Sock Monkey's Collection

[jeffingoff]

when can we expect the "unboxing" video?

Today!

[pumpheel]

Today!

Just saw it.....very entertaining. Looks like a beautiful book!

[jeffingoff]

Just saw it.....very entertaining. Looks like a beautiful book!

Thanks! One of the very few Lettered editions I own and I think it's a stunner.

[RonClinton]

New video? I’m off to YT!

OK, back. Congrats to both of you on the lettered eds., it’s truly a beautiful book. I agree, Jeff, the double sig page is a little odd, but it certainly doesn’t detract from the beauty of the book. By the way, I wouldn’t leave that sticky note on your traycase…the residue of the glue will eventually stain the case’s leather/leatherette material...just toss it. Also saw the Nightworms unboxing…sorry to see the Malerman’s book was a dinged second printing...that’s really unfortunate.

[jeffingoff]

New video? I’m off to YT!

OK, back. Congrats to both of you on the lettered eds., it’s truly a beautiful book. I agree, Jeff, the double sig page is a little odd, but it certainly doesn’t detract from the beauty of the book. By the way, I wouldn’t leave that sticky note on your traycase…the residue of the glue will eventually stain the case’s leather/leatherette material...just toss it. Also saw the Nightworms unboxing…sorry to see the Malerman’s book was a dinged second printing...that’s really unfortunate.

Yeah I threw out the sticky note. You know, I wonder if DRP used the same printer that Gauntlet used for their lettered edition of Rusty Puppy. Both books are leather-bound and very square on their spines. They look soooo similar. And the letters of both books were announced via sticky notes. I own DRP's lettered Off Season and the traycase is a lot different--I don't recall seeing a sticky note either. But the paper and other materials in Bird Box are MUCH nicer. The paper in Rusty Puppy is like a dimestore paperback. I think the double signature is because DRP used the exact same book block for the numbered and the lettered--right down to the signature page--only adding the Lettered limitation page and endpapers for the Lettered. If you see on the second signature page, there's a little line where the handwritten number appears in the numbered edition. It's blank in the lettered. I considered putting a G there. Then reconsidered.

And the Night Worms packaging was a real downer. I think that dust jacket was destroyed as they put the book in the envelope. They probably crammed it in last. And that corner looks awful--that probably happened in transit. When you cut corners, corners get smashed. But it turns out it's not a second printing. Someone in a Facebook group did a little investigating and they said that's how this imprint indicates a first printing--by starting with the number 2! Weird, and suspect, but the print run is irrelevant when the book looks chewed.

[Martin]

Yeah I threw out the sticky note. You know, I wonder if DRP used the same printer that Gauntlet used for their lettered edition of Rusty Puppy. Both books are leather-bound and very square on their spines. They look soooo similar. And the letters of both books were announced via sticky notes. I own DRP's lettered Off Season and the traycase is a lot different--I don't recall seeing a sticky note either. But the paper and other materials in Bird Box are MUCH nicer. The paper in Rusty Puppy is like a dimestore paperback. I think the double signature is because DRP used the exact same book block for the numbered and the lettered--right down to the signature page--only adding the Lettered limitation page and endpapers for the Lettered. If you see on the second signature page, there's a little line where the handwritten number appears in the numbered edition. It's blank in the lettered. I considered putting a G there. Then reconsidered.

And the Night Worms packaging was a real downer. I think that dust jacket was destroyed as they put the book in the envelope. They probably crammed it in last. And that corner looks awful--that probably happened in transit. When you cut corners, corners get smashed. But it turns out it's not a second printing. Someone in a Facebook group did a little investigating and they said that's how this imprint indicates a first printing--by starting with the number 2! Weird, and suspect, but the print run is irrelevant when the book looks chewed.

There are a few publishers that never print the 1 on the print line. The printing you have is one before the lowest number listed. I hate that.

[bsaenz24]

There are a few publishers that never print the 1 on the print line. The printing you have is one before the lowest number listed. I hate that.

They should be taken out back and beaten!!!

[No actual publishers were harmed in the making of this comment]

[Brian861]

There are a few publishers that never print the 1 on the print line. The printing you have is one before the lowest number listed. I hate that.

Random House did/does that as well.

[RonClinton]

But the paper and other materials in Bird Box are MUCH nicer. The paper in Rusty Puppy is like a dimestore paperback. I think the double signature is because DRP used the exact same book block for the numbered and the lettered--right down to the signature page--only adding the Lettered limitation page and endpapers for the Lettered. If you see on the second signature page, there's a little line where the handwritten number appears in the numbered edition. It's blank in the lettered. I considered putting a G there. Then reconsidered.

Funny enough, I did look for the empty number line on the second sig page, but couldn't make it out in the video, so assumed it wasn't what I suspected it might be. That's kinda too bad as it then comes off as a very fancy unnumbered-but-lettered edition rather than a unique-to-itself lettered edition, if you get what I mean. I understand why they do that, though, i.e. using the same book blocks, and it's no different than CD now using a good deal of digital art courtesy of KPB rather than original painted art...or Gauntlet using apparently cheaper paper and not utilizing proofreading and etc. (I just returned a Gauntlet book for a refund, my first return in thirty-plus years of collecting)...and other publishers' various methods of cutting of corners in production and design. I get it: it's expensive to produce and distribute a book these days, and many of these publishers are still selling books at the $40'ish price that they were a couple decades ago (but yet costs have certainly not remained static). So I get why they feel measures like this are necessary, but if taken too far (ala Gauntlet) it does diminish the product, and even where the shortcuts are less egregious like in the case of this book block issue, it's still a reminder of the publishers' struggle to balance cost and profit, and some, frankly, do it better than others.

And the Night Worms packaging was a real downer. I think that dust jacket was destroyed as they put the book in the envelope. They probably crammed it in last. And that corner looks awful--that probably happened in transit. When you cut corners, corners get smashed. But it turns out it's not a second printing. Someone in a Facebook group did a little investigating and they said that's how this imprint indicates a first printing--by starting with the number 2! Weird, and suspect, but the print run is irrelevant when the book looks chewed.

I believe they are correct. I didn't look up the publisher, of course, at the time of viewing the video, but with your comment in mind, I checked to see who the publisher is, and it's Del Rey, according to Amazon. Del Rey is an imprint of Random House, whose first-edition points are:

States "First Edition" on the first printing; does not indicate subsequent printings. In recent years, added a number row beginning or ending with "2," i.e., "First Edition/24689753," to first editions, and removed the first edition statement from subsequent printings (e.g., "24689753" without a first edition statement would indicate a second printing). Note: For printings beyond the 10th, Random House adds a "1" to the number line and a letter to its center so that, for instance, "2468B97531" would indicate an 11th printing.

...so, yes, it appears to be a first-edition, under the assumption than Del Rey, an imprint of Random House, utilizes the same Random House points (which I really can't speak to with certainty one way or the other, but it would seem likely).

[jeffingoff]

Funny enough, I did look for the empty number line on the second sig page, but couldn't make it out in the video, so assumed it wasn't what I suspected it might be. That's kinda too bad as it then comes off as a very fancy unnumbered-but-lettered edition rather than a unique-to-itself lettered edition, if you get what I mean. I understand why they do that, though, i.e. using the same book blocks, and it's no different than CD now using a good deal of digital art courtesy of KPB rather than original painted art...or Gauntlet using apparently cheaper paper and not utilizing proofreading and etc. (I just returned a Gauntlet book for a refund, my first return in thirty-plus years of collecting)...and other publishers' various methods of cutting of corners in production and design. I get it: it's expensive to produce and distribute a book these days, and many of these publishers are still selling books at the $40'ish price that they were a couple decades ago (but yet costs have certainly not remained static). So I get why they feel measures like this are necessary, but if taken too far (ala Gauntlet) it does diminish the product, and even where the shortcuts are less egregious like in the case of this book block issue, it's still a reminder of the publishers' struggle to balance cost and profit, and some, frankly, do it better than others.



I believe they are correct. I didn't look up the publisher, of course, at the time of viewing the video, but with your comment in mind, I checked to see who the publisher is, and it's Del Rey, according to Amazon. Del Rey is an imprint of Random House, whose first-edition points are:

States "First Edition" on the first printing; does not indicate subsequent printings. In recent years, added a number row beginning or ending with "2," i.e., "First Edition/24689753," to first editions, and removed the first edition statement from subsequent printings (e.g., "24689753" without a first edition statement would indicate a second printing). Note: For printings beyond the 10th, Random House adds a "1" to the number line and a letter to its center so that, for instance, "2468B97531" would indicate an 11th printing.

...so, yes, it appears to be a first-edition, under the assumption than Del Rey, an imprint of Random House, utilizes the same Random House points (which I really can't speak to with certainty one way or the other, but it would seem likely).

Sucks about that Gauntlet edition. That could have been SUCH an amazing book.

And yeah, what you wrote about Random House matches what was discussed in the Facebook group. Interestingly, I have an Inspection ARC and the number 1 does appear in the number line below the words FIRST EDITION. I think in that way it might make the proofs more collectible.

[Dan Hocker]

For what it's worth pretty much everyone uses the same book blocks for the limited / lettered edition books, unless the interior design is different. Usually though it would just be the same book block with just a different signature sheet bound into the block.

[RonClinton]

For what it's worth pretty much everyone uses the same book blocks for the limited / lettered edition books, unless the interior design is different. Usually though it would just be the same book block with just a different signature sheet bound into the block.

Right -- sorry, that's what I meant...same book blocks but a substitution of the sig page so that the numbered and the lettered have unique (and sole) sig pages.

[Sock Monkey]

Thanks! One of the very few Lettered editions I own and I think it's a stunner.

Congratulations on adding this to your collection as well. This is one good looking book. Now I'm kinda bummed I missed out on Ketchum's Offspring from DRP to match my lettered of Off Season. I'm hoping one will turn up on the aftermarket.

[Sock Monkey]

So I've been kicking myself for a number of years for passing on the lettered edition of World War Z by Max Brooks. I almost pulled the trigger when CD announced it but decided not to due to the high price tag. Ever since I've been keeping an eye out for a one at a good price. And I finally snagged one on Ebay for only $99! As usual, the quality from CD is top notch and I'm very happy to add this to my collection!

IMG_2008 (2).jpg
IMG_2009 (2).jpg
IMG_2010 (3).jpg
IMG_2011 (2).jpg

[Brian861]

Congrats, Keith! How did that thing turn out that we're not supposed to talk about?