Just to clarify, it it has not been already, the first 185 copies were to be numbered in black and the last 15 in red. The blue ink was a mistake that Paul admits was his own fault. I have a blue one. As has been noted, other King editions have different colored ink, The Eyes of the Dragon S/L comes to mind..."26 red lettered, 26 black lettered, less than 10 Artist's copies, 250 red-numbered issued to friends, and 1,000 black-numbered copies produced."
It is a strange practice intended to drive collectors even madder than they already are I believe.
I really like Paul a lot and I can feel his pain and disappointment with the binding error. My question is though, did anyone that got one of the proofs look at it? Is the error in the proof or would that even matter once it goes from proof to print?
Thanks for the clarification. Yea that seems like a really strange practice to me. What I can tell you, is that if you ever get a different color on the number at CD it'll be because I ran out of whatever pens I started numbering the books with...
Just to clarify, it it has not been already, the first 185 copies were to be numbered in black and the last 15 in red. The blue ink was a mistake that Paul admits was his own fault. I have a blue one. As has been noted, other King editions have different colored ink, The Eyes of the Dragon S/L comes to mind..."26 red lettered, 26 black lettered, less than 10 Artist's copies, 250 red-numbered issued to friends, and 1,000 black-numbered copies produced."
It is a strange practice intended to drive collectors even madder than they already are I believe.
I really like Paul a lot and I can feel his pain and disappointment with the binding error. My question is though, did anyone that got one of the proofs look at it? Is the error in the proof or would that even matter once it goes from proof to print?
Even though a lot of us here are also over there - CD's Forums are definitely a much more welcoming place. I could probably go on for ages, but I won't.
Even though a lot of us here are also over there - CD's Forums are definitely a much more welcoming place. I could probably go on for ages, but I won't.
Happy to share the letter from Suntup. Figured since we had discussed it as a group and not all received it I should post it.
Also, as an owner of this edition I can say I am totally comfortable with how Suntup Editions has handled this. Every owner has to determine what this means to them but for me, I have a beautiful book on my shelf that I love. Yes, four pages are out of sequence but I am fine with that.
Thanks for sharing the email, Martin. I was curious as to what Paul had to say.
yes, thank you, Martin. As someone who didn't get a numbered edition (because you beat my brains out and used a more compatible browser), I also didn't get the email and I had no right to ask for it since it is technically none of my business. But I appreciate knowing how the story was going to play out. I thought it was interesting that Paul's response hewed so closely to Simon's post (I believe it was Simon's post . . .). I agree with the decision, but not so much the rationale. If Paul opened it up to all owners who wanted a "fix" and all owners opted in, it would be a nightmare. So offering a refund instead of a "repair" is the best solution. One crazy idea I had that wasn't surfaced anywhere was allowing customers to deal directly with the printer/binder and then all risk is transferred to the owners and the binder. But that's also crazy.
I'll just be over here sipping my tea and waiting for that artist edition.
Leave a comment: