New Naturalists / Editions of our books / Facsimile Editions / About the Facsimile editions / Latest Posts

RE: About the Facsimile editions

Lee3764 — Sat, 26 Dec 2009 20:37:53 GMT

[quote][b]IanMorrow (17/12/2009)[/b][hr]A SHORT COMMENT ON THE FACSIMILE EDITIONS WHICH I LIKE VERY MUCH IN ALL RESPECTS BUT ONE. NAMELY THAT THE PHOTOGRAPHS ARE NOT AS SHARP OR CLEAR AS THE ORIGINALS. PERHAPS THAT WAS UNAVOIDABLE WHEN REPRINTING PHOTOS FROM OLD NEGATIVES OR WERE THEY SIMPLY SCANNED AGAIN FOR THE FACSIMILES? IAN[/quote]

I have just received the facsimile of No:1 'Butterflies' by E.B.Ford. I have compared it to my 1st edition (1945) original & also find the plates not nearly as sharp in the new facsimile than the 1945 edition! On some of the butterflies in the colour plates in the new editions you can hardly see their antennae! Most are set out as set specimens and you should obviously be able to see the thin antennae easily eg: plate 21!! Nearly all plates are not nearly as sharp as in my 1st edition from 1945! Surely with today's technology the original plates could have actually been improved or slightly sharpened again? The colour plates however in the facsimile do seem to be slightly more glossy finish? Also is the "1" at top of the spine of the D/J a different colour on the facsimile (Grey) whereas my 1st edition the "1" is in pale orange. I thought the facsimiles were an exact reproduction of the original. These are just a couple of observations I have noticed. It is still a nice book but it could definately do with a brand new edition of "Butterflies" as there has been an awful lot more learnt & discovered about these creatures in the last 65 years! The distribution maps also are totally out of date for most species! Maybe Collins will consider a new volume in the next few years on Butterflies as the did a new volume on Moths ie:vol-30 (original Moths by E.B.Ford) & vol-90 (Moths by Michael Majerus?) Thoughts anyone? Lee.

RE: About the Facsimile editions

IanMorrow — Thu, 17 Dec 2009 06:19:07 GMT

A SHORT COMMENT ON THE FACSIMILE EDITIONS WHICH I LIKE VERY MUCH IN ALL RESPECTS BUT ONE. NAMELY THAT THE PHOTOGRAPHS ARE NOT AS SHARP OR CLEAR AS THE ORIGINALS. PERHAPS THAT WAS UNAVOIDABLE WHEN REPRINTING PHOTOS FROM OLD NEGATIVES OR WERE THEY SIMPLY SCANNED AGAIN FOR THE FACSIMILES? IAN

RE: About the Facsimile editions

Bill — Sun, 01 Nov 2009 17:40:18 GMT

[quote][b]Jackbus (11/1/2009)[/b][hr]But as someone pointed out also in this thread, those bindings were there on the originals too, time has caused them to brown and fade.So my points about them looking very similar in 20-30 yrs time still holds I'm afraid.[/quote]

Sorry, but I think you have misread the earlier post. As it was posted by me, perhaps I am also guilty of not making myself absolutely clear but the original editions of the first 10 NNs (actually the bindings on those ediitons that follow are also the same) are the same as the picture that Brendan took of his first edition #6. As in that photograph, the binding is flush with the tops of the pages (not the case on on the facsimiles) and is not coloured in any way (again unlike the facsimiles where there is an alternating green and white patterned fabric).

Just to further clarify, I have added my own pictures below which show the bindings on NNs numbers 8, 9 and 10, with a close up of the end of one of these - a somewhat worn copy :-(

http://www.newnaturalists.com/Forums/Attachment19.aspx

http://www.newnaturalists.com/Forums/Attachment18.aspx

Regards,

Bill

RE: About the Facsimile editions

Jackbus — Sun, 01 Nov 2009 15:01:31 GMT

But as someone pointed out also in this thread, those bindings were there on the originals too, time has caused them to brown and fade.So my points about them looking very similar in 20-30 yrs time still holds I'm afraid.

RE: About the Facsimile editions

Bill — Sun, 01 Nov 2009 11:01:58 GMT

[quote][b]Jackbus (10/31/2009)[/b][hr]Well it think in a few years time, 20,30. it may be a lot less easy to tell the difference. Of course currently it is obvious, because you are comparing a new book with a 50 yr old book.[/quote]

As was identified by Brendan in one of the first posts in this thread, you can easily tell the facsimile editions apart from the originals by the binding on the page blocks.

Bill

RE: About the Facsimile editions

Jackbus — Sat, 31 Oct 2009 22:55:57 GMT

[quote]Which is exactly why they'll never in a million years be confused with the facsimiles. I've (literally) never seen one that could be confused with a 2 year old unread book... But, I do agree that they really should have a distinguishing mark of some obvious kind so that collectors in 50 years or so aren't confused.[/quote]

Well it think in a few years time, 20,30. it may be a lot less easy to tell the difference. Of course currently it is obvious, because you are comparing a new book with a 50 yr old book.

RE: About the Facsimile editions

Hengus — Sat, 31 Oct 2009 12:59:58 GMT

[quote][b]Jackbus (10/30/2009)[/b][hr]They are incredibly rare to find in truly top notch condition and as such command a very high premium. Particularly the first two volumes: Butterflies and British Game.[/quote]

Which is exactly why they'll never in a million years be confused with the facsimiles. I've (literally) never seen one that could be confused with a 2 year old unread book... But, I do agree that they really should have a distinguishing mark of some obvious kind so that collectors in 50 years or so aren't confused.

RE: About the Facsimile editions

Jackbus — Fri, 30 Oct 2009 20:49:38 GMT

I wholeheartedly agree. And that is why I was impressed to see Collins mark the PODs as such so clearly. As for the monetary value, mint or very fine originals of 1-10 go for a lot more £45-50. They are incredibly rare to find in truly top notch condition and as such command a very high premium. Particularly the first two volumes: Butterflies and British Game.

RE: About the Facsimile editions

idenholm — Fri, 30 Oct 2009 09:12:29 GMT

Bill - It isn't just the monetory issue. As a collector of all sorts of things I do consider it important to be able distinguish the genuine article from modern-day reproductions. Facsimiles are commonly produced in the art world but, usually, care is taken to ensure that they are identifiable as such. If people from Collins read these postings it would be interesting to know the strategy behind not labelling the new products, eg. on the frontispiece, with something like "This book is a facsimile of the 1st edition published by Collins in ....". Maybe this idea can be taken up in future. Ian

RE: About the Facsimile editions

Bill — Thu, 29 Oct 2009 16:04:41 GMT

[quote][b]Brendan (10/29/2009)[/b][hr]I don't have a whole lot of originals in the 1-10 range, but comparing those I do have against the facsimiles, the best non-subjective differentiator is that on the facsimilies, the book-block has a green/white striped ribbon protruding slightly at the top and bottom of the spine, whereas the originals don't. Probably easier than trying to judge paper age etc.

The attached photo shows the difference between an original No.6 (top) and a facsimile No.5 (bottom)[/quote]

Brendan,

I can confirm that all of the first 10 editions in the NN series have page blocks looking like your photograph of No. 6.

In most cases I think that the upper edge of the page block on genuine first editions will be dirty as I doubt anyone would have had the foresight at that time to protect them from dust, sunlight etc. Certainly all of my copies are a uniform grey brown colour on the top.

I'm a little surprised that these are considered to be a threat to the value of collections anyway, as I don't recall having seen first editions of any of the first ten in the series (except #9 Country Parish) selling at more than about £45-50 each in good condition (and often lower), which is less than the RRP (and most eBay prices) of the facsimile editions.

Bill

RE: About the Facsimile editions

Brendan — Thu, 29 Oct 2009 09:34:53 GMT

I don't have a whole lot of originals in the 1-10 range, but comparing those I do have against the facsimiles, the best non-subjective differentiator is that on the facsimilies, the book-block has a green/white striped ribbon protruding slightly at the top and bottom of the spine, whereas the originals don't (perhaps someone with 1st edition 1-10s can confirm). Probably easier than trying to judge paper age etc.

The attached photo shows the difference between an original No.6 (top) and a facsimile No.5 (bottom)

n.b. Collins, can you do something about the attachment limits? - I had to delete one of my earlier attached pictures to upload this, as 500kb only allows a few jpegs.

RE: About the Facsimile editions

idenholm — Thu, 29 Oct 2009 09:25:14 GMT

If they can't be told apart, then don't the current market prices for hardback editions, based on numbers originally sold, become an irrelevance? Am I missing something here? I can't imagine people who have invested considerably in collections will be hugely impressed...!

RE: About the Facsimile editions

Jackbus — Wed, 28 Oct 2009 21:38:24 GMT

Good question. I wish there was some text on the opening page to distinguish them

RE: About the Facsimile editions

idenholm — Wed, 28 Oct 2009 21:29:43 GMT

These are claimed to be "exact replicas". How do you tell them from the original editions?

About the Facsimile editions

Collins — Mon, 13 Jul 2009 18:11:22 GMT

Collins has produced exact replicas of the first 10 editions available through this website.