Little Book Series 3

[Martin]

Ok thanks. I just sent a response to my order email asking for the lowest possible number available.

Mindy will take care of you!

[Martin]

I wonder if the variable number situation going on is the publishers methodology to avoid the issue experienced with the Joe Hill book.

[Marmaduke Grigsby]

I wonder if the variable number situation going on is the publishers methodology to avoid the issue experienced with the Joe Hill book.

I suspect that may be the case.

On another note, the middle initial "R" has been removed from the cover on the BP ordering page now.

https://www.borderlandspress.com/sho...YfT2IsmP2iLOc4

[Splync]

I suspect that may be the case.

On another note, the middle initial "R" has been removed from the cover on the BP ordering page now.

https://www.borderlandspress.com/sho...YfT2IsmP2iLOc4

What issue happened with the Joe Hill one? Accidentally oversold?

Also, it just doesn't look right without that middle R now... ;-)

[Martin]

What issue happened with the Joe Hill one? Accidentally oversold?

Also, it just doesn't look right without that middle R now... ;-)

The publisher oversold and rather than cancelling the units they oversold they cut allocations to third party sellers like CD. This forced the third party sellers to cancel and refund orders, disappointing their customers. My understanding is that they have ensured that they will not do that again.

[Martin]

So this is the first time I have collected a complete series of Little books. The variable numbers made me curious so I check the set so far. I have number 272. The books in this series have had limitations of 350, 500 and 600 so far. For those who have prior series, is this normal?

[dannyboy121070]

Things like this REALLY annoy me. As part of a set, a LONG-running set, the limitation # should not, in my opinion, be increased. Part of the allure of collecting a set like this is the possibility of one or two books in the set being in high demand, thus creating a rare, valuable book, an in-demand collectible. (I say this as someone who has sold MAYBE five books in my lifetime, so I'm not in this to flip books and make a profit.) I was banned from buying books from Subterranean back in the Shocklines days for complaining when they increased the run on an already-published Joe Hill book, so this is a sore spot from way back for me. The limitation should stay at 500, and Borderlands should print a trade edition for anyone else who wants one. (Even THAT would annoy me.) What good is a limited-edition, if you can jack up the limitation any time you feel like it?

[bookworm 1]

Things like this REALLY annoy me. As part of a set, a LONG-running set, the limitation # should not, in my opinion, be increased. Part of the allure of collecting a set like this is the possibility of one or two books in the set being in high demand, thus creating a rare, valuable book, an in-demand collectible. (I say this as someone who has sold MAYBE five books in my lifetime, so I'm not in this to flip books and make a profit.) I was banned from buying books from Subterranean back in the Shocklines days for complaining when they increased the run on an already-published Joe Hill book, so this is a sore spot from way back for me. The limitation should stay at 500, and Borderlands should print a trade edition for anyone else who wants one. (Even THAT would annoy me.) What good is a limited-edition, if you can jack up the limitation any time you feel like it?

Are you still banned from buying books from Subterranean Press? That seems a little over board. People complain about books all the time.

[swintek]

"Things like this REALLY annoy me. As part of a set, a LONG-running set, the limitation # should not, in my opinion, be increased. Part of the allure of collecting a set like this is the possibility of one or two books in the set being in high demand, thus creating a rare, valuable book, an in-demand collectible. (I say this as someone who has sold MAYBE five books in my lifetime, so I'm not in this to flip books and make a profit.) I was banned from buying books from Subterranean back in the Shocklines days for complaining when they increased the run on an already-published Joe Hill book, so this is a sore spot from way back for me. The limitation should stay at 500, and Borderlands should print a trade edition for anyone else who wants one. (Even THAT would annoy me.) What good is a limited-edition, if you can jack up the limitation any time you feel like it?"

Are you still banned from buying books from Subterranean Press? That seems a little over board. People complain about books all the time.

This is valid criticism. And, well-stated. I totally get it. As someone who usually advocates for as many copies as book lovers want (rather than manufactured rarities), I personally don't have much of a problem with increasing print runs, but I absolutely understand those who do. An agreement is made when we pony up the funding for the project, and there are terms for our capital being used. Some people won't care too much if those terms are changed, but others certainly will.

And, Like bookworm _ I agree about the Subpress ban, and would hope that Bill was having a bad week and eventually let you back in?

[Martin]

"Things like this REALLY annoy me. As part of a set, a LONG-running set, the limitation # should not, in my opinion, be increased. Part of the allure of collecting a set like this is the possibility of one or two books in the set being in high demand, thus creating a rare, valuable book, an in-demand collectible. (I say this as someone who has sold MAYBE five books in my lifetime, so I'm not in this to flip books and make a profit.) I was banned from buying books from Subterranean back in the Shocklines days for complaining when they increased the run on an already-published Joe Hill book, so this is a sore spot from way back for me. The limitation should stay at 500, and Borderlands should print a trade edition for anyone else who wants one. (Even THAT would annoy me.) What good is a limited-edition, if you can jack up the limitation any time you feel like it?"



This is valid criticism. And, well-stated. I totally get it. As someone who usually advocates for as many copies as book lovers want (rather than manufactured rarities), I personally don't have much of a problem with increasing print runs, but I absolutely understand those who do. An agreement is made when we pony up the funding for the project, and there are terms for our capital being used. Some people won't care too much if those terms are changed, but others certainly will.

And, Like bookworm _ I agree about the Subpress ban, and would hope that Bill was having a bad week and eventually let you back in?

I think if a publisher banned me from buying books from them there would be no need to let me back in. I would gladly not purchase there products going forward.

[Marmaduke Grigsby]

The books in this series have had limitations of 350, 500 and 600 so far.

Like you, I only have Series III and those are all 500 or 600 so far, excepting the McCammon volume which will apparently be 750. (Don't forget the Ramsey Campbell volume was increased from 350 to 500.) I am also curious about Series I and Series II limitations.

[jeffingoff]

Like you, I only have Series III and those are all 500 or 600 so far, excepting the McCammon volume which will apparently be 750. (Don't forget the Ramsey Campbell volume was increased from 350 to 500.) I am also curious about Series I and Series II limitations.

Every book in Series II has a stated limitation of 500. So far in Series III the same limitation applies with the following exceptions:
750 for McCammon
600 for Ligotti and Kiernan
The Campbell has a print run of 500 even though there are sig sheets that state 350.

As Martin has stated, I think this is the result of the Hill kerfuffle. I think Tom's trying to solve a problem. I guess some might feel that he's also causing new ones. Though I don't have an issue with certain volumes getting larger runs--the folks who are buying the books numbered 501-750 can't have a matching set, so that's the trade-off for those who are cherry picking. It might lower the value of individual books to have more in the run, but it won't lower the value of a matching set of the complete series. And all his Little Books are selling out (except for that Mort Castle one). So it seems to be working.

[dannyboy121070]

No, we kissed and made up a few years later. It wasn't much of a ban, since I was able to buy any books that I really wanted from Shocklines.

[RonClinton]

Every book in Series II has a stated limitation of 500. So far in Series III the same limitation applies with the following exceptions:

As Martin has stated, I think this is the result of the Hill kerfuffle. I think Tom's trying to solve a problem. I guess some might feel that he's also causing new ones.

Yes. Whatever the issue Tom is trying to address, it would have been far better in my opinion to wait until the Series 3 set is done and increase the limitation across the board for the Series 4 set. If a publisher is going to present these books as incremental sets (1, 2, and 3 thus far), complete with slipcases, then there is an expectation (for me, at least) that there be consistency within the sets' limitation, that they share a certain cache of desirability and uniformity. Gauge better what the market demand will be and set it at that with the first volume...more risk, yes, but more customer reward in the long run, rather than increase or decrease dependent on the particular author. To be up and down in limitation within a set is disappointing. I've been collecting too long to be either surprised or annoyed any longer by publishers' actions -- I know I always have the ability to tap out -- yet it's still disappointing just the same...but <shrug> it is what it is.

[Martin]

Yes. Whatever the issue Tom is trying to address, it would have been far better in my opinion to wait until the Series 3 set is done and increase the limitation across the board for the Series 4 set. If a publisher is going to present these books as incremental sets (1, 2, and 3 thus far), complete with slipcases, then there is an expectation (for me, at least) that there be consistency within the sets' limitation, that they share a certain cache of desirability and uniformity. Gauge better what the market demand will be and set it at that with the first volume...more risk, yes, but more customer reward in the long run, rather than increase or decrease dependent on the particular author. To be up and down in limitation within a set is disappointing. I've been collecting too long to be either surprised or annoyed any longer by publishers' actions -- I know I always have the ability to tap out -- yet it's still disappointing just the same...but <shrug> it is what it is.

I completely agree with your sentiments.