Pulp, ex-library, possibly rebound? (1 Viewer)

[HenryChinaski]

I got this copy of Pulp from abebooks.
I took a few pics. Somebody tell me what they think.
Also, I'm pretty sure it's a first edition.

Also, another thing I noticed was that with my trade paper back, on this page, Charles Bukowski is printed with black ink, instead of red.

and another thing, on this page is does say something about it being a hardcover, I think...

any thoughts?

 

[nymark]

I would call this a first edition. The limitation page is only included with the first printings. It looks like an ex-library to me, although I don't think it's been rebound. Did the seller mention that it was ex-library? If it was sold at a premium price and they failed to mention the spine label damage and the defaced title page, I'd have a problem. If it was sold as a reading copy, then it's fine.

 

[HenryChinaski]

yes, it was sold at a really fair price, nymark.
I got it for less than 20 bucks. I'm pretty happy with it. There wasnt a dust jacket. the only thing that I am worried about is the cloth that it is bound with. it has a really "slick" sort of feel to it, unlike the other black sparrow hardcovers I have. that is the only thing I question.
he did mention that it was an ex-library copy.
the only question i have is about it being rebound.
As for the spine, there was a sticker or whatever that said, Fic Bukowski, and I took it off. thats the only reason the spine looks like that.

For anybody else that has a hardcover of Pulp, does the spine look okay?

the cloth is the main concern i have. it just seems a bit off.

anybody else have any thoughts or opinions?

 

[chronic]

Shouldn't have that glossy laminated look and feel to it (I can see it in your scan) but it doesn't appear to have been rebound. Anyone know if Black Sparrow ever did any library bindings? That would be one possibility.

 

[HenryChinaski]

yeah help me out. i was thinking the same thing. the binding/cloth is different.