Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
are proofs/ARC's valuable these days?
29 views
Skip to first unread message
William December Starr
Jan 18, 2013, 1:51:20 PM1/18/13
to
At MITSFS[1], our traditional policy when we get a proof or Advance
Reding Copy of a book is to put it on Special Reserve, with is (duh)
a higher-order-of-restriction category of reserve.
*1: MIT Science Fiction Society, <http://www.mit.edu/~mitsfs/>.
The reasoning behind this -- again, tradition -- is that these
things are more rare and valuable, and therefore more theftworthy,
than regular copies of the same books.
This dates back to days when proof copies were just that: no-frills
(i.e., trade-paperback-like volumes with plain blank covers)
bindings of the beta-version of the book, sent to the author and
reviewers, and (ha ha) not meant to ever end up in circulation
anywhere.
Today, a lot of SF publishers send out (and sell?) tons of ARCs that
are functionally identical to the final book save for (1) being
labeled "Advanced Reading Copy" or suchlike on the cover and (2)
still being floppy, i.e., trade-paperback-like objects even where
the "real" book is going to be a hardcover. MITSFS gets a lot of
these.
Questions:
(1) Are old-style (no-frills, limited-distribution) proof/ARCs
really rare and valuable enough that we need to give them high
protection against theft. (And if no, was that _ever_ true, or have
we been basing our policy on urban legend for five decades?)
(2) What about modern all-but-identical-to-final-version ARCs?
-- wds
Reding Copy of a book is to put it on Special Reserve, with is (duh)
a higher-order-of-restriction category of reserve.
*1: MIT Science Fiction Society, <http://www.mit.edu/~mitsfs/>.
The reasoning behind this -- again, tradition -- is that these
things are more rare and valuable, and therefore more theftworthy,
than regular copies of the same books.
This dates back to days when proof copies were just that: no-frills
(i.e., trade-paperback-like volumes with plain blank covers)
bindings of the beta-version of the book, sent to the author and
reviewers, and (ha ha) not meant to ever end up in circulation
anywhere.
Today, a lot of SF publishers send out (and sell?) tons of ARCs that
are functionally identical to the final book save for (1) being
labeled "Advanced Reading Copy" or suchlike on the cover and (2)
still being floppy, i.e., trade-paperback-like objects even where
the "real" book is going to be a hardcover. MITSFS gets a lot of
these.
Questions:
(1) Are old-style (no-frills, limited-distribution) proof/ARCs
really rare and valuable enough that we need to give them high
protection against theft. (And if no, was that _ever_ true, or have
we been basing our policy on urban legend for five decades?)
(2) What about modern all-but-identical-to-final-version ARCs?
-- wds
Butch Malahide
Jan 18, 2013, 2:32:34 PM1/18/13
to
On Jan 18, 12:51 pm, wdst...@panix.com (William December Starr) wrote:
> At MITSFS[1], our traditional policy when we get a proof or Advance
> Reding Copy of a book is to put it on Special Reserve, with is (duh)
> a higher-order-of-restriction category of reserve.
>
> *1: MIT Science Fiction Society, <http://www.mit.edu/~mitsfs/>.
>
> The reasoning behind this -- again, tradition -- is that these
> things are more rare and valuable, and therefore more theftworthy,
> than regular copies of the same books.
> [. . .]
> At MITSFS[1], our traditional policy when we get a proof or Advance
> Reding Copy of a book is to put it on Special Reserve, with is (duh)
> a higher-order-of-restriction category of reserve.
>
> *1: MIT Science Fiction Society, <http://www.mit.edu/~mitsfs/>.
>
> The reasoning behind this -- again, tradition -- is that these
> things are more rare and valuable, and therefore more theftworthy,
> than regular copies of the same books.
> Questions:
>
> (1) Are old-style (no-frills, limited-distribution) proof/ARCs
> really rare and valuable enough that we need to give them high
> protection against theft. (And if no, was that _ever_ true, or have
> we been basing our policy on urban legend for five decades?)
>
> (2) What about modern all-but-identical-to-final-version ARCs?
I don't know, but it makes perfect sense to base your lending policy
>
> (1) Are old-style (no-frills, limited-distribution) proof/ARCs
> really rare and valuable enough that we need to give them high
> protection against theft. (And if no, was that _ever_ true, or have
> we been basing our policy on urban legend for five decades?)
>
> (2) What about modern all-but-identical-to-final-version ARCs?
on urban legend if some of your customers/thieves are believers. Those
are the people you should be asking, not the experts.
Robert Carnegie
Jan 18, 2013, 3:11:22 PM1/18/13
to
On Friday, 18 January 2013 18:51:20 UTC, William December Starr wrote:
> At MITSFS[1], our traditional policy when we get a proof or Advance
> Reding Copy of a book is to put it on Special Reserve, with is (duh)
> a higher-order-of-restriction category of reserve.
>
> *1: MIT Science Fiction Society, <http://www.mit.edu/~mitsfs/>.
>
> The reasoning behind this -- again, tradition -- is that these
> things are more rare and valuable, and therefore more theftworthy,
> than regular copies of the same books.
As in, this copy personally abused by, for example, James Nicoll?
> At MITSFS[1], our traditional policy when we get a proof or Advance
> Reding Copy of a book is to put it on Special Reserve, with is (duh)
> a higher-order-of-restriction category of reserve.
>
> *1: MIT Science Fiction Society, <http://www.mit.edu/~mitsfs/>.
>
> The reasoning behind this -- again, tradition -- is that these
> things are more rare and valuable, and therefore more theftworthy,
> than regular copies of the same books.
(And then peed on by his actual cat.)
Personalised begging and pleading by the author might also be included.
"Remember that time I stood bail for you in you-know-where. No one knows
that story, up to now." Well, that's more personalised threatening.
I would just guess that if a publisher is generating oldie-style ARCs,
they are as peculiarly interesting as they ever were. They're also
harder to replace, if you had it in mind to do that. Technically,
so are the just-like-a-real-book editions, except that you could just
stock the real book and have not much difference. But presumably
the ARC is still special in specific ARC ways, besides in the old days
being uglier than the finished product, and maybe with a different
conservation requirement.
And I guess the category henceforth may be divided between
print-on-demand copies, and e-books that you can't view after say
December 2012.
Joe Bernstein
Jan 18, 2013, 8:53:09 PM1/18/13
to
On Friday, January 18, 2013 10:51:20 AM UTC-8, William December Starr wrote:
> Questions: (1) Are old-style (no-frills, limited-distribution) proof/
> ARCs really rare and valuable enough that we need to give them high
> protection against theft. (And if no, was that _ever_ true, or have we
> been basing our policy on urban legend for five decades?) (2) What
> about modern all-but-identical-to-final-version ARCs?
I don't know enough about the high-end used books market to say as
> Questions: (1) Are old-style (no-frills, limited-distribution) proof/
> ARCs really rare and valuable enough that we need to give them high
> protection against theft. (And if no, was that _ever_ true, or have we
> been basing our policy on urban legend for five decades?) (2) What
> about modern all-but-identical-to-final-version ARCs?
regards that, but do know that ARCs of either kind don't carry much
weight in the low-end market these days.
Oh, except. I remember vividly the one time I've *seen* an ARC of
<Little, Big>, and was outbid by my boss at the bookstore.
So I strongly suspect it depends on the book. MITSFS should probably
be careful about weeding all those past ARCs that have been sitting
on the restricted shelves all this time. As for new ones? It's
probably a crapshoot.
NB this is all ARCs. Genuine proofs, which are the things sent to
authors to mark up before the full printing, are a whole different
matter. If you get any of those, at least post-author-marking (they
do more copies than the one that goes to the author, hence the
confusion between ARCs and proofs), protect 'em well, unless maybe
they happen to be for <The Eye of Argon>.
Joe Bernstein
--
Joe Bernstein, writer j...@sfbooks.com
Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)
Jan 18, 2013, 9:21:12 PM1/18/13
to
still done from the galleys, so not proofed. I think that was the case
for most if not all ARCs earlier, too -- they certainly weren't doing
them before all the expected major editing.
--
Sea Wasp
/^\
;;;
Website: http://www.grandcentralarena.com Blog:
http://seawasp.livejournal.com
Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)
Jan 18, 2013, 9:45:03 PM1/18/13
to
On 1/18/13 8:53 PM, Joe Bernstein wrote:
> On Friday, January 18, 2013 10:51:20 AM UTC-8, William December Starr wrote:
>
>> Questions: (1) Are old-style (no-frills, limited-distribution) proof/
>> ARCs really rare and valuable enough that we need to give them high
>> protection against theft. (And if no, was that _ever_ true, or have we
>> been basing our policy on urban legend for five decades?) (2) What
>> about modern all-but-identical-to-final-version ARCs?
>
> I don't know enough about the high-end used books market to say as
> regards that, but do know that ARCs of either kind don't carry much
> weight in the low-end market these days.
>
> Oh, except. I remember vividly the one time I've *seen* an ARC of
> <Little, Big>, and was outbid by my boss at the bookstore.
>
> So I strongly suspect it depends on the book. MITSFS should probably
> be careful about weeding all those past ARCs that have been sitting
> on the restricted shelves all this time. As for new ones? It's
> probably a crapshoot.
>
An ARC of the original Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone would
> On Friday, January 18, 2013 10:51:20 AM UTC-8, William December Starr wrote:
>
>> Questions: (1) Are old-style (no-frills, limited-distribution) proof/
>> ARCs really rare and valuable enough that we need to give them high
>> protection against theft. (And if no, was that _ever_ true, or have we
>> been basing our policy on urban legend for five decades?) (2) What
>> about modern all-but-identical-to-final-version ARCs?
>
> I don't know enough about the high-end used books market to say as
> regards that, but do know that ARCs of either kind don't carry much
> weight in the low-end market these days.
>
> Oh, except. I remember vividly the one time I've *seen* an ARC of
> <Little, Big>, and was outbid by my boss at the bookstore.
>
> So I strongly suspect it depends on the book. MITSFS should probably
> be careful about weeding all those past ARCs that have been sitting
> on the restricted shelves all this time. As for new ones? It's
> probably a crapshoot.
>
probably be worth money. I have one of the third book (Prisoner of
Azkaban) but by that point the fact she was a juggernaut of publishing
was already known so I suspect it's not worth much.
danny burstein
Jan 19, 2013, 12:59:18 AM1/19/13
to
[snip]
Just as a point of info I was recently sent a "proof" copy
of a soon-to-be printed book using "createspace". (I was
one of th proofreaders).
The book was almost identical to the final version (modulo the corrections
we'd be making) with the same type of paper, cover, etc.
Note that creatspace (a division of Amazon) is a "print on demand"
publisher.
The only noticable difference between my copy and the public
ones a couple o fweeks later was that mine had "this is a proof
edition" plastered on the inside cover pages.
--
_____________________________________________________
Knowledge may be power, but communications is the key
dan...@panix.com
[to foil spammers, my address has been double rot-13 encoded]
Just as a point of info I was recently sent a "proof" copy
of a soon-to-be printed book using "createspace". (I was
one of th proofreaders).
The book was almost identical to the final version (modulo the corrections
we'd be making) with the same type of paper, cover, etc.
Note that creatspace (a division of Amazon) is a "print on demand"
publisher.
The only noticable difference between my copy and the public
ones a couple o fweeks later was that mine had "this is a proof
edition" plastered on the inside cover pages.
--
_____________________________________________________
Knowledge may be power, but communications is the key
dan...@panix.com
[to foil spammers, my address has been double rot-13 encoded]
Bill Gill
Jan 19, 2013, 9:19:37 AM1/19/13
to
Uncorrected Proof" of a mystery at a used book store. It was
a trade paperback that appears to be identical to the final
version. I haven't gotten a copy of the final release version
to check if there are any differences.
Bill
James Nicoll
Jan 20, 2013, 10:40:21 PM1/20/13
to
In article <kdc5j8$agt$1...@panix2.panix.com>,
opposite of valuable because one cannot legally sell them.
I give the one I know I will not reread away.
--
http://www.livejournal.com/users/james_nicoll
http://www.cafepress.com/jdnicoll (For all your "The problem with
defending the English language [...]" T-shirt, cup and tote-bag needs)
William December Starr <wds...@panix.com> wrote:
>At MITSFS[1], our traditional policy when we get a proof or Advance
>Reding Copy of a book is to put it on Special Reserve, with is (duh)
>a higher-order-of-restriction category of reserve.
>
> *1: MIT Science Fiction Society, <http://www.mit.edu/~mitsfs/>.
>
>The reasoning behind this -- again, tradition -- is that these
>things are more rare and valuable, and therefore more theftworthy,
>than regular copies of the same books.
>
In my experience ARCs are (with a very few exceptions) the exact
>At MITSFS[1], our traditional policy when we get a proof or Advance
>Reding Copy of a book is to put it on Special Reserve, with is (duh)
>a higher-order-of-restriction category of reserve.
>
> *1: MIT Science Fiction Society, <http://www.mit.edu/~mitsfs/>.
>
>The reasoning behind this -- again, tradition -- is that these
>things are more rare and valuable, and therefore more theftworthy,
>than regular copies of the same books.
>
opposite of valuable because one cannot legally sell them.
I give the one I know I will not reread away.
--
http://www.livejournal.com/users/james_nicoll
http://www.cafepress.com/jdnicoll (For all your "The problem with
defending the English language [...]" T-shirt, cup and tote-bag needs)
JRStern
Jan 21, 2013, 3:54:46 PM1/21/13
to
On Fri, 18 Jan 2013 17:53:09 -0800 (PST), Joe Bernstein
<j...@sfbooks.com> wrote:
>So I strongly suspect it depends on the book. MITSFS should probably
>be careful about weeding all those past ARCs that have been sitting
>on the restricted shelves all this time. As for new ones? It's
>probably a crapshoot.
In terms of turning them into cash, I would guess you're right.
<j...@sfbooks.com> wrote:
>So I strongly suspect it depends on the book. MITSFS should probably
>be careful about weeding all those past ARCs that have been sitting
>on the restricted shelves all this time. As for new ones? It's
>probably a crapshoot.
The low-end market for books of any kind is so weak these days, it's a
buyer's market.
OTOH, anything unique and irreplaceable is candidate to garner serious
nostalgic value, if you hold it long enough, especially if the book
ever becomes popular or noteworthy.
So, keep lending them out and the one that disappears is the one that
would have become valuable. Such is life. If you really cared about
future value you'd seal them unread in a helium vault on day zero
anyway.
J.
Derek Lyons
Jan 24, 2013, 10:59:51 AM1/24/13
to
jdni...@panix.com (James Nicoll) wrote:
>In my experience ARCs are (with a very few exceptions) the exact
>opposite of valuable because one cannot legally sell them.
Yet, book collectors lust after them, and booksellers happily indulge
>In my experience ARCs are (with a very few exceptions) the exact
>opposite of valuable because one cannot legally sell them.
them (to their profit) when the oppurtunity arises. (Or at least they
did before I left the game in 2002.)
D.
--
Touch-twice life. Eat. Drink. Laugh.
http://derekl1963.livejournal.com/
-Resolved: To be more temperate in my postings.
Oct 5th, 2004 JDL
0 new messages