Guides Top Ten
MDB
10 - The Jehovah Witnesses carry it with them door to door, and try to shove it
in your face.
9 - The Pope sleeps with one under his pillow.
8 - In almost every Elvis sighting, he's holding one.
7 - Pelagie Doane painted the cover.
6 - You can get them cheap from Italians in NJ suburbs by Manhattan.
5 - Don Corleone used one in The Godfather.
4 - The girls at W. 36th and 10th Avenue all carry one.
3 - Producing endless 'editions' of one will make you a household name in about
3% of the series book world. (And notice each one is marked as a new
'printing', unlike the books it claims are 'printings' but not marked thus.)
2 - It completely ignores the reality of 'the publishing industry' and its
standards, except for the urinal cakes in the men's rooms at the publishing
houses.
1 - Alien abductees all get a copy of the latest edition after each abduction
experience, each one signed by Tom Cruise and Nicole Kidman.
MDB
generally accepted reference works that get their info from the publishers -
not from speculation:
An 'edition' is the number of books before a certain percentage of the contents
is revised. (note:REVISED).
A 'printing' is the number of copies produced when the printing plates or type
are on the press. (And the only example of this given in any guide does not
agree with the listing in the guide for that printing. In fact, it's five years
off!)
To the book collector, a 'first edition' means a copy from the first printing
of the first edition. (Thus the description 'first edition, later printing', to
let the collector know it is not a first printing of the first edition.)
To the publisher, a 'first edition' may mean any copy of a title before it was
substantially revised. (Again, REVISED, and SUBSTANTIALLY - not a paragraph
added.
''''''' Those of you who accuse sellers who do not go by Farouk/Soprano and
that crew of trying to cheat buyers are only showing your ignorance of the
larger world of books and the standards that have been adhered to for decades.
The guides are your Bible and anyone who does not adhere to them is a Sinner.
Meanwhile, like many a religion, none of them based on any more than the
teachings of a guru, the guides are what is misleading collectors by getting
them to believe in a speculative system that has nothing to back it up. No
evidence 'from the publishers'.
MDB
.....feeling sorry for the misled guide-ahova witnesses
J. Michael Click
What percentage of the contents have to be revised to create a new
"edition"? That definition seems a bit vague. In the case of
your "Broken Locket", the internal illustrations were missing,
the frontispiece had been revised, the copyright page text list
was gone, and the "next book" paragraph on page 219 had been
changed. Those are fairly significant differences.
If to a book collector, a "first edition" means a copy from the
first printing of the first edition, and the term "first edition,
later printing" is proper, why did you list your 1940's copy of
"Broken Locket" a "first edition" and not a "first edition, later
printing"? Were you trying to mislead?
What is so ironic about this whole contretemps is that you would
be screaming to high heaven if you had bought a copy of "Broken
Locket" that was described as a "first edition" and then received
a thin copy with a plain frontispiece and tanned paper. And that
for me suggests the very simple bottom line ...
Treat others with the same honesty and fairness that you would
like to receive in return.
JMichael
MDB
as clear as can be.
You are all so intent on proving me a crooked bookseller that you don't even
read the descriptions with comprehension. The text was not substantially (large
in size or amount) revised on this story until the sixties, so a mid-forties
printing would still be the first edition.
"First edition" as used in the guide-ahova guides does not have the same
meaning as its use in the publishing industry standards.
Standards for a subsequent 'edition' are 'substantially revised' (the text) or
'marked as a later edition'. Neither of which happened to that book until it
was 'substantially revised' in the sixties.
This and other reference materials used in bookstores and amongst booksellers
do not have any information on the G&D books prior to 1960 because the company
does not give that information. For first editions of original titles after
1960, the book must have FP printed on the copyright page with no additional
printings indicated. G&D still did not do that for its series books. They give
out no information about editions and printings of those books, so one can only
go by the accepted standards or by speculation.
mdb>you would
>be screaming to high heaven if you had bought a copy of "Broken
>Locket" that was described as a "first edition" and then received
>a thin copy with a plain frontispiece and tanned paper
There was a scan showing the book and DJ. The book was described as a
mid-forties copy with tanning paper. What are you talking about?
Try to learn more about book publishing instead of assuming that self-published
speculative guides are correct. They aren't. People were dealing in first
editions long before Farouk and Soprano were even born, long before their
speculations brainwashed glazed-eyed fans. Do you honestly think there was no
book world before they came along?
MDB
HooDeeDoo
you're trying to sucker people? Why not just say "original text"? Your motives
are suspect here Mikey.
If you're trying to impress people (or confuse them, more likely) with your
knowledge of the arcane, we're not impressed.
In fact, we're bored.
Mark
.......stoney-faced in Manhattan
MDB
Because it is a first edition according to publishing industry standards, even
if a later printing. It does not confuse people. The people who buy my books
know exactly what they are getting and are very happy with them.
>Why not just say "original text"?
My descriptions do state that the book has the original story.
>If you're trying to impress people (or confuse them, more likely) with your
>knowledge of the arcane, we're not impressed.
>
I'm not trying to impress or confuse anyone, just use the terms accepted and
understood in the bookselling world. You just don't want to get it that most
bidders don't know or care about the guides.
We have competeing agendas. Yours is to sway people's thinking over to your
speculations about printings so you can become 'somebody'. Mine is to sell
books in an honest manner with information based on tried and true standards,
not ever-changing speculation.
MDB
HooDeeDoo
>speculations about printings so you can become 'somebody'.
Wrongo little one. That's not my agenda.
Global domination is my agenda.
Well, that, and world peace.
By the way, Mr. Mike, you still haven't explained to the class why you said in
your listing the artwork WAS by Pelagie Doane. I'm sure "THE INDUSTRY" has very
stern rules about booksellers who make false claims about the books they sell.
But then again, you know more about "THE INDUSTRY" and its working than us mere
mortals.
Mark
.......harmoniously in Manhattan
MDB
>By the way, Mr. Mike, you still haven't explained to the class why you said
>in
>your listing the artwork WAS by Pelagie Doane
I explained. You just don't comprehend. I knew it would annoy you because you
scour the listings looking for things to be annoyed about. Obviously, it made
your day.
We all know Pelagie did it. Warren's gals do not wear those long skirts and
bend their knees. Doane had a certain thing for bent knees, which many fans
noticed even in their childhood.
>I'm sure "THE INDUSTRY" has very
>stern rules about booksellers who make false claims about the books they
>sell.
The publishing industry does not have 'rules', it has standards. Some venues
may have rules about false claims, but obviously not eBay since it allows
people to quote from the guides.
>But then again, you know more about "THE INDUSTRY" and its working than us
>mere
>mortals.
>
I have worked with and in the publishing industry and have sold collectible
books since the sixties. I do know quite a tad about it all. The first Farah's
Guide did not come out till mid-eighties. There was a lot of series
buying/selling going on before that, according to the standards already set in
the publishing industry. There was Life before the guides and they still remain
only a very small part of the influence on series book collecting. That's
largely due to the lack of marketing skills by those who make them.
MDB
James D. Keeline
>
> >By the way, Mr. Mike, you still haven't explained to the class why you said
> >in your listing the artwork WAS by Pelagie Doane
>
> I explained. You just don't comprehend. I knew it would annoy you because you
> scour the listings looking for things to be annoyed about. Obviously, it made
> your day.
>
> We all know Pelagie did it. Warren's gals do not wear those long skirts and
> bend their knees. Doane had a certain thing for bent knees, which many fans
> noticed even in their childhood.
>
Among series book illustrators, Ferdinand Earl Warren is rather interesting
because he was the head of an art department in Georgia. In fact, here is
the entry I am working on about him:
Warren, Ferdinand Earl (1 Aug 1899-24 Oct 1981).
Artist who was born in Independence, MO and lived in Decatur, GA for most
of his life. In 1933 he worked at 10 Hooga Studios, 51 Poplar St., Brook-
lyn, NY. Warren was the illustrator for the first twelve volumes in the
Dana Girls series though some books use the name "Frederick E. Warren" on
the title page. He was head of the art department at Agnes Scott College
(Decatur, GA) and a member of the American Watercolor Society, the Georgia
Artists Association, Audubon Artists, etc.
[WhAm 8; WhAmArt 85; WhoAm 74, 76, 78, 80; WhoAmArt 73, 76, 78, 80, 82,
84, 86N, 89N, 91N, 93N]
[Dodd, L. "Ferdinand Warren" American Artist 16 (Feb 1952): 24-7]
[Caxton, W. "Intimate Mural for an Atlanta Printing Office" American
Artist 25 (Feb 1961): 48-51]
Here is a link to a discussion which occurred on alt.books.nancy-drew several
years back, it includes some useful information, I think:
At the time, "Norman Braley" was discussed and he is listed as the artist
for these Outdoor Girls books (and two learning Spanish books). Another
artist associated with Syndicate books is "Margaret Temple Braley" who did
the artwork for several single titles and a Bobbsey Twins book from 1933.
The question is, were either responsible for the Broken Locket artwork.
The Norman Braley art does seem similar to that used for Broken Locket --
at least as similar as Pelagie Doane.
One point against Pelagie Doane as a Nancy Drew artist was that she was a
friend of Margaret Sutton. Certainly in later years, even today, Margaret
feels that her series could not succeed so long as G&D had a commitment to
the Syndicate and series like Nancy Drew. It is unlikely that this feeling
would have existed when Broken Locket was available, however.
The connection to Warren is probably based more on the temporal proximity to
the initial volumes in the Dana Girls series than to any similarity of style.
Still, an examination of the frontispiece and DJ art for the appropriate
volumes in the Adventure Girls series is a good idea. Here's an example of
his art in a current eBay auction:
http://cgi.ebay.com/aw-cgi/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=1434267284
The picture is located at:
http://216.220.236.171/images/5-27-015.jpg
There are some similarities to the Broken Locket art but I am inclined
toward the Braley art.
As before, my page on this topic may be seen at:
James
J. Michael Click
You are just too cool. And I mean that most sincerely.
One note about your page. You state:
Of course, Grosset & Dunlap could have made a mistake in
attributing the two Outdoor Girls volumes to "Norman Braley."
This is a bit unlikely, since both the DJ and the frontispiece
for "The Outdoor Girls in the Air" are clearly signed,
"N. Braley", as are the endpapers that Grosset & Dunlap used
for their reprints of Barse's "Rex Cole Jr." books. These same
endpapers, printed in red for the Cole series, were later recycled
and used for the Jimmie Drury series, where they were colored
mint green.
Norman Braley, then, may have been a pseudonym but if so, it
appears that the name would have been created by the artist and
not Grosset & Dunlap.
Respectfully yours,
JMichael
James D. Keeline
I hadn't seen the illustrations up close to see the signatures.
The reason for my suggestion of some confusion with respect to
the name was the Margaret Temple Braley illustration on the BT
book from the same time period. Perhaps they were married or
otherwise related?
It might be of interest to observe some of the other, non-series
books by the artists in question.
James
Norman Braley:
=============
Title: Beginners' Spanish,
Author(s): Pittaro, John M. (John Michael);
Green, Alexander, 1888- ; joint author.
Publisher: Boston, New York [etc.] D.C. Heath and Co., 1929
Descrip: xvi, 491 p. p., front., illus., maps., 19 cm.
Language: Spanish
Series: Heath's modern language series.
Hills and Ford grammar series.
LC No: LCCN: 29-10395
SUBJECT(S)
Descriptor: Spanish language -- Grammar -- 1870-
Resp: by John M. Pittaro and Alexander Green;
illustrated by Herbert Deland Williams and Norman Braley.
Title: Modern Spanish grammar,
Author(s): Pittaro, John M. (John Michael);
Green, Alexander,; 1888- ; joint author.
Publisher: Boston, New York [etc.] D.C. Heath and Co., 1931
Descrip: xviii, 532 p. p., front., illus., maps., 19 cm.
Language: English
Series: Heath's modern language series.
Hills and Ford grammar series.
LC No: LCCN: 31-19983 //r38
Resp.: by John M. Pittaro and Alexander Green,
illustrated by Herbert Deland Williams and Norman Braley.
Margaret Temple Braley:
======================
Title: Blue nets and red sails,
Author(s): Preston, Helen Bradley. ; Braley, Margaret Temple, ; illus.
Publisher: New York, Toronto, Longmans, Green and Co., 1936
Descrip: 38, [2] p. incl. col. front., illus. (part col.) p., 24 cm.
Language: English
LC No: LCCN: 36-27394
Note(s): Illustrated lining-papers./ "First edition."
Resp: by Helen Bradley Preston;
illustrated by Margaret Temple Braley.
Title: Cinnamon Spice,
Author(s): Preston, Helen Bradley;
Braley, Margaret Temple, ; illus.
Publisher: New York, Grosset & Dunlap, 1939
Descrip: [40] p. p., illus. (part col.), 21 x 24 cm.
Language: English
LC No: LCCN: 39-19698
Note(s): Illustrated lining-papers.
Title: The Wooloo and Lita May,
Author(s): Youlin, Frances Cole;
Braley, Margaret Temple, ; illus.
Publisher: New York, N.Y., Cupples & Leon, 1942
Descrip: 70, [1] p. p., illus. (part col.), 23 x 18 cm.
Resp: by Frances Cole Youlin,
illustrated by Margaret Temple Braley.
Ferdinand Earl Warren:
=====================
Title: The bridge of life,
Author(s): Smith, C. Harold, 1860-
Publisher: New York, London, D. Appleton and Co., 1929
Descrip.: ix, 271 p. p., illus., 21 cm.
Language: English
LC No: LCCN: 29-8714
Note(s): An autobiography.
Resp.: by C. Harold Smith
illustrated by Ferdinand E. Warren.
Title: Johnny Bree;
Author(s): Heyliger, William.
Publisher: New York, D. Appleton and Co., 1931
Descrip.: 234 p. p., front., illus., 12mo.
Language: English
SUBJECT(S)
Descriptor: Mineral industries -- Stories.
Resp.: illustrations by Ferdinand E. Warren.
Title: Ritchie of the News,
Author(s): Heyliger, William, 1884-
Publisher: New York, London, D. Appleton-Century Co., 1933
Descrip.: 3 p. ., 247, [1] p. p., front., illus., 20 cm.
Resp.: by William Heyliger;
illustrations by Ferdinand E. Warren.
Title: World War II poster collection.
Part two : posters, 1940-1945 bulk 1942-1945.
Author(s): Hoover, J. Edgar (John Edgar) 1895-1972. ;
Jones, John Paul 1747-1792. ;
Roosevelt, Franklin D. (Franklin Delano); 1882-1945. ;
Saalburg, Allen. ; Schlaikjer, Jes William 1897- ;
Schmidt, Harold van. ; Schreiber, Georges. ;
Siebel, Fritz. ; Sloan, Robert. ; Snider, Don. ;
Stoops, Herbert Morton. ; Warren, Ferdinand E.,; 1899- ;
Washington, George,; 1732-1799. ; Whitcomb, Jan.
Year: 1940 1945
Descrip.: 15 posters (24 items).
Language: English
Abstract: A collection of 90 posters (157 items) displayed at
St. John's College, Brooklyn during the war years. The
agency responsible for publication varies. Distributed
primarily by O.W.I. and covering various subjects. Artists
represented include: Allen Saalburg, J.W. Schlaikjer,
Harold van Schmidt, Georges Schreiber, Fritz Siebel,
Robert Sloan, Don Snider, Herbert M. Stoops, Ferdinand E.
Warren, and Jan Whitcomb. Quotations by George Washington,
Franklin D. Roosevelt, John Paul Jones and J. Edgar Hoover
are included.
SUBJECT(S)
Descriptor: World War, 1939-1945 -- United States -- Posters.
General Info: Organization: Posters, organized by size, then by subject.
Preferred citation: AI.1: World War II Poster Collection.
St. John's University Archives.
Original materials: St. John's University Archives.
Library.
8000 Utopia Parkway
Jamaica, NY 11034.
Unpublished guide available in the archives: item level
description.
Corp Auth: United States.; Office of War Information. ; St. John's
University (New York, N.Y.); Archives.
James D. Keeline
NORMAN BRALEY (102-22-4940)
Residence: Riverside, Fairfield, CT 06878
Born 26 Sep 1898
Died Aug 1970
Issued: NY (Before 1951)
If someone is interested in this, here is a link which will generate
a letter to the Social Security Agency to obtain a copy of the actual
application made by Braley. It may indicate details such as the line
of work he was in, a full address at the time (NY), and a copy of his
signature for comparison to the DJ signatures. There is a small fee
involved. If someone does get it, please send me a copy or scan for
my files.
http://www.ancestry.com/ssdi/ss-5.asp?fn=NORMAN&ln=BRALEY&ss=102-22-4940&bd=26+Sep+1898&dd=Aug+1970
On this page is a letter generator and a sample of what you will get
if you send for it.
James
Bennie Nelson
> The listing said 'first edition, later printing from the 1940's.' That's about
> as clear as can be.
>
I have a similar question about The Short Wave Mystery. I had a picture
cover edition as a boy. It had what I had always regarded as the original
text. I discovered as an adult that this is not quite the case.
[I was reading the story to my two sons and noticed that the first chapter
was not as I recalled it. So, I gave a newer printing to my oldest son and
asked him to alert us to the differences as I read the chapter. It was quite
interesting to see that a portion of the dialog that had always seemed
awkward to me was caused by the revision.]
So, even though the texts differ, the copyright date was not changed in
late (?) 1950's. Are both technically first editions of the text according to
the publishing industry?
Regards,
Bennie Nelson
fwd...@yahoo.com
> Treat others with the same honesty and fairness that you would
> like to receive in return.
Mike may be a gigantic pain in the ass and make ludicrous assertions
from time to time but, as far as I know, nobody can accuse him of
being a dishonest or unfair bookseller.
I know people who have bought books from him and the books arrived
promptly, as described and well packaged.
__________________________________________________
Bob Finnan
The Unofficial Hardy Boys Home Page
http://www.geocities.com/fwdixon
New Books, Tapes, DVD's, CD-ROMs and More For Sale
http://www.geocities.com/fwdixon/amazon.htm
Tony Carpentieri
modified in 1954, rather severely, on seven pages.
Tony
HooDeeDoo
>also
>modified in 1954, rather severely, on seven pages.
>
>Tony
TONY!
Please confess to the class that you are merely SPECULATING about this.
Mark
.......severely in Manhattan
Tony Carpentieri
You are one of my best students! This is a fact, as noted in the Kingsport
Press printing cards and research with first and second printing books (note that
I don't mention editions either here or in Hardy and Hardy.) Thanks for asking.
Have a lovely, lovely day! Please leave the apple on my desk...
Tony
fwd...@yahoo.com
> The text was modified in 1945 (for the second printing) on two pages. It was also modified in 1954, rather severely, on seven pages.
Which pages were modified and what were the modifications?
Why were they modified anyway?
Inquiring minds want to know!
Bennie Nelson
>
> "J. Michael Click" <jmc...@postoffice.swbell.net> wrote:
> > Treat others with the same honesty and fairness that you would
> > like to receive in return.
>
> Mike may be a gigantic pain in the ass and make ludicrous assertions
> from time to time but, as far as I know, nobody can accuse him of
> being a dishonest or unfair bookseller.
> I know people who have bought books from him and the books arrived
> promptly, as described and well packaged.
I am completely satisfied with every book I have ever purchased
from Mike. He has conducted himself in every one of those
transactions in a manner that I have found to be above reproach.
Regards,
Bennie Nelson
Bennie Nelson
>
> Tony Carpentieri <hardy...@home.com> wrote in message news:<3B1C047C...@home.com>...
> > The text was modified in 1945 (for the second printing) on two pages. It was also modified in 1954, rather severely, on seven pages.
>
> Which pages were modified and what were the modifications?
> Why were they modified anyway?
> Inquiring minds want to know!
I, too, am quite interested in knowing the answer to this one. However, I
have seen no direct response to my original question. Now, of course, given
this new information, I'll have to modify the question: Is the second printing
text a second edition, while the 1954 text is a third edition?
Regards,
Bennie Nelson
J. Michael Click
Tony, why do you not mention this printing in that speculative
self-published guide of yours?
Please note that the front flap lists only 5 Hardy Boys books,
which according to you would make this a circa 1928 printing,
right? And you thought the red Hardys stopped with "While the
Clock Ticked" ...
HooDee, grab that apple back ... our teacher has some 'splaining
to do.
JMichael
....... looking up my red copy of "Aztec Warrior" in Tony's guide
ShanPirate
receive in return.
The reason I started quoting industry standard descriptions is because so many
bidders don't know about the guides. If you describe a book as being a 1956B
according to Verklempt & Verschmidtz, you get a ton of emails asking 'what the
heck is that?' I think it's honest and fair to include BOTH. Apparently most of
you others don't.
MDB
Bennie Nelson
Answer: The thick red editions of the Hardy Boys were produced
in North America from 1927 until 1932. The first 11 volumes
were the only ones Grosset and Dunlap produced in that format.
Red volumes were produced in the United Kingdom for a much
longer time period (I have no idea what the date range is).
However, these were not Grosset and Dunlap editions. The
Hardy Boys guides apparently do not include the U.K.
editions.
Regards,
Bennie Nelson
Bennie Nelson
I have no problem with including both. I prefer there to be more
information in the item description for auction items. A copyright
date and a scanned image of the front cover of the jacket simply
is not enough for me to bid on a Hardy Boys auction.
Regards,
Bennie Nelson
J. Michael Click
> The reason I started quoting industry standard descriptions is because so many
> bidders don't know about the guides. If you describe a book as being a 1956B
> according to Verklempt & Verschmidtz, you get a ton of emails asking 'what the
> heck is that?' I think it's honest and fair to include BOTH. Apparently most of
> you others don't.
Well, you never answered my question about your "Broken Locket"
listing, so I don't really know where you stand, Mike. Since the
copy you listed as a "first edition, later printing" had been
significantly altered from the original (100% of the illustrations
had been revised, the copyright page had been altered, and the
next book paragraph on page 219 had been changed), I'm left to
wonder: in your opinion, was there EVER a second edition of "The
Clue of the Broken Locket" with a 1934 copyright date? Or is every
copy ever printed with a 1934 copyright a "first edition"? And
does that mean that the Applewood reprints are also "first editions"?
I think my issue with your stance on all of this is simply a matter
of clarity. Most everyone reading this group would automatically
know that your copy was not a true first printing/first edition,
but would the average Joe browsing eBay with no knowledge of the
printing history of the title? So even if you are technically
being honest and fair, are you being as honest and fair as you
COULD BE?
I don't think so. I think you could be a lot more clearer by saying
"this copy contains the original 1934 text, but was printed circa
1946".
And I think your listing of the red Sampson and Low "Disappearing
Floor" was deliberately misleading. Rather than just saying that
it doesn't appear in the "speculative self-published guides" that
you KNOW only describe American printings (thus making it sound
like you're offering something rare and hitherto undiscovered),
why don't you simply and clearly state, "a British printing".
You could even say, "a British printing, hard-to-find in the United
States", or something similar.
As you say, many bidders - maybe even MOST bidders - don't know
about the guides. But as Margaret Sutton would say, I bet
something precious those same naive bidders haven't a clue as
to what you really mean in some of your descriptions.
Sincerely,
JMichael
Tony Carpentieri
J. Michael Click
>
> Answer: The thick red editions of the Hardy Boys were produced
> in North America from 1927 until 1932. The first 11 volumes
> were the only ones Grosset and Dunlap produced in that format.
>
> Red volumes were produced in the United Kingdom for a much
> longer time period (I have no idea what the date range is).
> However, these were not Grosset and Dunlap editions. The
> Hardy Boys guides apparently do not include the U.K.
> editions.
>
> Regards,
> Bennie Nelson
Yes, Bennie, I know that. Thank you. I was being sarcastic and
flip. Mike (seriesbook) ALSO knows that information, but chose
NOT to share it with his prospective bidders.
No, instead of simply stating that he was offering a UK printing,
he chose to be deliberating obtuse by conjuring up images of a
red book that listed only five titles on the dj flap, taking a
cheap shot at the Carpentieri/Heffelfinger guides along the way.
You knew what he meant. I knew what he meant. But we're very
knowledgable collectors. Do you think the less experienced people
who read his listing totally understood? How honest and fair
is that?
Regards,
JMichael
..... who truly does have a red "Aztec Warrior" with a blue-spine
DJ and orange Gretta endpapers published by Sampson & Low
J. Michael Click
>
> Oh geez, I guess everything we know is wrong. (Of course, the second
> line of the intro to the first edition of H&HI shows what's up with
> this...)
What do you mean by "the first edition of H&HI"? Is that like the
"first draft" or the "first printing" of the "first edition", which
if you wrote it out in longhand originally would really be a "first
cursiving"? Yep ... caught ya, didn't I?
And what do you mean by "the second line"? Is that the "second
sentence", or the "second horizontal set of print"? If in the third
printing of the fourth edition, you changed the font size to "48",
would it still be the "second line"?
Before you answer these questions, sit down and think carefully:
are you telling the absolute truth, or are you merely speculating
(again)? Please have Mary type your response so it won't be
self-published. Thank you.
JMichael
....... nailing it down from Cowtown
fwd...@yahoo.com
> No, instead of simply stating that he was offering a UK printing,
> he chose to be deliberating obtuse by conjuring up images of a
> red book that listed only five titles on the dj flap, taking a
> cheap shot at the Carpentieri/Heffelfinger guides along the way.
>
> You knew what he meant. I knew what he meant. But we're very
> knowledgable collectors. Do you think the less experienced people
> who read his listing totally understood? How honest and fair
> is that?
Oh for god's sake.
I thought it was pretty funny.
The book was adequately described.
I doubt that ANYONE was mislead by this auction.
As I said before, Mike is a gigantic pain in the ass but, regardless
of my personal opinion of his other characteristics, I think he's an
honest bookseller.
fwd...@yahoo.com
> Oh geez, I guess everything we know is wrong. (Of course, the second
> line of the intro to the first edition of H&HI shows what's up with
> this...)
Tony
How about a description etc. of those changes?
ShanPirate
>"this copy contains the original 1934 text, but was printed circa
>1946".
>
>And I think your listing of the red Sampson and Low "Disappearing
>Floor" was deliberately misleading.
The Broken Locket listing described the book as a first edition, later printing
from the mid-forties. 1946 is the mid-forties. I did not claim the book to be a
true first printing/first edition. According to publishing industry standards
it is a first edition, later printing - which is how I described it.
The content of the book - the text - must be significantly revised to qualify
as a second edition, according to publishing industry standards, or it must be
stated in the book that it is a second edition due to a new format, new
material, etc. And that did not happen with that book until it was revised in
the sixties. You are trying to put Farah-type definitions onto the industry
standards. It's not the same. What the guides call a first edition does not
have the same meaning in the industry standards.
I have no intention of explaining to the average Joe how a handful of people
interpret the printing history of Nancy Drew. I don't belive they are right, so
why should I pass that info on to bidders. The info I do pass on, however, is
correct by industry standards far preceeding the guides.
The guides are speculative re-creations of the printing histories. We all know
they are not the correct version of what happened, only guesswork, and they are
constantly in a state of flux being changed when somebody gets a new idea of
what they think went on. This is information I should pass on to bidders?
There was nothing misleading about the Disappearing Floor description. It was
clearly stated to be a Sampson & Low book. The scan clearly showed that name on
the spine. The bidder who won it is collecting Sampson & Low books. And it is
'red' and very rare and not listed in the guides.
You are clearly sending a message that unless I describe the books according to
the listings of Starsky and Hutch, that it's wrong and I'm cheating. I
completely disagree. I think their listings are wrong, incorrrect, based on
ever-changing speculation, and that I'm doing the right thing to the bidders by
not passing it on to them.
MDB
ShanPirate
>red book that listed only five titles on the dj flap,
Conjuring up images? It IS a red book and DOES list only five Hardy Boys titles
on the front flap. That book was described exactly as it is. Everyone who bid
on it has already bought red Sampson & Lows from me and wanted another.
You obviously think Hardy and Drew collectors who bid on eBay are so stupid
that they need to be told endless speculative information to know what's being
offered them. My experience in selling is just the opposite. They want to know
exactly what it is, not what a few self-appointed gurus speculate it might be.
MDB
J. Michael Click
>
> The book was adequately described.
> I doubt that ANYONE was mislead by this auction.
So rare that you won't even find it listed in those speculative
self-published guides, this is one of several
'red' Hardys that most collectors don't even know about.
Oh for pete's sake.
I thought it was pretty questionable.
The book was poorly described.
Bob, I guess we have a difference of opinion. Imagine that.
JMichael
....... loving the new "Survivor"-type alliances forming in the NG
J. Michael Click
>
> Everyone who bid on it has already bought red Sampson & Lows
> from me and wanted another.
Oh, really? "littleread" (1), who's been an ebay member since
May 14, 2001, and has only won a figurine, but who bid twice on
your book, buys red Sampson & Lows from you quite often? I
believe you, Mikey.
> You obviously think Hardy and Drew collectors who bid on eBay
> are so stupid that they need to be told endless speculative
> information to know what's being offered them. My experience
> in selling is just the opposite. They want to know
> exactly what it is, not what a few self-appointed gurus
> speculate it might be.
Got ya. It's merely speculation that the Sampson & Low printings
are British. That's why you left out that tidbit when you were
describing "exactly what it is." And you were stating the
unvarnished, unadulterated truth when you claimed that your
"Disappearing Floor" is:
"So rare that you won't even find it listed in those
speculative self-published guides, this is one of several
'red' Hardys that most collectors don't even know about."
After all, everybody knows that the guides cover in detail those
British printings. How hypocritical of you, Mikey! You don't
want the use the guides as authoritative references, but you're
more than happy to try and cash in on what they DON'T (and aren't
meant) to cover. You're trying to have it both ways, which is
your business, but at least be up front about it.
And Mikey, if you're claiming that "most collectors don't even
know about them", then obviously YOU are the one who thinks that
Hardy and Drew collectors on eBay are stupid.
Best regards,
JMichael
J. Michael Click
Thank you for your response.
Your fuzzy, illogical, self-serving justifications supported my
original assertions about your listings beautifully.
JMichael
Bennie Nelson
"J. Michael Click" wrote:
> Bennie Nelson wrote:
> >
> > Answer: The thick red editions of the Hardy Boys were produced
> > in North America from 1927 until 1932. The first 11 volumes
> > were the only ones Grosset and Dunlap produced in that format.
> >
> > Red volumes were produced in the United Kingdom for a much
> > longer time period (I have no idea what the date range is).
> > However, these were not Grosset and Dunlap editions. The
> > Hardy Boys guides apparently do not include the U.K.
> > editions.
> >
> > Regards,
> > Bennie Nelson
>
> Yes, Bennie, I know that. Thank you. I was being sarcastic and
> flip. Mike (seriesbook) ALSO knows that information, but chose
> NOT to share it with his prospective bidders.
>
> No, instead of simply stating that he was offering a UK printing,
> he chose to be deliberating obtuse by conjuring up images of a
> red book that listed only five titles on the dj flap, taking a
> cheap shot at the Carpentieri/Heffelfinger guides along the way.
>
> You knew what he meant. I knew what he meant. But we're very
> knowledgable collectors. Do you think the less experienced people
> who read his listing totally understood? How honest and fair
> is that?
I knew you were being flippant about it. However, I decided
that a straight answer should be posted for the benefit of those
who read the posts in this newsgroup who wanted to know
the real answer.
It seems we're in agreement on that point.
Regards,
Bennie Nelson
Bennie Nelson
> "J. Michael Click" <jmc...@postoffice.swbell.net> wrote in message news:<3B1D9BA8...@postoffice.swbell.net>...
>
> > No, instead of simply stating that he was offering a UK printing,
> > he chose to be deliberating obtuse by conjuring up images of a
> > red book that listed only five titles on the dj flap, taking a
> > cheap shot at the Carpentieri/Heffelfinger guides along the way.
> >
> > You knew what he meant. I knew what he meant. But we're very
> > knowledgable collectors. Do you think the less experienced people
> > who read his listing totally understood? How honest and fair
> > is that?
>
> Oh for god's sake.
Really?
>
> I thought it was pretty funny.
I didn't. I thought it was rather caustic, actually.
>
> The book was adequately described.
I agree completely.
>
> I doubt that ANYONE was mislead by this auction.
> As I said before, Mike is a gigantic pain in the ass but, regardless
> of my personal opinion of his other characteristics, I think he's an
> honest bookseller.
I have found Mike to be quite honest.
Regards,
Bennie Nelson
SpindriftI
Mike, you don't seem to ever quote a specific source just those nebulous
"standards".
So I'm curious, where are these publishing industry standards published? Is
there a specific book that you use?
What is the governing body that determines the standards?
+======================================+
Visit Spindrift Island, an Official Rick Brant website at
http://members.aol.com/Spindrifti/
Where you can get the Rick Brant Guide and
join the Rick Brant Fan Club
+======================================+
ShanPirate
>"standards".
>
I have quoted a specific source and mentioned others. We all know by now your
amazing lack of reading comprehension skills.
It is quite apparent that you folk want the sources you create and confab about
to be the standards for series collecting. That is a noble pursuit but you'd
better develop some marketing skills and get your sources out there to the
majority of the market if you expect to be the standard. Until such sources are
used and believed in by the masses, already-in-use standards will prevail. eBay
is not the small market of a few hundred collectors via MASR and YBL that all
pretty muched confabulated that the guides were the story. You are talking
about hundreds and hundreds of dealers and collectors who don't know about the
guides and who are used to using other means that have been around for ages.
The guides don't have to be so expensive that most people (who are lucky enough
to hear about them) don't want to spend all that money. You can get very nice
perfect-bound books made for less than $5 a copy and sell them for double that
- ten bucks. Think how many more you'll sell! They don't have to be auctioned
starting with an $80 minimum bid. That only turns most people off.They resent
the whole thing. Why use a guide most people don't know how to get and can't
afford to buy to describe books to the masses?
For people who want their guides to be the standard, you all show an amazing
lack of understanding. For anything to become a standard it has to be out there
and everyone has to know about it and believe in it. You're like a bunch of
spoiled kids whining, "We want the guides we like to be the rule of thumb, but
we don't want to have to do all the work that's involved in getting there. We
want everyone to quote from our guides and believe they are the truth even if
they never heard of them and can't buy them."
I daresay you all have some work to do before your daydreams come true.
MDB
ShanPirate
You go, boy. Perfect way to describe the listings in the guides! As I said
before, the only piece of evidence in any of the guides from the publisher for
the actual printing of a 'printing' (only ONE example for hundreds and hundreds
of so-called 'printings') shows it was printed 5 years later than the guide
says it was. Not much to base a standard on!
MDB
J. Michael Click
> I knew you were being flippant about it. However, I decided
> that a straight answer should be posted for the benefit of those
> who read the posts in this newsgroup who wanted to know
> the real answer.
>
> It seems we're in agreement on that point.
>
> Regards,
> Bennie Nelson
It also seems, then, that we're in agreement about less
experienced collectors deserving some clarification about Mikey's
listing, doesn't it? After all, if EVERYONE knew what he and I
were talking about, you wouldn't feel the need to explain it.
Regards,
JMichael
ShanPirate
>experienced collectors deserving some clarification about Mikey's
>listing,
The last thing less experienced collectors need is clarification from a
speculative guide. They need facts, not opinions. You are hung up on the idea
that the guides hold the truth. They don't. They hold personal opinions.
I gave the bidders facts - red book, Sampson & Low, rare, not in speculative
guides, listing only 5 Hardys, etc. There's no reason for me to tell them it's
not one of the first 12 books that came out in red because it's stated that
it's #19. Bidders are not that stupid that I have to tell them book #19 is not
one of books #1 through #12.
Hmmmm...how would that sound? 'This is book #19 in the Hardy Boys series. Note
that #19 is not one of the first twelve books in the series (you stupid
bidders!)'
Or, 'This being book #19 in a red edition, it's definitely not a copy of books
#1 through #12 in a red edition.'
I usually do mention the UK thing but obviously forgot to in this particular
description. Need I also mention that I bought the books from someone in
Africa? They may have been made in England, but ended up in Nigeria. Is that a
necessary piece of info too? Exactly how much info do we need to make things
clear to the bidder? You think 1956B according to Fred and Ethel is clear to
most bidders? They don't know what the Helsinki it means.
MDB
James D. Keeline
>
> The content of the book - the text - must be significantly revised to qualify
> as a second edition, according to publishing industry standards, or it must be
> stated in the book that it is a second edition due to a new format, new
> material, etc. And that did not happen with that book until it was revised in
> the sixties. You are trying to put Farah-type definitions onto the industry
> standards. It's not the same. What the guides call a first edition does not
> have the same meaning in the industry standards.
If one could call it a "standard", the definition of a new edition
to which you refer is related to copyright law where they stipulate
that a certain percentage (10% I think) must be changed for it to
be eligible for a new copyright application for a new "edition."
However, I would point out that publishers are not as consistend as
this with respect to "edition" definitions. They may use "printing"
and "edition" almost interchangeably.
As most book collectors know, ISBNs (International Standard Book
Numbers) were established aroun 1967 and nearly all books have them
today. The number is broken into four parts, separated by hyphens
(ie 1-234-56789-0). In this example, the "1" identifies a language
group, the "234" identifies the publisher (these numbers are assigned
in the U.S. by Bowker/Reed Reference), the "456789" identifies the
book within that publisher (assigned by the publisher), and the "0"
is a checkshum where the other digits are added in a special way.
An ISBN is supposed to be unique and when a publisher runs out of
the book numbers, they request assignment for another publisher pre-
fix. Larger publishers have small publisher prefixes, giving them
a large number of book numbers. Small publishers (of which there
are many) have a small number of book numbers.
The point of all of this is that for modern books, it is quite common
for a hardcover to be issued with one ISBN, a digest-size paperback
with a second, and a rack-trim paperback with yet a third. A reprint
of the rack-trim paperback with a different cover illustration often
has even another ISBN. These varieties of formats, with different
ISBN numbers are one legitimate definition of an "edition". However,
the same publisher might use your definition of edition where only
a change in the content justifies a new "edition".
> I have no intention of explaining to the average Joe how a handful of people
> interpret the printing history of Nancy Drew. I don't belive they are right, so
> why should I pass that info on to bidders. The info I do pass on, however, is
> correct by industry standards far preceeding the guides.
My purpose of discussing this is to point out that there is NO INDUSTRY
STANDARD for making a single definition of an "edition". Your use of
this is a flimsy defense for your dislike of the fact that sometimes the
book you have to offer for sale isn't the earliest printing possible and
can't be sold as such. Just because you are disappointed in the book
you found doesn't justify your attempts to discredit the guides and those
who do the best they can to create them.
<From another post:>
ShanPirate wrote:
> You go, boy. Perfect way to describe the listings in the guides! As I said
> before, the only piece of evidence in any of the guides from the publisher for
> the actual printing of a 'printing' (only ONE example for hundreds and hundreds
> of so-called 'printings') shows it was printed 5 years later than the guide
> says it was. Not much to base a standard on!
<And returning to this post:>
> The guides are speculative re-creations of the printing histories. We all know
> they are not the correct version of what happened, only guesswork, and they are
> constantly in a state of flux being changed when somebody gets a new idea of
> what they think went on. This is information I should pass on to bidders?
I have rebutted this statement before. The printer (ie Kingsport Press)
might have one deifinition of a "printing" which does not necessarily
correspond with a "printing" in the eyes of the dust jacket printer.
There were several companies involved in the printing of these books as
demonstrated by the information in the Copyright cards for the Tom Swift
series (http://www.keeline.com/Strat/TSPrintings.html). There are often
different companies involved in typesetting, printing, and binding the
books. The printers of the dust jackets are not named in this informa-
tion.
The series book guides in question attempt to list all of the permuta-
tions and combinations of book advertisements and corresponding dust
jacket advertisements and book and DJ formats and attempt to place them
in a chronological sequence. In cases where detailed information is
supplied in a listing, a book and/or DJ with this information has been
seen. If the guides were "speculative", they would contain many listings
which were presumed to exist but had not been seen. At the mature stage
where most of these guides exist, few if any "placeholder" entries remain.
However, considering that these guides are compiled based on surviving
copies which are discovered by the compilers and contributors, these
books are necessarily incomplete and occasionally inaccurate. Neverthe-
less, they are valuable ways to describe the combination of ads and make
a good estimate of the vintage of the books. They should not be denigrated
in this manner and you should not further erode the good parts of your
reputation by keeping this going for weeks on end.
> There was nothing misleading about the Disappearing Floor description. It was
> clearly stated to be a Sampson & Low book. The scan clearly showed that name on
> the spine. The bidder who won it is collecting Sampson & Low books. And it is
> 'red' and very rare and not listed in the guides.
Yes, of course there was. You deliberately stated that this was "rare"
and that is wasn't in any of the "speculative guides." You know very
well that the guides don't even list non-U.S. editions so this statement
was designed to give a potential bidder a greater impression of the value
than is appropriate.
I dispute your use of the word "rare" which is usually defined in the book
trade as something for which fewer than a couple dozen copies survive any-
where. "Scarce" is the preferred term where the number of surviving or
available copies is smaller than the number of people who would like to
have a copy of the item. This latter case leads to a supply and demand
equation which can lead to elevated value.
> You are clearly sending a message that unless I describe the books according to
> the listings of Starsky and Hutch, that it's wrong and I'm cheating. I
> completely disagree. I think their listings are wrong, incorrrect, based on
> ever-changing speculation, and that I'm doing the right thing to the bidders by
> not passing it on to them.
You criticize the guide compilers for printing new editions with all of
the information which was not available a year or two or five years earlier?
You have a high standard of perfection which must be met before a guide can
be released, don't you.
Everyone agrees that the guides are too expensive. However, it isn't a
requirement that everyone who spends hundreds of hours collecting data
and putting it in a usable form simply give it away. I have spent many
hundreds, even thousands, of hours on my SERIES BOOK ENCYCLOPEDIA. If
it is published by a research- or library-oriented publisher like Green-
wood, McFarland, Gale, etc., the typical retail price will be approximately
$100 based on the number of pages, printing size etc. The publishers of
this type of book pay a 10% royalty based on the retail value. If 500
copies are sold (unlikely), the royalties total $5,000 -- hardly a living
wage compared to the huge amount of time spent to compile its 500 pages.
Does this mean that it won't be completed and published? No. Should
every researcher take a "vow of poverty" ? No.
What I think would be appropriate is if the guide publishers would take
a cue from the software industry and provied either updates for the
existing owners or at least discounts for current owners of the most
recent previous edition.
James
ShanPirate
> this is a flimsy defense for your dislike of the fact that sometimes
the
> book you have to offer for sale isn't the earliest printing possible
and
> can't be sold as such.
Here you go again with the crooked bookseller accusations. If the book I am
selling is not the earliest possible, it is listed as a 'later printing'. It is
all very clear except to those of you who want the guide definitions used.
No matter how fab you think the guides to be, it is not a requirement on eBay
or anywhere to quote from them, or to quote from them exclusively. You may
think they are the correct reference. I don't.
The cheap shots that I am a crooked bookseller because I won't quote according
to Fred and Ethel Mertz is typical of you and this group whose narrow-minded
view of things depends on how self-serving and aggrandizing it is to you.
Making the guides out to be the last word on the books makes you all experts
who have dug up special knowledge and puts you into an exclusive club of
scholarship researchers. Which is a lot of bunk. It is just one confabulated
take on something and it does not mean that the standards that have been used
before it came along are not correct, especially when those standards are still
used by the majority.
>you should not further erode the good parts of your
> reputation by keeping this going for weeks on end.
Why should I not respond to posts accusing me of being a disreputable seller
because I do not quote exclusively from your guides of choice? Also, I had no
idea there were any good parts left to my reputation. A certain few made sure
quite a while ago that it was completely shredded. And why? Because they did
not like my bookselling habits before eBay. Mainly, selling lots of
hard-to-find books for high prices.
It all boils down to jealousy because I have the books and you folks don't like
that. That's what it's always been. Well, I have enough to last another thirty
years or so. While most of you were still in your strollers, I was out there
hustling up collectible series books. And it's obvious that it turns you all as
red as the red Sampson Low Hardys.
<My purpose of discussing this is to point out that there is NO INDUSTRY
> STANDARD for making a single definition of an "edition".
If that were true, then how could you support the guides of your choice and
their single definition of First Edition? You want to use that meaning of First
Edition but the not the meaning of First Edition that the larger majority of
booksellers and buyers use?
MDB
James D. Keeline
>
> >Your use of
> > this is a flimsy defense for your dislike of the fact that sometimes
> the
> > book you have to offer for sale isn't the earliest printing possible
> and
> > can't be sold as such.
>
> Here you go again with the crooked bookseller accusations. If the book I am
> selling is not the earliest possible, it is listed as a 'later printing'. It is
> all very clear except to those of you who want the guide definitions used.
I am not accusing you of being crooked. However, I do think you
are straying into questionable territory when you make exaggerated
claims about a book. There remains a large segment of the book-
buying population, particularly on eBay, who do not recognize the
distinction between "first edition" and "first printing". The
sale in question which has "first edition, later printing" is ok.
I don't care if you use or don't use the guides. I think that
your comments about them which classify them as essentially worth-
less guesswork by a bunch of amateurs is off base and I contend
that they are valuable even if they are not the last word on every
printing as defined by the typesetter, printer, binder, dust jacket
printer, and publisher.
> No matter how fab you think the guides to be, it is not a requirement on eBay
> or anywhere to quote from them, or to quote from them exclusively. You may
> think they are the correct reference. I don't.
There is no requirement on eBay. However, if more people were
aware of the guides and had access to them, we'd see fewer 1950s
copies of 1930s titles offered as "rare first editions" and I
think this would benefit all except those trying to pull a fast
one.
> The cheap shots that I am a crooked bookseller because I won't quote according
> to Fred and Ethel Mertz is typical of you and this group whose narrow-minded
> view of things depends on how self-serving and aggrandizing it is to you.
> Making the guides out to be the last word on the books makes you all experts
> who have dug up special knowledge and puts you into an exclusive club of
> scholarship researchers. Which is a lot of bunk. It is just one confabulated
> take on something and it does not mean that the standards that have been used
> before it came along are not correct, especially when those standards are still
> used by the majority.
Since I do not create any of these guides, I have nothing to gain
and nothing to lose. I do recognize the work that goes into them
and find the theory and methodology behind them to be reasonable
and therefore they have my support.
> >you should not further erode the good parts of your
> > reputation by keeping this going for weeks on end.
>
> Why should I not respond to posts accusing me of being a disreputable seller
> because I do not quote exclusively from your guides of choice? Also, I had no
> idea there were any good parts left to my reputation. A certain few made sure
> quite a while ago that it was completely shredded. And why? Because they did
> not like my bookselling habits before eBay. Mainly, selling lots of
> hard-to-find books for high prices.
You may respond to whatever post you like. If you think something
needs corrected, go for it. The point is that there are people who
recognize that you do know a lot about the books. However, if you
go off on a tear after every perceived slight, you become remembered
more for these activities than as a resource of information. It's
your choice ultimately.
> It all boils down to jealousy because I have the books and you folks don't like
> that. That's what it's always been. Well, I have enough to last another thirty
> years or so. While most of you were still in your strollers, I was out there
> hustling up collectible series books. And it's obvious that it turns you all as
> red as the red Sampson Low Hardys.
Don't be silly. I don't watch your auctions, I don't even know your
eBay ID without going back to one of the links referred to in these
posts. I don't know what you have, what you sell, or what you have
sold; I don't care.
> <My purpose of discussing this is to point out that there is NO INDUSTRY
> > STANDARD for making a single definition of an "edition".
>
> If that were true, then how could you support the guides of your choice and
> their single definition of First Edition? You want to use that meaning of First
> Edition but the not the meaning of First Edition that the larger majority of
> booksellers and buyers use?
Perhaps you haven't looked at the guides carefully. On the ones I
have seen, a clear distinction is made between "edition" and "printing".
I support the definitions expressed in Carter's ABC FOR BOOK COLLECTORS
which is as close as there is to an "industry standard." The guides
are consistent with the first printing definition contained therein.
James
SpindriftI
>amazing lack of reading comprehension skills.
Comprehension has nothing to do with remembering the source(s) you cited. I
understood what you said, I just don't remember the exact details. Why can't
you simply state your sources?
You've made your point that people should be following the industry standards.
I thought you'd be more than willing to point people to a source of those
standards. I'm sorry if you feel helping others is too much effort on your
part.
J. Michael Click
>
> The last thing less experienced collectors need is clarification from a
> speculative guide. They need facts, not opinions. You are hung up on the idea
> that the guides hold the truth. They don't. They hold personal opinions.
Mike, you're making a giant leap of nonsense here. The Sampson
and Low books AREN'T IN any guide that I know of. Why, then,
would I be requesting clarification about your listing from a
guidebook?
YOU are the one -- in your listing -- who brought up guidebooks
in relationship to Sampson and Low books. You did so in an
attempt to define the perceived rarity of your book. In mentioning
the guides, you gave them a patina of authority because it suited
your purpose (to promote your auction) at the time.
Even YOU don't believe your statement that the guides only hold
"personal opinion". You and I and everyone else in the series
collecting world know that they hold neither iron-clad truth or
personal opinion, but something in between those two polarities
known as "research". What you and I and everyone else in the
series world disagree on is what percent of the research is
accurate.
> I usually do mention the UK thing but obviously forgot to in
> this particular description.
Thank you! So we're agreed: in this particular case, your
description was inadequate and could have contained more of the
facts you like to provide your bidders with.
Have a Nice Day,
JMichael
fwd...@yahoo.com
> Got ya. It's merely speculation that the Sampson & Low printings
> are British.
Nope, not specualtion. Sampson Low is a British corporation ergo their
books are British.
But this entire thread (and the releated one) are becoming as
ludicrous as Pres. Clinton's famous "what 'is' is" routine.
Guides ARE speculative.
Guides are handy and, as far as I can determine, well researched.
Mike's definition of a 1st edition IS entirely correct, at least
according to the standards promulagated by the now defunct AB
Bookman's Weekly.
Mike IS a pain in the ass.
Mike IS an honest bookseller.
Can we move on now and stop bashing each other?
Chelscolly
>It all boils down to jealousy because I have the books and you folks don't
>like that. That's what it's always been. Well, I have enough to last another
>thirty years or so. While most of you were still in your strollers, I was out
>there hustling up collectible series books. And it's obvious that it turns you
all as
> red as the red Sampson Low Hardys.
Mike you are losing this battle. Everyone is bringing up valid points and yet
you continue to lash out, defending your weak stance, by blaming everything on
jealousy. It's beginning to appear that if anyone is jealous, it's YOU, because
you are NOT amongst that elite group of Guide researchers and producers. Is
this what it all boils down to-- the fact that you didn't think of it first and
produce a Guide of your own?
If more sellers followed the Guides, not only would you not see dust jacketed
tweeds touted as First editions by ignorant sellers, but you wouldn't see
countless examples of worthless books selling for big bucks, purchased by new
unsavvy collectors! The Guides are a continual work in progress and I cannot
think of one single aid that was a greater help when I started collecting Nancy
Drew books. The Guides are not perfect and they are costly, but there is no
greater source of material for beginning and ongoing collectors!
BTW, even though I don't collect Hardy's, I thought your Sampson Low listing
was pushing the limits and probably was masterminded as an attempt to not only
confuse potential bidders, but also an attempt to draw a reaction from those
that know better!
Gayle
Bennie Nelson
Agreed. There is much about this hobby that is esoteric.
Regards,
Bennie Nelson
Bennie Nelson
There were two points in the ad for that auction that could
have been different and probably should have been.
1) You should have mentioned the fact that the Sampson and
Low edition was a U.K. edition.
You've made the point that educating the potential buyer
is a desirable goal. Identifying Sampson and Low as a
British publisher meets that criteria.
2) The antagonistic remark should not have been included
in the ad.
Airing your personal feelings about the guides in an ebay ad
is not in the interest of the buyer. There are other venues
that are far more appropriate for publishing your editorial
views.
Regards,
Bennie Nelson
--
Childrens series books for sale - http://members.visi.net/~blnelson/
Soxs14
>this what it all boils down to-- the fact that you didn't think of it first
>and
>produce a Guide of your ow
Even as an occasional lurker, I must say that I find this comment to be so lame
that "reaching for the stars is an understatement." I used to say things like
that when I was in the 1st or 2nd grade. Gayle, you need to do much better if
you want to play with the "big boys."
Joe.........laughing in Fremont
Chelscolly
>you want to play with the "big boys."
>
>Joe.........laughing in Fremont
Laugh all you want Joe, but there might be an element of truth. Why else go on
and on about Guides, using every lame attack in the book. Who are the "big
boys" Joe? If that isn't a pathethic/sexist remark, I don't know what is, but
coming from you, somehow I am not surprised!
Gayle
J. Michael Click
>
> Even as an occasional lurker, I must say that I find this comment to be so lame
> that "reaching for the stars is an understatement." I used to say things like
> that when I was in the 1st or 2nd grade.
Uh, Joe, did they not teach you reading comprehension skills in
the 1st or 2nd grade? Gayle didn't make a COMMENT in her post.
She posed a QUESTION in response to an accusation of jealousy
that Mikey made:
It's beginning to appear that if anyone is jealous, it's YOU,
because you are NOT amongst that elite group of Guide researchers
and producers. Is this what it all boils down to-- the fact that
you didn't think of it first and produce a Guide of your own?
That question is as sensible and valid as any other. As an
occasional lurker, you may not know that this diatribe on Mikey's
part has been going on for weeks, and that he has ignored every
request extended to explain what's specifically upset him.
So, ho-ho-boy, why are you REALLY attacking Gayle? Your response
to her post was disproportionately hostile, even from someone
subjected to rolling blackouts in Fremont.
Kindest regards,
JMichael
ShanPirate
>you are NOT amongst that elite group of Guide researchers and producers.
Yah right. Like I said before, I write fiction and know it. The guide authors
write fiction and pass it off as the truth.
>If more sellers followed the Guides
If the guides were affordable and better marketed, more people woul be aware of
them and buy them. You want more people to follow them? First those people have
to know about them. If you want these guides to be used widely and be regarded
as the standard for series books, get your group of 'elite' friends who make
the guides to get them out there. They could be formatted to trade paperback
size and printed by professional book making companies in beautiful volumes
similar to any books you'd see in Borders or B&N for as little as $3 each. They
don't don't have to be too expensive for most collectors. As long as they are
too expensive and too hard-to-get, they will not be widely used like you want
them to be. You're just not gonna get the result you want without first putting
out the effort.
>I thought your Sampson Low listing
>was pushing the limits and probably was masterminded as an attempt to not
>only
>confuse potential bidders, but also an attempt to draw a reaction from those
>that know better!
Potential bidders were not confused. The only ones it drew a reaction from were
those who scour the listings looking for something to react to.
MDB
ShanPirate
Some of the books say 'made and printed by Furnell & Sons Ltd., London' on the
copyright page, with Sampson Low on the title page.
ShanPirate
>part has been going on for weeks, and that he has ignored every
>request extended to explain what's specifically upset him.
I specifically made it very clear what upset me at the very beginning. One of
the guide authors sent me a nasty email because I did not use his listing
exclusively in my description of a book on eBay. I used both, his and 'industry
standards', and his gripe was that his was right and the other wrong.
It is not eBay policy that I have to use only that guide to quote from, or any
guide for that matter. The book in question could be a first edition or a
second printing depending on what definition you go by and that was all made
clear.
And, as you all well know, get me going and I won't stop. And why should I when
you all enjoy the controversy so much? Otherwise you wouldn't come here.
MDB
Soxs14
Gayle, thanks for the compliment.
Joe..................laughing harder in Fremont
Soxs14
>the 1st or 2nd grade? Gayle didn't make a COMMENT in her post.
>She posed a QUESTION
J Michael, thanks for the clarification. Now I know the difference between a
comment and a question. As a matter of fact, I promise not to use them
interchangeably even though a question is generally accepted as a interrogative
comment and a comment is sometimes accepted as a declaritive statement.
Perhaps you can go to the Cowtown Library and check it out.
Joe............laughing harder and making new friends
J. Michael Click
>
It's beginning to appear that if anyone is jealous, it's YOU, because
> you are NOT amongst that elite group of Guide researchers and producers. Is
> this what it all boils down to-- the fact that you didn't think of it first and
> produce a Guide of your own?
Gayle,
You helped me finally put my finger on something that's been
bothering me all throughout these debates about the validity
of the various guides.
(drum roll)
Mike deB has been a contributor of information to them !!!!!
Specifically the guide he refers to as "Farouk's" (in which
David Farah not only acknowledges Mike's contribution of info,
but thanks him for "Services rendered above and beyond the
call of Drewty!") ... and Clarke's Guide as well.
Isn't that a bizarre twist? Could it be that the tomes Mike
dismisses as speculation are in fact filled with some of HIS
OWN "speculation"? Irony of ironies! I'd ask for some sort
of explanation, but right now I'm laughing harder and louder
than soxs14 in Fremont ...
JMichael
...... a big fan of Theatre of the Absurd in Cowtown
J. Michael Click
>
> Perhaps you can go to the Cowtown Library and check it out.
Perhaps I can at that, my friend! :-)
So ... why are you REALLY attacking Gayle?
Warmest regards,
JMichael
SpindriftI
>of
>them and buy them.
>They could be formatted to trade paperback
>size and printed by professional book making companies in beautiful volumes
>similar to any books you'd see in Borders or B&N for as little as $3 each.
That's a crock. To get books printed at that price they'd have to print 10,000
copies. Do you seriously think that 10,000 guide books would sell?
If Farah's was trade paperback size, it'd be about 2000 pages.
Chelscolly
Irony of ironies! I'd ask for some sort
>of explanation, but right now I'm laughing harder and louder
>than soxs14 in Fremont ...
Even more ironic is the fact that Mike actually did some work on starting a
Guide for Dana's, Judy Bolton's and Trixie Belden's about 7 or 8 years ago for
Phantom Friend's. It was basically a one sheet page on each series and showed
all the different formats. I am not sure if it was published or not because I
don't subscribe. But it was circulated around.
Gayle.....mocking one of the big boys in Fremont and BTW, I don't even know
him!
fwd...@yahoo.com
> ...you are NOT amongst that elite group of Guide researchers and producers.
Elite group? Let's not go completely overboard with the hyberbole
here.
> If more sellers followed the Guides, not only would you not see dust jacketed
> tweeds touted as First editions by ignorant sellers, but you wouldn't see
> countless examples of worthless books selling for big bucks, purchased by new
> unsavvy collectors! The Guides are a continual work in progress and I cannot
> think of one single aid that was a greater help when I started collecting
> Nancy Drew books. The Guides are not perfect and they are costly, but there
> is no greater source of material for beginning and ongoing collectors!
Perhaps you haven't visited my Unofficial Hardy Boys Home Page or many
of the other pages and sites devoted to series books (like Jim Ogden's
or Lonni Nash's to mention only two). All of which, by the way, are
FREE and contain enormous amounts of information. If those "new
unsavvy" collectors made even the most minimal effort to educate
themselves, they wouldn't be taken by those "worthless" books.
fwd...@yahoo.com
> Soxs14 wrote:
> >
> > Perhaps you can go to the Cowtown Library and check it out.
>
>
> Perhaps I can at that, my friend! :-)
>
> So ... why are you REALLY attacking Gayle?
Presented for your consideration:
"Soxs14" is an AOL account.
Mikey is also an AOLer
"Soxs14" has never been heard of before this.
Mikey likes to adopt a new alias whenever the mood strikes him and
this is simple to do on AOL as they give you 5 (maybe more now)
different "screen names" you can use.
I'll leave you to draw (or Drew) your own conclusions as to the
identity of "Soxs14".
fwd...@yahoo.com
> >Sampson Low is a British corporation
>
> Some of the books say 'made and printed by Furnell & Sons Ltd., London' on the
> copyright page, with Sampson Low on the title page.
Which titles?
fwd...@yahoo.com
> Airing your personal feelings about the guides in an ebay ad
> is not in the interest of the buyer. There are other venues
> that are far more appropriate for publishing your editorial
> views.
Who put you in charge of defining the "more appropriate" venues?
Mikey is free to do as he pleases with his eBay auctions without you
and everyone else jumping all over him.
And tell us exactly how airing his personal feeling about the guides
was NOT in the best interest of the buyer? Go on, tell us! C'mon I
dare ya!
Doesn't anyone in this group have anything better to do than bash
Mikey day after day?
Soxs14
>him!
Gayle, do you need a rendition of Ralph Edward's "This Is Your Life?" If so, I
will unveil myself.
Joe...........wondering why some people want to be wannabe(s)
Sox14S
>will unveil myself.
I am ready to unveil myself to all you wannabe(s)
Joe...........grossing everyone out
Sox14S
>Mikey day after day?
you were a good teacher
Joe.........grossing everyone out
J. Michael Click
could someone else capitalize the first letter and use
Sox...@aol.com as a screen name?
JMichael
J. Michael Click
>
>
> Which titles?
My copy of "The Mystery of the Aztec Warrior" says Sampson Low,
London, on the title page.
The copyright page says: "British edition made and printed in
Great Britain by Purnell & Sons, Ltd., Paulton (SOM) and
London 1964"
The bottom of the copyright page notes: "This book may only be
exported for sale in the following territories by the appointed
sole agents: AUSTRALIA - Ponsford, Newman, and Benson, Ltd.
NEW ZEALAND - Whitcombe & Tombes, Ltd. AFRICA - Purnell & Sons
(S.A.) (Pty.) Ltd."
JMichael
The back panel of the blue-spined dustjacket says "Sampson Low,
Marston & Co. Ltd."
Frank Townsend
harassed him about an eBay listing. I thought he had explained that quite
clearly. Several hundred posts ago, I added that I had also been the
subject of some mild, but annoying pestering myself. Further, Gayle's
question did seem to contain some deliberate sting, warranted or not.
Frank
"J. Michael Click" <jmc...@postoffice.swbell.net> wrote in message
news:3B204640...@postoffice.swbell.net...
James D. Keeline
On most operating systems Ja...@keeline.com is equivalent
for email purposes to ja...@keeline.com or JA...@keeline.com.
However, in dealing with some AOL addresses for eBay auctions
recently, I found that the address in the reply-to field did
not work as expected. I had some people who were frustrated
that I hadn't replied when I actually did -- several times!
The difference turned out to be related to the upper vs lower
case user names. It is possible that AOL is trying out a
system which is case sensitive. It is also possible that I
tried to send mail on a day when the system was overloaded.
James
ShanPirate
Yes, and some stuff contributed is still left out because it does not 'fit in'
to the speculative scheme.
As I said before, I did use the guides when my sales were directed at the YBL
and MASR audience who were all mostly in agreement with the guide. That is no
longer the case on eBay because the audience is much wider and most of them
don't know about the guides, or care. I started using both definitions. But
certain people don't like that.
Tough balloons.
MDB
ShanPirate
>Guide for Dana's, Judy Bolton's and Trixie Belden's about 7 or 8 years ago
>for
>Phantom Friend's.
Right. And again, when dealing with people who were mostly aware and in
agreement with that info. Again, such is not the case now.
I also started A Guide to Judy Bolton Country but Melanoma took it away from me
because I had gotten lots of advertising from Potter County merchants, and most
of the ads mentioned hunting. The county is the hunting capital of the East.
She wanted me to edit all the ads and take out the hunting references because -
gosh - you can't support the killing of poor animals. I heard she once 'went
home' from a PF convention because the restaurant in the hotel had stuffed
animals on the wall. Anyway...another Italian ended up doing the book and, of
course, it has no ads and weighs 42 lbs. and most fans say they can't afford it
or can't find it.
MDB
ShanPirate
>10,000
>copies.
There is a Hardy Boys-type book currently being sold through ads in Yellowback
that cost about $3 each for a printing of a thousand. Very nice professionaly
produced book. Same company that will be doing Rick Raider and Julie Kane.
>
>If Farah's was trade paperback size, it'd be about 2000 pages.
>
Humbug. Farah's Guide IS trade-paperback size. (8.5 by 5.5) The info could be
made smaller so that the number of pages could be cut down and it could easily
be produced for $3 to $5 a copy for printings of 1,000 to 2,000. You don't need
the big comb, you don't need laminated covers. Or do the users comb their hair
with it and use it out in the rain?
Inexpensive Farouk and Soprano guides would sell like hotcakes if marketed to
more than just a handful of glaze-eyed zombies, and they'd then really have a
chance at becoming the standard. It's nice to be 'elite', as Gayle describes
it, but the elite are never the standard. You can't have both. If you want to
be the standard, you have to get the material to the majority and get them to
believe it.
MDB
fwd...@yahoo.com
> ...you are NOT amongst that elite group of Guide researchers and producers.
Perhaps "elite" is the problem.
Mike is absolutely correct when he states that most people who buy
Drew & Hardy books never heard of the guides for them.
I'm positive that more people have read my Hardy Boys page then have
ever even seen the Hardy guide.
If guides were more affordable and, in the case of the Drew guide,
didn't come out with a new edition every 15 minutes, more people would
use them.
If I were to promulgate a numbering code for the Hardy books and post
it on my web site, I have no doubt it would soon find it's way onto
eBay auctions.
Sox14S
>will unveil myself.
I am Joe the woman basher & I am here to unveil myself
Joe...........grossing everyone out even harder
Bennie Nelson
>
> Bennie Nelson <blne...@visi.net> wrote in message news:<3B1FE2A9...@visi.net>...
>
> > Airing your personal feelings about the guides in an ebay ad
> > is not in the interest of the buyer. There are other venues
> > that are far more appropriate for publishing your editorial
> > views.
>
> Who put you in charge of defining the "more appropriate" venues?
I believe it's called freedom of speech. It's in the Bill of Rights.
> Mikey is free to do as he pleases with his eBay auctions without you
> and everyone else jumping all over him.
I did not "jump all over him." If he 's free to gripe and moan,
then I am free to express my opinion. If it's inappropriate for
me to express my opinion in a public newsgroup set up for the
airing of opinions, then where is an appropriate venue?
> And tell us exactly how airing his personal feeling about the guides
> was NOT in the best interest of the buyer? Go on, tell us! C'mon I
> dare ya!
I'd much rather be entertained by your defense of including
such rantings in an ad description.
> Doesn't anyone in this group have anything better to do than bash
> Mikey day after day?
In case you haven't noticed, I have not said anything personal
about Mike except to defend his honesty. Otherwise, I have
restricted my remarks to discussing ideas he has put forth.
I have agreed with some of them and disagreed with some of
them. I have also disagreed with his use of an ebay ad to
bash his perceived antagonists.
You, however, have called him a pain in the a--. So, which of
us is bashing Mike?
Regards,
Bennie Nelson
J. Michael Click
>
> I am Joe the woman basher & I am here to unveil myself
Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz.
Let me count the number of people on the newsgroup who reply
to their own posts.
One.
Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz.
Oh, my, who could you be?
Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz.
ShanPirate
>> > is not in the interest of the buyer.
It most certainly is. It's time that bidders and non-bidders who continually
email saying "it's not a 'that' because Fred and Ethel say it isn't" are made
aware that these guides they are quoting are speculative in nature, are not
based on any records or evidence from the company, and are not the standard for
these books because they are not accurate and they are not even known to exist
by the majority of sellers and collectors.
It is indeed in everyone's interest for them to know the truth. When
brain-washed know-it-alls stop emailing me that I am wrong for NOT quoting from
the guides, I will stop telling them they are wrong for buying into them.
<If it's inappropriate for
>me to express my opinion in a public newsgroup set up for the
>airing of opinions, then where is an appropriate venue?
The mens' room in any publishing company headquarters. And save some urinal
cakes for Hoodee. He especially likes 'green' ones.
MDB
ShanPirate
>
>
>Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz.
>
Maybe you should say 'expose yourself'. You'll get a much livelier response.
Chelscolly
a 'that' because Fred and Ethel say it isn't" >are made aware that these guides
they are quoting are speculative in nature,
From Fred & Ethel's Speculative Guide:
http://cgi.ebay.com/aw-cgi/eBayISAPI.dll?MfcISAPICommand=ViewItem&item=143
6041883
Gayle
fwd...@yahoo.com
> I believe it's called freedom of speech. It's in the Bill of Rights.
It you who want to deny people freedom of speech by setting arbitrary
standards, Benny-boy.
> > And tell us exactly how airing his personal feeling about the guides
> > was NOT in the best interest of the buyer? Go on, tell us! C'mon I
> > dare ya!
>
> I'd much rather be entertained by your defense of including
> such rantings in an ad description.
Nice ploy Benny-boy, when you can't come up with an answer, change the
subject.
> You, however, have called him a pain in the ass. So, which of
> us is bashing Mike?
It's YOU Benny-boy.
Now go thump your bible somewhere else.
Bennie Nelson
>
> >> > Airing your personal feelings about the guides in an ebay ad
> >> > is not in the interest of the buyer.
>
> It most certainly is.
Nonsense, Mike. You're personal FEELINGS about the guides and
the guide's author's are at least as subjective as the guidebooks.
You object so strenuously to the guides on the basis that they
are mostly subjective, that the material is based on conjecture.
But those feelings you are expressing are subjective in nature,
by definition.
Thus, by your own admission, your own feelings on the subject
should not be given any weight when assessing the value of the
auction item.
And since they should not be given any weight by the buyer,
I maintain, quoting myself, "airing your personal feelings
about the guides in an ebay ad is not in the interest of
the buyer."
> It's time that bidders and non-bidders who continually
> email saying "it's not a 'that' because Fred and Ethel say it isn't" are made
> aware that these guides they are quoting are speculative in nature, are not
> based on any records or evidence from the company, and are not the standard for
> these books because they are not accurate and they are not even known to exist
> by the majority of sellers and collectors.
I have agreed with you about this, Mike. I still do. However, I
make a difference between the facts and your feelings about the
facts. The facts DO benefit the prospective buyer, including
the facts about the item and the facts about the guidebook.
But combining the facts with remarks bashing others because
of abuse you've received from guidebook users and/or authors
undermines your position.
>
> It is indeed in everyone's interest for them to know the truth. When
> brain-washed know-it-alls stop emailing me that I am wrong for NOT quoting from
> the guides, I will stop telling them they are wrong for buying into them.
Mike,
I have no problem with you making attempts to enlighten others
concerning the facts of series books. But hurling abusive
language back at others is not the way to win people to
your side.
I really hope you find a satisfactory means of concluding
your crusade.
Regards,
Bennie Nelson
Bennie Nelson
>
> Bennie Nelson <blne...@visi.net> wrote in message news:<3B22CE33...@visi.net>...
>
> > I believe it's called freedom of speech. It's in the Bill of Rights.
>
> It you who want to deny people freedom of speech by setting arbitrary
> standards, Benny-boy.
You're way off beam on this one. Keep firing away, though. The barn's around
here somewhere.
>
> > > And tell us exactly how airing his personal feeling about the guides
> > > was NOT in the best interest of the buyer? Go on, tell us! C'mon I
> > > dare ya!
> >
> > I'd much rather be entertained by your defense of including
> > such rantings in an ad description.
>
> Nice ploy Benny-boy, when you can't come up with an answer, change the
> subject.
I explained my position in a post directly to Mike. I notice
you've done nothing about explaining your position.
>
> > You, however, have called him a pain in the ass. So, which of
> > us is bashing Mike?
>
> It's YOU Benny-boy.
> Now go thump your bible somewhere else.
Are you trying to deny my freedom of speech by setting arbitrary
standards, Bob?
Regards,
Bennie Nelson
STEVESEG
particular, and that has nothing to do with which of the two major views
expressed is correct.
Mike has stuck by his guns from day one and some of those that think otherwise
just can't take that, so the attacks became personal (frustration I'm sure)
with others jumping in for no other reason than to join the bandwagon. Pretty
pathetic. I could disagree 100% with Mike's point of view concerning guides and
I'd still come away respecting him more for standing up for his point of view
and the calm way in which he has replied to the shrill cries of some of those
opposed.
Me? The only guides I have are the Rick Brant and Ken Holt. I utliize them for
reading enjoyment and knowledge. I don't use the facts within as criteria for
selling or buying. I do wish I had copies of Farah or any of those other oft
mentioned series guides. I just spend my money elsewhere for now, but if the
prices came down enough, sure, I'd snag 'em and read 'em. Use as a referance?
Maybe, but not a bible.
Steve Servello (back to the sidelines)
HooDeeDoo
>email saying "it's not a 'that' because Fred and Ethel say it isn't" are made
>aware that these guides they are quoting are speculative in nature
Now I'm really confused. Who are Fred and Ethel and what guide did they do?
Mark
.......stumped in Manhattan
J. Michael Click
>
> Mike has stuck by his guns from day one and some of those that think otherwise
> just can't take that, so the attacks became personal (frustration I'm sure)
> with others jumping in for no other reason than to join the bandwagon. Pretty
> pathetic. I could disagree 100% with Mike's point of view concerning guides and
> I'd still come away respecting him more for standing up for his point of view
> and the calm way in which he has replied to the shrill cries of some of those
> opposed.
So what's your reason for jumping in, Steve? An overwhelming
desire to call other contributors to the thread who have also
stuck to their guns but whose phrasing of their comments you
find objectionable or overly-aggressive, "pathetic" and "shrill"?
Just curious.
Best regards,
JMichael
STEVESEG
I have no beefs with any of the particulars involved, but did feel the original
reason for the thread was being corrupted. Plus, as an every day reader of this
newsgroup and having some knowledge of most everyone involved, I'm sure I am
qualified to offer an opinion, and one that was purely objective and supported
by the text of previous posts. What I posted was true in every aspect. How
others react to it, ah now there is the rub.
I was intrigued by the pros and cons of both sides of the "guide" thread at
first and found much to think on from the posting. It was pleasing to see the
newsgroup utilized in such a fashion.
But when it was realized that Mike could not be swayed to change his position,
the personal attacks started. I had hoped they would die down, and others
expressed a similar viewpoint. Sadly that did not happen and I felt compelled
to say so. For my sins...A weakness or character flaw I assume.
My intent was not to further upset anyone, but clearly I should have seen that
it might. So be it then. But can we move on? I think that really everything
worth saying has been said and all minds are made up, one way or the other
(more likely somewhere in between).
But damn, that was a great thread! I wonder what could rival it? Any
suggestions?
S.J.S.
HooDeeDoo
Let's not find out.
Mark
........shell-shocked in Manhattan
fwd...@yahoo.com
> "fwd...@yahoo.com" wrote:
> >
> > Bennie Nelson <blne...@visi.net> wrote in message news:<3B22CE33...@visi.net>...
> >
> > > I believe it's called freedom of speech. It's in the Bill of Rights.
> >
> > It you who want to deny people freedom of speech by setting arbitrary
> > standards, Benny-boy.
>
> You're way off beam on this one. Keep firing away, though. The barn's around here somewhere.
Sorry little Benny-boy - I was right on the mark but you're too stupid
to know it. It's just that that pea sized bible-addled brain of yours
can't react to anything that isn't "holy writ".
> I explained my position in a post directly to Mike. I notice
> you've done nothing about explaining your position.
You posted your other diatribes for all the world to see, why not post
your answer to this - simple - because you don't have one. And, BTW,
we aren't talking about me, so you get an "F" for trying to change the
subject and take the heat off you.>
> > > You, however, have called him a pain in the ass. So, which of
> > > us is bashing Mike?
> >
> > It's YOU Benny-boy.
> > Now go thump your bible somewhere else.
>
> Are you trying to deny my freedom of speech by setting arbitrary
> standards, Bob?
Nope, just trying to keep this group on-topic. You are, of course,
free to go ranting your silly superstitious ideas but you should do it
in the appropriate forum.
ShanPirate
>But damn, that was a great thread! I wonder what could rival it? Any
>suggestions?
>
Yes, this Manhattan 'cabal' that buys up red Hardys with bad checks, led by a
soap opera queen with connections to ...well, I'm not one known to mentions
names, am I?
What a clever set-up. But who's really behind it all, eh?
MDB
ShanPirate
>I have no problem with you making attempts to enlighten others
>concerning the facts of series books. But hurling abusive
>language back at others is not the way to win people to
>your side.
>
Whaddya talking about? I have hurled no abusive language in my book
descriptions nor expressed my 'feelings' about the guides, only referred to
them as 'speculative' and explained in one ad that they are not based on fact,
only conjecture.
My FEELINGS about the guides are that they are very nice and very handy but are
not an accurate recreation of the printing history of the books because it is
common knowledge (and mentioned in many reference materials) that G&D gives out
NO INFORMATION about the printing history of its series books. Thus, no one can
get the history - they have to speculate it.
>
>I really hope you find a satisfactory means of concluding
>your crusade.
>
My crusades are never ending. I will not be happy until the guides are no
longer sold and everyone who has one burns their copy. And send the ashes to
Fred and Ethel.
MDB
ShanPirate
>Now I'm really confused. Who are Fred and Ethel and what guide did they do?
>
Gosh, can it be that there really are people who don't know who Fred and Ethel
are?
RMJ
> Good question, why did I jump in?
Not a question I would bother answering Steve. You have as much right
as anyone to state your opinion, and I have never known you to do so
in any way other than as a gentleman.
Mark Johnson
fwd...@yahoo.com
> >
> >Now I'm really confused. Who are Fred and Ethel and what guide did they do?
> >
>
> Gosh, can it be that there really are people who don't know who Fred and Ethel
> are?
Other than the couple on I Love Lucy, I have no idea.