question re signed & numbered (1 Viewer)

d gray

tried to do his best but could not
Founding member
i've had a copy of the bukowski/montfort photo book from '87 for years
but just noticed it's #1 of 470.

does the number of the edition matter in any way in terms of value or desirability?
 
To some people, yes. Personally, I don't see the difference between copy #1 and copy #362, but some may. I don't really even see the difference between a lettered copy and a numbered copy if the books are otherwise identical (there are some examples of this in Buk's catalogue - primarily in the NYG's).

Anyway, off the top of my head, you might see something like a 10% premium for copy #1, or you might not (how's that for a definitive answer?). What really sets low #'s apart is that often Buk hadn't gotten bored with signing yet, so he's more inclined to include a doodle or something extra. Then there are other times where he spaced the doodles out randomly across the numbered copies, or doodled in them all...
 
I dunno about the value of the numbers (though I can see your point) but what I'm interested in is: What book is this?
Being 1987 it wouldn't be the 'Big White Book', is it? I thought that one was later. But which one is it then?
 
I do know, that a great bunch of these are not numbered and not even signed.

So this one might be of value in contrast to most of the other prints of it. At least it reflects the time, when it was new and 'they' were thinking about a big collector's value or something and starting it. It sure is a document of the times, when they started.

I've sold one of those - UNSIGNED! - last year for 100,- EUR (around 150.- USD).
 
If it's the paperback and it's numbered it's probably a fake (which would cast doubt on the authenticity of the signature as well). The paperbacks were not issued as a numbered edition.
 
it was $250 about 4 or 5 years ago. my brother in law gave it to me for
christmas.

i'm slightly confused/suspicious about the number now. it's numbered in what
seems to be the same pencil/size/writing style as the price which is right above
it on the first page top right corner. the numbering is not on the page with
the signatures or the page at the back that states the edition # etc.

could it be a bogus numbering?

i can scan it if anyone wants to check it out.

edit - you beat me to it chronic
 
my guess is that the bookseller was indicating the book was one of 470, not #1 of 470. I have a small-run book here somewhere that I bought used that was similarly marked.
 
it's numbered in what
seems to be the same pencil/size/writing style as the price which is right above it on the first page top right corner.

It was probably just a bookseller who wrote that to indicate that it is one of the 470 issued. They just wrote 1/470 to show the size of the full run. I've seen that before.

edit: What hooch said. He can tickle the keyboard quicker than me.
 
NO NO I WON'T ACCEPT THAT! IT IS NUMBER ONE! IT IS!!!

well, that makes total sense hooch. i feel dumber than usual.

thanks for all the input.

do i dare scan the signatures for your opinions?
 
Scan it and post it. We'll either confirm it is real or a fake. My guess is that it could be signed, but if the signature is on the colophon, then it is VERY suspicious. If it is on the title page, then there is a chance that it is authentic.

Bill
 
It is one of 470, not #1 of 470, as mentioned above.

A reasonable mistake to make on your part.

I have a couple of lettered books that are letter A. These were listed with a higher buy price but sold for the same as any other lettered copy after a bit of haggling.
So I don't believe the value is actually greater (whatever that means), just the perception that they are more valuable - from the bookseller.
 
Maybe not where Bukowski is concerned - judging by the comments here - but elsewhere, the lower numbers of numbered editions do have a greater value. I have read where people actually "trade up" to a lower number of a book they already have.

I don't understand it either, but a very low number can definitely have an effect on value.

The lettered BSP editions are a (somewhat) comparable thing. Maybe. Though they had a different spine cloth...but how deluxe is deluxe? What if on top of the lettered edition they did a symbol edition made up of circle, square, star and triangle? Would those be worth more? Ha. I never really understood it. After a certain point it all becomes redundant.
 
The lettered BSP editions are a (somewhat) comparable thing. Maybe. Though they had a different spine cloth...but how deluxe is deluxe?

I think that it is silly to want the pretty spine cloth and no one should pay more for a book just because it is lettered.

I highly suggest that everyone refrain from buying any of them, especially any of the cheaper ones that show up on ebay from time to time.
 
submitted for your approval -

bukmontsigs.jpg
 
Are you guys sure?

I was going to say obvious fake!







Then offer to take it off his hands for $25...
 
And I, (with little or no social or political value) concure. No doubt about it, those are real...
 
I don't understand it either, but a very low number can definitely have an effect on value.

That goes for (some) lithographs too. Look at these prices for a Disney lithograph:

* Regular Edition Price for #11 and up $6600
* Regular Edition Price for #2-10, add 15%
* Regular Edition Price for #1, add 65% (sold)
* Publishers and Printer's proofs, add 125%
* Artist Proofs, add 175%

http://www.brucehamilton.com/AR/Lithographs/LargeLithoPages/SSM Page.htm
 
Last edited by a moderator:
thanks, that's a relief - especially since that and a new years greeting
are my only signed/collectible stuff
 
this question is especially relevant now that lots of #1's are hitting the market. i will say that i like having one of the #1's - just because i'm a big black sparrow collector in addition to bukowski, and it's a fairly unique thing, especially since #1's were mostly in martin's hands until he sold his collection. i'm not going nuts to trade down numbers of my other numbered editions, but i did want to have at least one (and a letter A, and a publisher's copy, etc).

i have seen booksellers charge an insane premium for #1's - to wit: lee/joseph the provider was selling a lettered septuagenarian stew for $500 at last year's ABAA fair (which i thought was an awfully tempting price). then at this year's SF book fair, he had #1 of 225 (with the red spine) for $750. personally, i would pay 10-20% more for a #1 if i had the choice between two copies, depending on the price of the book.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top