A couple that need verifying

[Pogue Mahone]

Hey guys,
I have a couple that need verifying before I put them on the market later this year. They look good to me, but you never know...

Thanks,
Mike

 

[skiroomalum]

They both look 100% on the money.

 

[Purple Stickpin]

Both good from my perspective. There was some discussion about underlined signatures a couple of years ago. They are not common. However, I have a signed trade of Hot Water Music that has underlining (albeit not as long an underline as yours) and it came from Scott Harrison via the Don Klein collection.

 

[Pogue Mahone]

Thanks guys. The Penguin is a paperback and I didn't get it on the cheap-cheap, but I have not seen many signed copies.

 

[Purple Stickpin]

Not, that one is not commonly found signed. I might be interested in that. Is it the first printing? I have a copy and it's hard to tell what printing it is, if I recall...

 

[Pogue Mahone]

I agree, it seems hard to tell. Attached may help.

 

[Gary Eisenberg]

I agree, it seems hard to tell. Attached may help.

I can help with the Penguin edition. Back in the mid-to-late seventies, I found a hardback copy of the same book. Unbelievably, it was being sold as a "remainder" for $1.00. I almost shit my pants when I found it, because even in those days, that was a ridiculously low price for the book - which was in mint condition in dustwrapper. I brought it with me to a signing that Bukowski did (the last signing that he ever did, in fact), at Vinegar Hill in San Pedro. I figured that he might find it interesting to see that book after so many years. He did look surprised to see it. He signed it quickly, then went on to sign the other two books that brought. I remember that he seemed to sign it almost automatically. And it is interesting that my copy has a very similar signature, in the same place.

 

[Pogue Mahone]

Spooky cool...

 

[Purple Stickpin]

That's exactly what mine looks like (sans signature), and what's unsettling about that is the phrase "This selection first published 1969." What that insinuates to me is that "you are holding a more recent printing of a book first published in 1969." Probably just another case of English being more than one language.

So, what would speak to this is a later printing that either states such, or includes the later printing year ('71, for example?).

 

[bospress.net]

I never thought that these were reprinted, but have not looked into it much.

 

[Joseph K]

That's exactly what mine looks like (sans signature), and what's unsettling about that is the phrase "This selection first published 1969." What that insinuates to me is that "you are holding a more recent printing of a book first published in 1969." Probably just another case of English being more than one language.

This is common for compilations. It essentially says this selection was first made in 1969 (to differentiate it from any collection previously published then republished under a different name). If you have the 1969 edition, then you have the first edition (assuming it wasn't reprinted in that year).