting magic books for investment purposes requires a lot more chops than just buying and hoping.....you've got to know.....and there's lots of ways to acquire that knowledge. Me, I just read and enjoy, and occasionally sell a book at the high point and make a bit of dough, or like my David Berglas book, sell too soon and make back only the $200.00 I paid for it rather than what it currently goes for, which is a down payment on a house. |
MagicSanta Inner circle Northern Nevada 5841 Posts |
I agree with Silverking completely.....
|
Peo Olsson Inner circle Stockholm, Sweden 3260 Posts |
Me, I just read and enjoy, but never sell a book.
Beside that I agree with Silverking. Im to much a bookworm to sell anyone of them. I mostly use my magic library as a refence when I have read them
Pictured to the left my hero and me during FISM 2006 in Stockholm.
|
Andy the cardician Inner circle A street named after my dad 3362 Posts |
Great post Silverking . . .
to add to it, there are better ways to invest money . . . so this lense is not really the best when it comes to magic books.
Cards never lie
|
Samuel Catoe Inner circle South Carolina 1268 Posts |
Magic books are vastly different from other books as far as collectibility goes. The fist is that there is often a much smaller pool of consumers for magic books to begin with and when you add collecting into the mix, that pool diminishes even more. Second is that there is an inherent perception of worth in the contents of the magic book that does not exist for other books.
Such books as Obsidian Oblique and The Mind and Magic of David Berglas come to mind. These books currently fetch huge sums because there were very few of them printed and because the material in them is seen as being worth the huge amounts. If either of these books were ever reprinted the value of the first editions would plummet because it is the contents of the book that people want, not the book itself. A first edition, first printing copy of Stephen King's Carrie fetches huge sums for several reasons. It was printed in a very small number (about 30,000) and the books were made of cheaper material and thus many did not survive in good condition. This makes a copy in excellent condition very rare (though still not as rare as some magic books that command much lower prices). Collectors obviously are not interested in the contents of Carrie. They are interested in the rarity of the first printing. Magic books are just the opposite mostly. Magicians for the most part want the content, not the book. Samuel
Author of Illusions of Influence, a treatise on Equivoque.
PM me for details and availability. |
JAlenS Inner circle Utah 1526 Posts |
If I had enough money to actually collect the original works I would but I mostly buy the periodical compilations such as the Compleat Invocation, Seance, and Swami and Mantra. I see these as prime reference material and although I am somewhat of a bibliophile myself I don't think I've ever looked to see the printing dates on any of the books I have from Kaufman & Co.
Great, enjoyable books!!! |
The Magic Cafe Forum Index » » Books, Pamphlets & Lecture Notes » » Problem with Kaufman and others. (0 Likes) |
[ Top of Page ] |
All content & postings Copyright © 2001-2024 Steve Brooks. All Rights Reserved. This page was created in 0.04 seconds requiring 5 database queries. |
The views and comments expressed on The Magic Café are not necessarily those of The Magic Café, Steve Brooks, or Steve Brooks Magic. > Privacy Statement < |