ARCs

[Brian861]

Extremely new to the collecting game and I hope this is the correct forum to post this question. Do ARCs hold more value over the finished limited/signed/numbered/letter editions of books? Eye balling a few on eBay and don't want to overpay if they aren't that big a deal. Thanks.

[Theli]

Some do some don't. It Depends on the author, the age, if they are signed, the print run of the ARC, and the popularity of the book itself. I haven't quite hopped on board the ARC collecting train, at the moment it's enough for me to try to get 1st editions and/or limited editions. I may grab the odd ARC of novels I really enjoy in the future, but not yet.

[Theli]

Hopefully John (jhanic) pops by with some input, he's quite the collector of Stephen King ARCs. There's very few people more knowledgeable than him on the subject.

[Brian861]

Ok thanks. Is it safe to assume this also applies to PCs?

[jhanic]

Here I am, popping in!

In general, ARCs/proofs are not worth more than the signed limited versions of the various Stephen King books (who is virtually the only author I collect), but that all depends on the book itself, the number of ARCs issued, etc. as Theli points out. There are a number of ARCs that have gone for much more than the book, however, due to their scarcity. A good example of this is the ARC/proof of King's Cell. A very few (less than 10) of this proof are in collectors' hands. To find one for less than $1000 is a good deal. But the US proof of Rose Madder goes for well under $50 (there were about 10,000 of these done.) Another example is the CD Anniversary publication of IT. Two versions of this proof exist--one the interoffice proof (red) and the "regular" proof with the Orbik cover. Because of the iconic status of the book, the interoffice proof went for $850 and the Orbik proof went for almost $500 from a recent sale at Betts books. Fewer than 12 of the interoffice proof were done, and about 20 of the Orbik one were published.

Many of the older proofs (such as the Doubleday "long" proofs) go in the thousands of dollars. A beat-up copy of the Doubleday Stand sold on eBay recently for almost $4800. This is because they are so scarce. (I don't own any of them).

A set of the six Green Mile proofs went for $6900 from Betts. According to my notes, fewer than 25 of proof #1 were done, and between six and ten of #6 were released. (I've heard that King wanted the proof of #6 destroyed to avoid releasing the ending. Some did get out, though.)

When it comes to ARCs/proofs of the UK editions, much the same "rules" are in effect. Many of the more current King ARCs from Hodder & Stoughton (King's UK publisher) are numbered, starting with 2006's publication of Lisey's Story. Many of these UK proofs are issued in quantities of 250 or less.

To see pictures of the proofs/ARCs I own, check out:

http://www.thedarktower.org/palaver/...-jhanic-proofs

To see the most up-to-date listing of US and UK proofs, check out:

http://www.thedarktower.org/palaver/...en-King-Proofs

I try to keep this listing as current as I can.

If you have any questions, please PM me. I'll be glad to answer if I can.

John

[Theli]

PCs are generally less valuable than their numbered/lettered alternatives, though that's not always the case, and rarely significantly cheaper, maybe say 10% cheaper on average. I actually think PC copies are pretty cool. I feel like there's a bit more history to them than their numbered and lettered brethren. I guess the thought behind it is that most PC copies are technically not "unique" in the sense that there is only one number 257 in a print run of 1000, or letter V in a lettered set, for example, while there tends to be more PC copies, maybe 10 or 15, maybe more, maybe less. But to me it's almost like PC is a separate print run, it's not quite the numbered or lettered, and sometimes it is reflected in the way they are made, maybe missing a signature, or have an additional signature for example.

[Brian861]

Wow John!! Color me impressed. Thanks for the info guys. Appreciate it.

[TJCams]

I have an ARC question, although not necessarily King related, but just in general.

Is there any more value for a "regular" trade edition ARC of a book, if it goes on to win an award? I ask this, because I have and ARC of The Three Body Problem I won from Tor - and this book just recently won a Hugo Award for best novel. Is there really any way to know?

[Dan Hocker]

I have an ARC question, although not necessarily King related, but just in general.

Is there any more value for a "regular" trade edition ARC of a book, if it goes on to win an award? I ask this, because I have and ARC of The Three Body Problem I won from Tor - and this book just recently won a Hugo Award for best novel. Is there really any way to know?

The only real way to know the value of something is to look at what people have previously sold them for.

[RonClinton]

In general and certainly for the most part, ARCs and PC editions are not only not worth more but typically far less than their signed/numbered or 1st ed. counterpart. There are a few who collect them, but most collectors have little to no interest in them, unless perhaps they are completists for a particular author and must have anything bearing their name (ardent King or GRRM collectors come to mind...here you have supply and demand in play, given that there is a small supply of ARCs and a large number of King and GRRM collectors...99.99999% of authors do not have that fan demand). Along w/ the lack of unique number as mentioned above, another issue limiting the value and desirability of PC editions is that there is no telling how many PC editions are out there...could be a few, could be a lot. Dark Harvest is reported to have issued a large number of PC editions and sold them privately to make add'l $$ on the downlow, since the author was not paid for PC copies (but signed a large number of signature sheets without numbering identification)...or so I've heard. As far as awards: Winning an award also bestows little add'l value, if any, unless perhaps it's a Pulitzer; genre awards do not typically have that cache to boost demand (and thus shorten supply) to the degree that value increases. If there is an award-based boost in demand, it'll be for the 1st edition / 1st printing (or limited, if there is one), not the ARC which, again, fundamentally has a very small collector base to begin with.

[Dan Hocker]

In general and certainly for the most part, ARCs and PC editions are not only not worth more but typically far less than their signed/numbered or 1st ed. counterpart. There are a few who collect them, but most collectors have little to no interest in them, unless perhaps they are completists for a particular author and must have anything bearing their name (ardent King or GRRM collectors come to mind...here you have supply and demand in play, given that there is a small supply of ARCs and a large number of King and GRRM collectors...99.99999% of authors do not have that fan demand). Along w/ the lack of unique number as mentioned above, another issue limiting the value and desirability of PC editions is that there is no telling how many PC editions are out there...could be a few, could be a lot. Dark Harvest is reported to have issued a large number of PC editions and sold them privately to make add'l $$ on the downlow, since the author was not paid for PC copies (but signed a large number of signature sheets without numbering identification)...or so I've heard. As far as awards: Winning an award also bestows little add'l value, if any, unless perhaps it's a Pulitzer; genre awards do not typically have that cache to boost demand (and thus shorten supply) to the degree that value increases. If there is an award-based boost in demand, it'll be for the 1st edition / 1st printing (or limited, if there is one), not the ARC which, again, fundamentally has a very small collector base to begin with.

Though it could be argued that an ARC is a more limited true first edition, since they are typically printed long before the actual first edition ever way. I would probably argue that if the first edition / first printing of a book as any collectors value (most of the time they don't) then the ARC of said collectors item is worth more than the first printing. That said most 1st / 1st's don't have any value and in fact only go down in value from when they are published. This is however only referring to "Trade" editions and not limited editions.

[Brian861]

Extremely new to the collecting game and I hope this is the correct forum to post this question. Do ARCs hold more value over the finished limited/signed/numbered/letter editions of books? Eye balling a few on eBay and don't want to overpay if they aren't that big a deal. Thanks.

Replying to my original post here. What I have deemed personally in my very young collecting venture is that the value of any collection should start with the collector first, not what he/she can sell it for down the road. But at the same time, you don't want to overpay or get scammed by any means. I commend you guys for some of the awesome collections that you have amassed and the time and money spent to acquire them. It would take me years and way more money and effort to "catch up" then I'm willing to spend. That being said, I'm a sucker for anyone looking to reduce their lot . As far as ARCs. I think the current auction for CD's 'Salem's Lot is an excellent example of what these things can go for. King fans are fanatical and the winning bid will reflect that handsomely .

[RonClinton]

Though it could be argued that an ARC is a more limited true first edition, since they are typically printed long before the actual first edition ever way. I would probably argue that if the first edition / first printing of a book as any collectors value (most of the time they don't) then the ARC of said collectors item is worth more than the first printing. That said most 1st / 1st's don't have any value and in fact only go down in value from when they are published. This is however only referring to "Trade" editions and not limited editions.

Well, I suppose it could theoretically be argued that an ARC is a first-edition and/or first printing because it was printed first, but that'd be playing with semantics. By that thinking, manuscripts are the true first-edition. ARCs are not first editions by any book seller's description or collector's measure, nor are even earlier versions like galley proofs, uncorrected proofs, manuscripts, etc.; they are all for all practical and real purposes distinct from first editions/printings. For that matter, the fact that editorial, punctuation, etc. changes can and sometimes do change from the proof(s) or ARC to the first edition/printing, it solidifies the fact that the true first edition/printing is the final product as arguably intended by the collaborative efforts of the author and publisher and thus is the true first edition in the truest sense of the concept and label.

Whether that's why ARCs are frowned upon by the vast majority of collectors, I've no idea. I don't at all care for them, but for me it goes beyond that conceptual difference.

[Dan Hocker]

Well, I suppose it could theoretically be argued that an ARC is a first-edition and/or first printing because it was printed first, but that'd be playing with semantics. By that thinking, manuscripts are the true first-edition. ARCs are not first editions by any book seller's description or collector's measure, nor are even earlier versions like galley proofs, uncorrected proofs, manuscripts, etc.; they are all for all practical and real purposes distinct from first editions/printings. For that matter, the fact that editorial, punctuation, etc. changes can and sometimes do change from the proof(s) or ARC to the first edition/printing, it solidifies the fact that the true first edition/printing is the final product as arguably intended by the collaborative efforts of the author and publisher and thus is the true first edition in the truest sense of the concept and label.

Whether that's why ARCs are frowned upon by the vast majority of collectors, I've no idea. I don't at all care for them, but for me it goes beyond that conceptual difference.

I think it probably more comes down to the fact that an ARC is typically a different format than the actual first editions. ARC's are typically just paperbacks where the first editions are hardcovers. I don't really think the editorial stuff really matters though, as changes in that respect are often made between the first and second printing.

Either way I think it holds true that if a first edition has collecting value, the arc of that first edition probably does as well, and in most cases is probably more valuable then the actual first edition itself, just due to scarcity. As I stated earlier though almost all first editions don't actually have a collectors market value though. Really though at the end of the day it all depends on the book and how much of a collectors market there is for that author.

[RonClinton]

I think it holds true that if a first edition has collecting value, the arc of that first edition probably does as well, and in most cases is probably more valuable then the actual first edition itself, just due to scarcity.

I'd agree with the former -- that an ARC for a valuable 1st will have a comparatively higher value than an ARC for 1st w/ little to no value -- but disagree with the latter, at least based on my experience over the last few decades. There may certainly be exceptions, though, but I'd argue that they are few and far between.

As I stated earlier though almost all first editions don't actually have a collectors market value though. Really though at the end of the day it all depends on the book and how much of a collectors market there is for that author.

True. In fact, the entire bookcollecting market for 1sts has softened, genre and otherwise. Until recently, American fic./lit. collectible firsts had a pretty good track record, but save for a particular few renowned authors, even that market has softened to a not insignificant degree. Very unfortunate to see.