I was looking at this and know that they are generally available in the 60-90 range or so. Is the limited substantially different than the trade version? Also welcome any opinions as to price. Many thanks.
Krumhansl (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter skiroomalum
- Start date
mjp
Founding member
If you think the "added bonus" of a little broadside poem rewritten by Martin to remove a reference to drinking beer is worth the added cost, then it's substantially different, yes.
Oh, wait, there's also the different colored spine cloth and a number written in the back! If all of that isn't worth paying a premium for a reference book, I don't know what is.
Oh, wait, there's also the different colored spine cloth and a number written in the back! If all of that isn't worth paying a premium for a reference book, I don't know what is.
It's funny, even something as small as "over" or "at" the roulette wheel substantially alters the poem.
Thanks for the input.
Thanks for the input.
PhillyDave
“The essential doesn't change.” Beckett
then frying a steak...drinking a beer. Two very different things. Ugh!!!
In fairness, the different colored spine cloth on the numbered edition is quite nice. That price seems a bit high. There's a "pristine" copy on abe for $161.50. Interestingly, the same seller has a second copy with the same description (except the number is 2 different from the other copy) at $181.50.
mjp
Founding member
I'm glad His Divine Holiness used those different spine cloths because it makes it easy to know (probably) what you're looking at if you can't see inside it.
But paying a premium for any "special" Black Sparrow edition of a Bukowski title that Bukowski didn't sign -- man, I'm never going to be able to see that as anything other than asucker tax waste of money.
But I understand that it turns some folks on (kind of like having two of the same model guitar but with different finishes, and your friends go, "Why the hell do you have two of the same guitar?" and you say, "The same guitar? They're different!" I get it.), so GO WITH GOD!
But paying a premium for any "special" Black Sparrow edition of a Bukowski title that Bukowski didn't sign -- man, I'm never going to be able to see that as anything other than a
But I understand that it turns some folks on (kind of like having two of the same model guitar but with different finishes, and your friends go, "Why the hell do you have two of the same guitar?" and you say, "The same guitar? They're different!" I get it.), so GO WITH GOD!
There's no law against buying a copy and binding it how you like. I agree with MJP that BSP kind of disappeared up its own ass with the limited editions for the completist market.
And as for that poem... Oh boy! Not even a single verse left intact? Seriously? That's shameful.
Pogue Mahone
Officials say drugs may have played a part
Well, there is no doubt that it's a must-have book, unless you come across the PDF that's out there. I got mine from Seamus Cooney and it was in pristine condition. Which is NOT what I wanted. It's a resource book for those who use it in the right way. I grab for it every time I need it, whether I've just been eating Kentucky Fried Chicken or not. This site is incredibly awesome, but that book is an equally incredible reference. The man did his work and presented it in a very clear way.
mjp
Founding member
No one is disparaging the contents of the book. I bought one (a "regular" edition) when it came out and used it for its intended purpose. Used, as it was meant to be, and it looks like it. The "special" editions were never meant to be used. Just purchased at a premium and filed away on a shelf. I have plenty of those books myself, but I don't enjoy them. I'm not even sure I enjoy having them. Which may seem a bit against the spirit of all of this.
I enjoy my library bound It Catches, which is used and written in (and signed - and illustrated - by Bukowski), and I enjoy Ed Blair's copy of Dorbin's 1969 bibliography, which is used and written in and a little bit mangled (and signed by Bukowski). I didn't pay more than $100 for either of those. The expensive/rare/fragile things...I don't enjoy them as much.
I enjoy my library bound It Catches, which is used and written in (and signed - and illustrated - by Bukowski), and I enjoy Ed Blair's copy of Dorbin's 1969 bibliography, which is used and written in and a little bit mangled (and signed by Bukowski). I didn't pay more than $100 for either of those. The expensive/rare/fragile things...I don't enjoy them as much.
I've got a pristine copy of Shifreen and Jackson's Henry Miller bibliography. 2 volumes and I'm afraid to touch it. I don't know why I bought it 15 years ago because I don't collect Miller. I think I had a descriptive bibliography fetish back then. Still do, kind of.
One of the things that is nice about the krumhansl txt file floating around is I converted it to Pages and threw it in the cloud. Now I can access it on my phone and not lug the book around.
I know, I know. First World Problem...
I don't read Krumhansl. I have the pdf and that's all I ever reference, save for an occasional sniff of peppermint from the textured emerald green/teal spine cloth of the edition that I surely did not pay a sucker tax on.
mjp
Founding member
I know that characterizing the higher price of the "collectible" versions of the later books as a sucker tax is provocative, but it's meant to be. Besides, if I'm not stirring things up I feel like I'm not doing my part.
:)
But here's a little example to show you where I'm coming from, and it goes a little something like this: collectible books are exactly like baseball cards.
What? Well, see if you notice any similarities:
In the 70s and 80s a bunch of old guys started to collect and assign value to rare old cards. Cards that were produced for kids, to be consumed - and mangled - by kids. That some survived in good condition made them legitimately scarce and therefore, collectible to a certain type.
Then in the 1990s some other, smarter, old guys thought, "If I produce a purposely limited baseball card, maybe these baseball card collectors will pay me a lot of money for them!" So they did, and they were right. They made a lot of money on what is essentially a thing of no value.
Not surprisingly, what happened not long after that is the bottom fell completely out of the baseball card market, and the only things that still had any real value were what? You guessed it! The rare old cards that started the whole thing.
Now if I look at that scenario and think, "Those guys who paid a lot of money for cards with no intrinsic value are/were suckers," I'm not wrong. Of course if one of them can sell their "collectible" cards to another sucker for more than they paid for them, they aren't wrong either. And since they profited on the deal, they are not necessarily suckers either (though some my just be very lucky suckers).
So at the end of the day, we're both right. But one of us has spent a lot of money for nothing.
:)
But here's a little example to show you where I'm coming from, and it goes a little something like this: collectible books are exactly like baseball cards.
What? Well, see if you notice any similarities:
In the 70s and 80s a bunch of old guys started to collect and assign value to rare old cards. Cards that were produced for kids, to be consumed - and mangled - by kids. That some survived in good condition made them legitimately scarce and therefore, collectible to a certain type.
Then in the 1990s some other, smarter, old guys thought, "If I produce a purposely limited baseball card, maybe these baseball card collectors will pay me a lot of money for them!" So they did, and they were right. They made a lot of money on what is essentially a thing of no value.
Not surprisingly, what happened not long after that is the bottom fell completely out of the baseball card market, and the only things that still had any real value were what? You guessed it! The rare old cards that started the whole thing.
Now if I look at that scenario and think, "Those guys who paid a lot of money for cards with no intrinsic value are/were suckers," I'm not wrong. Of course if one of them can sell their "collectible" cards to another sucker for more than they paid for them, they aren't wrong either. And since they profited on the deal, they are not necessarily suckers either (though some my just be very lucky suckers).
So at the end of the day, we're both right. But one of us has spent a lot of money for nothing.
So is BSP Fleer, Donruss or Upper Deck? Cuz either Loujon or
Wormwood is Topps. And where's Harmon Killebrew when you need him?
Wormwood is Topps. And where's Harmon Killebrew when you need him?
Re collectible books v. baseball cards, you'll see the same thing with coins and stamps. The situation in Britain became so out of hand, with the Royal Mail producing about ten sets per year, each with first-day covers and presentation packs, that a regular collector could easily spend $600-800 per year (or more). All this for sets that will take 20 years to be worth the original price - if then. It got so exploitative that true philatelists drew a line at the year 2000 and said "nothing after 2000".
mjp
Founding member
Ah, that's a tricky question, because Fleer and Donruss are both kind of "pre-collectible-boom" brands, and you could argue that Black Sparrow had a history of publication before they went over the top with worthless issues. But if you look at the history, BSP is definitely Upper Deck, since Martin was issuing "collectibles" from day one.
Of course a lot of Black Sparrow's "collectibles" were not worthless because they were signed, and in some cases illustrated. But once they could no longer force a pen into Bukowski's dying hand, the "collectible" issues lost their collectability. At that point someone who wasn't a conniving, soulless butcher might have just let it go and been satisfied to publish his gleeful butchery in a traditional format. Instead Mr. Martin continued to MILK THE SUCKERS FOR ALL THEY WERE WORTH with a long string of cheap parlor tricks to dazzle the rubes.
Oh, we were talking about baseball cards, right? Sorry...
Baby boomers obviously drove that first collection wave. I had a great topps collection as a kid, some really pricey shit. One item that illustrates the flux of value, was a topps rookie 3rd basemen card from I think, 1973, which featured Mike Hilton, Ron Cey and future HOFamer Mike Schmidt.
At its peak that card was "worth" $600.00, according to Beckett' s, the Krumhansl of baseball cards. When the dust cleared, somewhere around mid to late 90's, that card was valued at about $40 bucks and probably hasn't recovered much. I sold most of my stash in college for pennies on the dollar. Much Milwaukee's Best and Meisterbrau. First class all the way!
At its peak that card was "worth" $600.00, according to Beckett' s, the Krumhansl of baseball cards. When the dust cleared, somewhere around mid to late 90's, that card was valued at about $40 bucks and probably hasn't recovered much. I sold most of my stash in college for pennies on the dollar. Much Milwaukee's Best and Meisterbrau. First class all the way!
Pogue Mahone
Officials say drugs may have played a part
This makes me feel even worse for stealing baseball cards at sleep overs when i was a kid... But smelling his sister's panties while "my best friend" was asleep was still worth it... You can't put a price on that... And yes, his sister was wearing them at the time...
I grew up with a kid that had every baseball card from about '59-'75. Bags and bags of them. Those brown paper bags from the grocery store. This kid's dad was a brutal prick. He would come home every night in a rush of anger and kick the kid in his ass, and then (if he was in a bad mood), he would take a full bag of baseball cards over to his chair, sit down, and proceed to take every card in that bag and rip it in half.
I hope he's still alive somewhere and enjoying his golden years eating out of cat-food cans.
I hope he's still alive somewhere and enjoying his golden years eating out of cat-food cans.
I'm not sure whether either of us is right or wrong, or, for that matter, whether that matters one bit. But I do like it when you are provocative or any other somewhat subjective adjective that describes the reasons why, when I log on to this site, I immediately migrate to new posts with you as last poster. The entertainment value is worth the act of logging in. That said, I didn't spend whatever amount of money on the limited edition of Krumhansl on nothing, I spent it on something I wanted. Why you feel compelled to explain to me why that was a waste is beyond me.
I believe I spent right around $100 for it several years back. I can recall a few examples of paying for dinner at what turned out to be a lousy restaurant, and each experience cost me more than $100. I've spent countless dollars on bass strings that didn't pan out. I smoke. I've spent thousands of dollars killing myself slowly. A green-spined Krumhansl is so far down the list, I can't hit it when I flush.
Last edited:
mjp
Founding member
Everyone I work with drives a "better" car than I do. The parking garage at my office is overflowing with Porsches, Mercedes, BMWs, and they all ridicule me for driving a Honda Fit. But to me a car is a tool. Like a hammer. If I told you I bought a $250 hammer, you'd think I was an idiot. You might not say it, but you'd think it.
I completely understand wanting and collecting and history and vibes and all of those unreasonable, intangible things. When I pry open a copy of Cold Dogs in the Courtyard, or some early signed Black Sparrow book, I get a sense of the history of the thing, and I'll gladly pay for that.
But when it comes to paying twice as much for a "lettered" book than a "numbered" one when they are essentially the same thing, or paying twice the price for a copy of any unsigned posthumous book just because it has an extra page bound in it or a different colored spine cloth, that's just a $250 hammer to me.
And for christ's sake man, when you find strings that you like, stick with them! ;)
I completely understand wanting and collecting and history and vibes and all of those unreasonable, intangible things. When I pry open a copy of Cold Dogs in the Courtyard, or some early signed Black Sparrow book, I get a sense of the history of the thing, and I'll gladly pay for that.
But when it comes to paying twice as much for a "lettered" book than a "numbered" one when they are essentially the same thing, or paying twice the price for a copy of any unsigned posthumous book just because it has an extra page bound in it or a different colored spine cloth, that's just a $250 hammer to me.
And for christ's sake man, when you find strings that you like, stick with them! ;)
The $250 hammer that is the emerald-spined Krumhansl is now $123.75: http://www.ebay.com/itm/A-Bibliogra...06387?pt=US_Fiction_Books&hash=item233a8454f3
If you swing (your hammers) that way, of course.
If you swing (your hammers) that way, of course.
Pogue Mahone
Officials say drugs may have played a part
That's not a bad price...
Pogue Mahone
Officials say drugs may have played a part
This baby's mangled and written in. Whoever owned it had a nice collection. All 14 books are checked off and about 75% of the poetry. And it still contains His Wife, The Painter and the signature page. No matter how bad this book looks, I have a feeling it was very loved... and used like a hammer.
bospress.net
www.bospress.net
Looks like our friend from PBA used it as a hammer to hang a picture after eating bbq ribs.
Still, biblios are meant to be used...
Bill
Still, biblios are meant to be used...
Bill
Pogue Mahone
Officials say drugs may have played a part
Must be signed by Linda King and Valdez.
Pogue Mahone
Officials say drugs may have played a part
LickTheStar
Sad Flower in the Sand
Jesus, Pogue. That's... just amazing.
Easy now...
Similar threads
