Women 1st HC -- am I crazy, or did I get a good deal? (1 Viewer)

[kilgore]

http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=380354726563#ht_5788wt_1008

Seems to be the first HC of Women w/Martin's changes in what Krumhansl (and Morrow) says is an edition of 354, not 500 as indicated in the colophon.

I don't think I'm crazy to think that I got a pretty good deal, but it seemed strange that there were only two bidders on this one. Since I was ready to go higher, I am now second guessing myself. Any thoughts on this?

Of course, by the standard of 'it's worth what you'll pay for it', I'm really pleased, and I guess that's what matters.

Winning bid: US $129.28

 

[hank solo]

I nearly placed a bid on that. Good price. I don't think you're crazy.

There is a chance that it is a revised edition. It could be the cloth edition (Krumhansl 63 g.) which although revised apparently shares the same binding as the true first HB and the same colophon as true first PB. Wait and see I guess. Either way, it looks like a good price. I don't think the wavy endpaper is down to water damage. The other photos look very fine.

 

[jordan]

the revised edition doesn't have the color title page, so that's definitely a first printing. it's a great deal, and i considered bidding, but i'm a little short on money for another bukowski purchase right now.

 

[hank solo]

Well, I'm just going by what Krumhansl says. His discription of the 'First edition, cloth, revised issue:' includes a color title page, but I know that could be an error, and usual later printings have a b/w title page.

 

[kilgore]

Yah, I was really impressed with the condition, at least in the pictures.

I've seen a copy with "Second printing, revised" in the copywrite page that has the b/w title page. I wasn't sure if that copy was considering itself a second printing of the revised edition (and therefore third printing of Women in one form or another), or if it was considering itself the second printing overall (first=Martin's, second=Buk's).

I assumed that since the copywrite page on this one didn't say revised ed. then it would be the 1st/Martin issue.

Anyway, Jordan, if the first 'revised' printing has the b/w title page, that's a pretty unsubtle fuck you, no? If JM was going, 'sure I'll take out the changes, but really my edited version is the FIRST edition', that seems a little messed up. Anyhoo, thanks for validating me fellas!

 

[bospress.net]

it is a first edition, first printing. the revised says "second printing, revised" on the copyright page. yes, a damn great deal, really..

Bill

 

[kilgore]

Here's the cw page for the second printing with a b/w title page. Bill, is this a 'first of the revised', then?

 

[hank solo]

Yes, and I had noticed in the ebay listing that the copyright page was cropped directly after the ISBN details. So the seller's copy either doesn't say revised or it does and they fudged that detail. It probably is a first first, but if it isn't the price still wasn't bad.

I stopped myself bidding for 2 reasons:

1. I couldn't be certain exactly which version of the text it is.
2. If it is a desirable (as in collectable) true first, I would probably hate owning it anyway as reading it would make my eyes raw.

I hope you're happy with the book!! :DD

 

[kilgore]

HS - I'm interested in reading the differences, but then I thought that whole issue might be why people were staying away. Either way, I'm psyched to have picked it up.

 

[hank solo]

I doubt it was the changes that led to a low price. Personally I think the listing was just a little anonymous. From the gallery view / ebay search results it just looked like any late printing HC but with a higher start price.

I was more surprised that the same seller made a similar sale ($104) with a later print of Mockingbird.

 

[kilgore]

I too was surprised the Mockingbird got multiple bidders. I will say it was a lovely book with the brown binding cloth and all that, but still not the place I'd have spent $100 extra bucks.

 

[mjp]

Here's the cw page for the second printing with a b/w title page.

Interesting - that differs from a paperback "second printing revised" that I have. The revision notice is typeset on yours and looks like a typewriter on mine.

 

[kilgore]

Weird -- to be clear, the picture I put up (left one above) is from a hardcover, with a b/w title page, and also dated 1979.

So my question is --

From Krumansl (and I'm at work now, so don't have it directly in front of me)
FIRST:
a. PB -- Martin's edits, color title page
b. australian PB (whooley & something) -- presumably Martin's edits?
c. HC -- Martin's edits, color title page
d. Signed HC -- presumably Martin's edits?
e. Signed HC w/painting -- presumably Martin's edits
f. Revised PB -- after Bukowski got pissed
g. Revised HC -- after Bukowski got pissed

My question is, are the copywrite pages above from f & g? OR would f & g have color title pages and merely say 'Revised Edition' or something like that?

 

[hank solo]

Good question. Krumhansl only lists so called 'primary publications' and all the copies of Women he lists (BSP and Wild & Wooley Press) are described as having the same 'coloured' title page. edit: They are all described as being the same colour-wise, but the Australian copies are said to have the Wild & Wooley name and logo in place of the BSP details.

I would imagine that the coloured pages were used until they ran out.

 

[jordan]

i didn't realize that there was a first printing, revised. doesn't that no longer count as a first printing?

 

[kilgore]

I'm not sure there is -- that's basically what I'm asking. Given the actual content changes, it seems like it would be a 'second edition' rather than a second printing.

 

[mjp]

The corrected version is "second printing, revised," so technically, there is not a corrected or revised first edition of Women. All the firsts are Martinized.