Poll: Edition Numbering
Liity LibraryThingin jäseneksi, niin voit kirjoittaa viestin.
Here's a proposal:
1. Each member, when purchasing the edition, will list their preferred copy numbers and/or indicate that they prefer the lowest number available. For example:
"7, 17, 77"
"7, 17, 77 or Lowest Available"
2. The runners-up in the second round will receive their choice (if available) in the order that their proposal was ranked.
3. All other members will receive their choice (if available) in the order that they purchased the edition.
Äänestys: Do you approve of this process change?
Honest question though for more experienced collectors or those with clear preferences: what are the reasons that people tend to care what number they have?
e.g., is it an aesthetic consideration such that you like some numbers more than others or some numbers overlap with other editions you own? Or is it that lower numbers seem/are more important/valuable? Or is it something else I'm missing?
I've only managed this once getting number 300 of 300 copies of the LEC Seven Years in Tibet. I agree, it is rather cool!
Copies would be designated as "member copies" with that member's number independent of the copy number. Any copies made available outside the membership would be designated and numbered independently.
- Customer #1 elects for copy 2, 3 or 4.
- Customer #2 elects for lowest available.
- Customer #3 elects for copy 2, 3 or 4.
- #1 gets copy 2
- #2 gets copy 3 (lowest available at their point in the queue)
- #3 gets copy 4
- #1 gets copy 2
- #2 gets copy 4 (lowest available with all specific number preferences accounted for)
- #3 gets copy 3
So what I'm hearing is I should ask for #44 or 16....just kidding. I think I should resist the temptation of developing a preference here if I don't already have one.
I don't know any collector for whom a specific number is a sine qua non, but plenty have a preference.
(1) Random number generator: A random number generator spits out an order of selection, and persons are contacted in that order to select that number. I believe this can be automated so that it's not labor-intensive; would be happy to look into it.
(2) Order determined by temporality: Persons are contacted in the order in which they submitted their request to join the Press to select their number.
(3) Number determined by temporality: Persons are assigned numbers in the order in which they submitted their request to join the Press. Persons may arrange trades of their numbers, but the numbers are otherwise a reflection of a Press-specific coincidence rather than purchaser's choice.
In any instance, the numbers would be made available for each volume no matter the limitation, so the participant assigned number 177 would always be able to receive 177 even if only 100 copies are printed. This information could be reflected in the colophon, if one wanted to have fun with it.
IMO, no need to complicate things - might as well let members who want request numbers, and honor them in the order they’re received (essentially as management is proposing)
>26 NathanOv: I agree. A pseudo-anonymous member number is fine, but I strongly prefer not to have personalizations with my name, etc.
Very much not a fan of my name on the colophon, though the name of whoever proposed the title should certainly be in there. I think it will be, from what I recall of the rules. Bookplates a whole other thing, however, and happy if those are part of the production run. Even if I don't adhere it but simply lay it in the volume.
Edit: Did you look closely at the linked book? It's the Anthony Baker copy...
By the way, thanks kermaier for the link! I was just asking in another thread if there were examples of Plantin being used in fine press, and lo, this very book is one.
That kind of historical provenance is a different thing, really. Oh, and I agree, "The Pint and the Pendulum" is a superb pub name.
Join to post