Interesting how book prices fluctuate
Telicalbook
instance, one out-of-print book may fetch between
$50 and $100, and then all of a sudden, it's back in print, and the value goes
down to $10. Similarly, an out-of-print book can be
$10 one month, and $50 a year later. A bit like stocks.
--
Robert Pearson
http://www.rspearson.com/
ParaMind Brainstorming Software http://www.paramind.net
Francis A. Miniter
As to your first example, that may be another example of the old adage
that "Bad money drives out good." When there is a dwindling supply of
something, anyone who wants to possess it has to compete with others for
it. In the case of books, just to read it may require this
competition. But if the book is reprinted, then those who simply want
to read the book - as opposed to those who want to collect a valuable
copy - are removed from the competition for the original printing. So
prices drop.
In the second instance, it is much harder to say. One possibility is
that with some scarce books the addition of only a small number of
competitors is sufficient, given the supply, to send up prices. Another
is Hollywood. For instance, take "The Club Dumas" by Arturo
Perez-Reverte was probably not worth a lot until "The Ninth Gate" came
out. Now prices are through the roof. Of course, the first printing
was probably not that large as well. In the same category is "The
Princess Bride", a bust for the first edition. But the movie made it a
highly sought after commodity.
Francis A. Miniter
John Townsend
>As to your first example, that may be another example of the old adage
>that "Bad money drives out good." When there is a dwindling supply of
>something, anyone who wants to possess it has to compete with others for
>it. In the case of books, just to read it may require this
>competition. But if the book is reprinted, then those who simply want
>to read the book - as opposed to those who want to collect a valuable
>copy - are removed from the competition for the original printing. So
>prices drop.
There is another argument which says that reprinting a scarce book causes
people's attention to be drawn to the title, causing more interest in
collecting the original.
Best wishes,
John Townsend
Old Books on Genealogy and British Local History,
Always a good selection on my web site:
http://www.johntownsend.demon.co.uk
paghat
<jo...@johntownsend.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> Francis A. Miniter wrote in message <41543...@news3.prserv.net>...
> >As to your first example, that may be another example of the old adage
> >that "Bad money drives out good." When there is a dwindling supply of
> >something, anyone who wants to possess it has to compete with others for
> >it. In the case of books, just to read it may require this
> >competition. But if the book is reprinted, then those who simply want
> >to read the book - as opposed to those who want to collect a valuable
> >copy - are removed from the competition for the original printing. So
> >prices drop.
>
>
> There is another argument which says that reprinting a scarce book causes
> people's attention to be drawn to the title, causing more interest in
> collecting the original.
>
> Best wishes,
>
> John Townsend
What I've seen reliably happen with rare Victorian ghost story
collections, when a new definitive or expanded edition is issued by one of
the specialty presses or a university press, one to three copies of the
rare first edition suddenly come on the market all together, since some
people do prefer definitive editions to first editions. This teency weency
"glut" of a book, which may not have been on the market for many years,
will momentarily appear easily available; but this doesn't last a
fortnight. Unless the given title was never actually all that rare in the
first place, the first editions double or quadruple in value, &
come-latelies will pay anything to wrest a copy away from whoever bought
the last one on the market, as collectors enamored of first editions will
never be satisfied with a scholarly reprints or specialty press editions
no matter how much new material, notes, & prefacing matter are added to
what remains even so a reprint.
-paghat the ratgirl
--
"Of what are you afraid, my child?" inquired the kindly teacher.
"Oh, sir! The flowers, they are wild," replied the timid creature.
-from Peter Newell's "Wild Flowers"
Visit the Garden of Paghat the Ratgirl: http://www.paghat.com
Bill Palmer
> In article <cj1tle$874$1$8300...@news.demon.co.uk>, "John Townsend"
> <jo...@johntownsend.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
> > Francis A. Miniter wrote in message <41543...@news3.prserv.net>...
> > >As to your first example, that may be another example of the old adage
> > >that "Bad money drives out good." When there is a dwindling supply of
> > >something, anyone who wants to possess it has to compete with others for
> > >it. In the case of books, just to read it may require this
> > >competition. But if the book is reprinted, then those who simply want
> > >to read the book - as opposed to those who want to collect a valuable
> > >copy - are removed from the competition for the original printing. So
> > >prices drop.
> >
> >
> > There is another argument which says that reprinting a scarce book causes
> > people's attention to be drawn to the title, causing more interest in
> > collecting the original.
This is interesting. One very well known example
of a book for which there is a large demand, but
which for reasons unknown has never been reprinted,
is found in Dr. Fred Wertham's anti-comic screed
SEDUCTION OF THE INNOCENT. At the recent Comicon
in San Diego, several copies were to be found,
priced at a few hundred dollars each.
For anyone who may not be aware of the controversial
background of this book, it should be added that
Dr. Wertham was a respected psychiatrist who, in the
late 1940's, became obsessed with the notion that comic
books were causing delinquincy. SOTI, his bestselling
screed, frets over Superman's "fascism," Batman and
Robin's "homosexual relationship" and the notion that
Al Capp's "schmoo" (from Li'l Abner) was contributing
to what Wertham called "the injury to the eye motif"
(because Capp, in his hugely popular newspaper comic,
stated that the schmoo's eyes could be used for buttons!).
Though SOTI is riddled with logical fallacies, it
was taken seriously by many people in the early 1950's
and was, along with Wertham's crusade in general,
a key factor in the creation of the censorial Comic
Code Authority, a distributors' group that ran a
number of comic companies, such as the legendary EC
Comics, out of business.
One of the ironies of Wertham's book is that his
pictorial "rogues' gallery" of comic book images
chiefly contains work by illustrators
now considered to be the best comic book artists
working at the time. One of them was Jack Davis,
who went on to do a large number of TIME MAGAZINE
covers (and that wonderful little book about
American indians I found at the thrift store).
So why has not SOTI been reprinted, since its fame
would almost guarantee a great many sales?
Here are some of the theories I have heard about
that, though I am not suggesting any of them are
true:
--Wertham eventually came to realize that his book
was so screwy that his will stipulated it never
be reprinted.
--The publisher fears that one or more of the comic
illustrators whose work is featured in the pictorial
section will sue for having their work distorted
out of context. One example is the panel about
the ice pick falling toward Mary Kennedy's eye:
in reality, that was nightmare Mary Kennedy had,
and the story, "Murder, Morphine, and Me," contains
a powerful anti-drug story of the late 1940's,
which should have been distributed to every
school. Yet, Dr. Wertham presented it as a
bad example, and in effect villified the artist,
the great Jack Cole, who later took his own life.
--Wertham's theories are so thoroughly discredited
that the publisher does not want to be associated
with reprinting SOTI.
Anyway, if the book were reprinted, would those high
prices drop? My guess is they would not, because the
original is still the original. In fact, if the
book is reprinted, I would not be surprised to find
that the publisher paid a well-known comic expert/
writer such as Art Spiegelman to write an introduction
putting SOTI in "historical perspective" and thereby
allowing the publisher to distance itself from Nut Doctor
Wertham's nuttier assertions.
Mr. Palmer
Book Room 314
michael adams
"Bill Palmer" <palmer....@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:13ea6e3a.04092...@posting.google.com...
< selective snippage throughout >
>
> This is interesting. One very well known example
> of a book for which there is a large demand, but
> which for reasons unknown has never been reprinted,
> is found in Dr. Fred Wertham's anti-comic screed
> SEDUCTION OF THE INNOCENT. At the recent Comicon
> in San Diego, several copies were to be found,
> priced at a few hundred dollars each.
> SOTI, his bestselling screed, frets over Superman's
> "fascism," Batman and Robin's "homosexual relationship"
> Here are some of the theories I have heard about
> that, though I am not suggesting any of them are
> true:
>
> --Wertham eventually came to realize that his book
> was so screwy that his will stipulated it never
> be reprinted.
>
> --The publisher fears that one or more of the comic
> illustrators whose work is featured in the pictorial
> section will sue
> --Wertham's theories are so thoroughly discredited
> that the publisher does not want to be associated
> with reprinting SOTI.
or probably more likely -
The present day owners of the "Superman", "Batman" and any other
extant franchises\trademarks will sue.
I don't know the exact law, but I presume that these things,
once established as being owned by someone, remain in existence
in perpetuity. Unlike say copyright. Providing the right steps are taken
anyway. The key concept here presumably is ownership by a corporation,
an individual, whoever - these things are commodities which are bought
and sold - rather than rights based on authorship by a mortal individual
All mud sticks. And so it's unlikely that customers for the Superman or
Batman franchises will necessarily want to draw fine distinctions about
whether Wertham's theories have been discredited or not. Not if
the likes of "The National Enquirer" get in on the act as well. The
point being that the likes of the "Enquirer" can use the re-publication
as a pretext for yet again dragging-up scurrilous "fair comment" and
speculation about the true nature of Batman and Robin's relationship for
one. Exactly how old is Robin supposed to be, for instance ?
Basically there could possibly be a bad smell. And if there's any
falling-off in sales to an ever-fickle public, attempts will be made to
get someone to pay. And they probably won't have been able to negotiate
indemnity insurance at a realistic premium beforehand either.
However if in the interests of Free-Speech and the furtherance of
Scholarship someone such as yourself is determined to publish,
presumably thoroughly discredited nonsense, about well-loved
Comic Book Heroes of the past, in order to prove a point, then
go ahead!
michael adams
...
Stephen Longshore
Hello,
I saw your reply (I think it was you) to my questions about blank
portions of British dust jackets, for which I thank you. (My
computer/browser failed to save it so I can't reply by copying it back
to rcb). I guess the issue remains unresolved. I know the man who
is/was preparing a James Hilton bibliography but he did not reply to my
last letter so he may be ill, or worse. I think he is/was old. I'll
try him anyway. Thinking along . . . . . you can't compare a unicum.
Best wishes.
Stephen Longshore
Woodstock, Ontario
michael adams
"Stephen Longshore" <adj...@execulink.com> wrote in message
news:lOCdnQMrlP7...@golden.net...
> michael adams
>
> Hello,
>
> I saw your reply (I think it was you) to my questions about blank
> portions of British dust jackets, for which I thank you. (My
> computer/browser failed to save it so I can't reply by copying it back
> to rcb).
...
Hi Stephen,
As this may be of use to you in other contexts, you may like to know
that you can participate in almost all NewsGroups through Google Groups.
This is the URL for the Google Groups page for rec.collecting.books
full address -
http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&lr=lang_en&ie=UTF-8&safe=
off&group=rec.collecting.books
shortened using tinyurl.com to
As you can see your original thread "British Practice" is about
no 10 on the list. If you select this or any other thread,
this will bring up a list of all the messages in that thread.
Clicking on a message, will display it in the right hand panel.
To reply simply click on -
"Post a Follow up to this message" at the bottom of the message.
To post through Google Groups, you first need to register, simply
by sending them a valid email address, which they'll reply
to fairly shortly. IIRR you'll then need to contact them again
and repeat a code word in their message so as to confirm your
address is correct, and then away you go. Just enter your email
address and your password, and you're free to post.
Messages posted through Google Groups won't show up in Google
Groups itself, for between 4-6 hours, but they should show up
on your conventional NewsServer within seconds as normal.
This is the Google.Groups main page from which you can choose any
NewsGroup you wish.
Google Groups can often come in handy if there are problems
with people's regular NewsServers. As there sometimes are.
...
I guess the issue remains unresolved. I know the man who
> is/was preparing a James Hilton bibliography but he did not reply to my
> last letter so he may be ill, or worse. I think he is/was old. I'll
> try him anyway. Thinking along . . . . . you can't compare a unicum.
>
> Best wishes.
>
> Stephen Longshore
> Woodstock, Ontario
>
>
...
You haven't mentioned whether or not the "questionable" jackets were
totally blank on the flaps. Or whether they at least had a price printed
on them. As if they also lacked the price, then this would normally
suggest that the accompanying book was a book club edition.
The assumption being, that because in most cases book club editions
are generally much less sought after, i.e valuable, nobody would
knowingly marry a Book Club Jacket with a pukka trade first edition.
There's more information on book club editions on the NewsGroup FAQ
atb
michael adams
...
Bill Palmer
Well, the entire situation is quite interesting.
Usually, when it is clear there is considerable
interest in a book, someone republishes it. When
they don't there is usually a strong reason why.
For instance, I haven't heard anything about
Doubleday republishing Thomas Dixon's THE CLANSMAN
lately. Some readers might be surprised to learn
that the inspiration for "Birth of a Nation" was
actually a Doubleday bestseller early in the
20th century. (If you had the notion that novel
emanated from some back alley in Birmingham, Ala.
you were wrong.)
Anyway, I doubt that the trademark holders of
Superman and Batman could sue if Wertham's book
is republished. After all, those creations are
now so much a part of our culture that they
might be considered something like public
figures. Further, in those cases we are
talking about Wertham's opinion, protected
free speech. If someone reads the comic
and concludes that Batman and Robin are having
a homosexual relationship, and they state that
as opinion, it would be next to impossible to sue
them.
It seems to me that the possible victims of
defamation by Wertham were the comic book artists
that he included in his pictorial section. In
a number of cases, the work of the artists was
quite viciously distorted out of context. That
is, when you take one panel from a comic book
story, and exhibit that panel with commentary
meant to drastically mislead readers about the
story's intention, that is defamation.
I suggested earlier that I feel the late, great
Jack Cole (of Plastic Man fame) was unfairly
maligned by Wertham's misuse of one panel from
"Murder, Morphine, and Me."
[By the way, some of you might enjoy reading my
stand alone piece, "Yes, MARY KENNEDY, you try to
square things with the BIG boss!" in Google. Just
make sure you read the stand-alone, not other
things posted under that subject line. What I
did as a literary experiment involved taking the
same panel which Wertham distorted, and writing
my own original story based on that panel. I
did not re-write the Cole story, but I wrote
something completely new based on the panel.
The amazing thing is, after I wrote that
story, I was actually contacted by Mary Kennedy.
who now lives in Boston. She wanted me to
assure everyone that after the terrible time of
her life which Cole wrote about, she cleaned up
her act, married a wonderful husband, had children
and finally lived down the shame of those years.)
Anyway, if anyone did sue over the republished
SOTI, I suspect it might some of the surviving
comic artists. I think they could make a far
better case than the superhero trademark holders.
As for Jack Cole, it is too late. He took his
own life, though "Murder, Morphine, and Me," has
gone on to become what is arguably the most famous
crime comic story ever written (that is, when
we don't count "detective hero" stories like
Dick Tracy and superhero stories). "Murder,
Morphine, and Me" is grittily realistic and--
way back in the late 1940s!--carried a very
strong anti-drug message. Perhaps if that
story would have been required reading in the
schools, fewer lives would have been ruined
by drugs...
Mr. Palmer
Book Room 314
>
>
>
> michael adams
>
> ...
michael adams
"Bill Palmer" <palmer....@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:13ea6e3a.04092...@posting.google.com...
<snip>
>
> Anyway, I doubt that the trademark holders of
> Superman and Batman could sue if Wertham's book
> is republished. After all, those creations are
> now so much a part of our culture that they
> might be considered something like public
> figures. Further, in those cases we are
> talking about Wertham's opinion, protected
> free speech. If someone reads the comic
> and concludes that Batman and Robin are having
> a homosexual relationship, and they state that
> as opinion, it would be next to impossible to sue
> them.
...
Its not the homosexuality that's the issue but
Robins's age. Basically, if this stuff is reprinted
the holders of the Batman franchise could be seen as
promoting characters engaging in illegal underage sex.
Basically the franchise holders could be seen to
be acting as Pimps. The same with Superman. There are all
sorts of Nazi associations which could be used against
Superman - which aren't fit subjects even for irony.
These slurs don't simply affect Batman and Superman
themselves. They also reflect on the character of the
people who actively promote the Batman and Superman
franchise.
...
>
> It seems to me that the possible victims of
> defamation by Wertham were the comic book artists
> that he included in his pictorial section. In
> a number of cases, the work of the artists was
> quite viciously distorted out of context. That
> is, when you take one panel from a comic book
> story, and exhibit that panel with commentary
> meant to drastically mislead readers about the
> story's intention, that is defamation.
...
Well yes and no. That presumably, would be seen as
wilful misrepresentation.
Fictional characters can't be defamed. But the artists
and the subsequent promoters of the material can be, by
implication. But presumably only if the misrepresented
material could be interpreted in such as way as to suggest
they were wilfully promoting gross illegality or immorality.
...
<snip>
>
> Anyway, if anyone did sue over the republished
> SOTI, I suspect it might some of the surviving
> comic artists. I think they could make a far
> better case than the superhero trademark holders.
...
See above
<snip>
michael adams
Bill Palmer
> "Bill Palmer" <palmer....@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
> news:13ea6e3a.04092...@posting.google.com...
>
> <snip>
[...]
Of course, we don't know for a a fact that fear of
being sued is the reason that SEDUCTION OF THE INNOCENT
has not been re-published. I only brought that up as
one possibility. It does seem odd that such a well-
known book has not been re-published, though. Many
comic book fans are in the potential market for it,
but it would also have appeal to many people
interested in the social sciences and the cultural
history of the U. S.
Can anyone think of other books which might have
a significant appeal to book buyers today, but
which for reasons (known or unknown) have never
been re-published?
Mr. Palmer
Room 314