US vs UK editions - do you prefer the edition produced in the author's home country?

[fleggett]

I realize this wasn't the thrust of your original post, but the UK editions sometimes surpass that of their US counterparts. The limited of Under the Dome is a prime example. The S&S edition was, well, to put it politely, a bit of a letdown given its high $200 MSRP. For example, many of us thought it would at least come with a ho-hum slipcase based on some publicity wording of features, but nope, nada, nothing. And the signature page was just that - a flatsigned signature page with no limitation information (in reality, it was limited to 1,500 copies). Whereas the Hodder & Stoughton edition (through Waterstone's) was superior at roughly the same price (£100) - all the features of the S&S edition except for a dustjacket and belly band, but with a great slipcase and an actual limitation page (S/N of 500). I eventually wound-up purchasing a third-party slipcase from The Collector, but, of course, would rather S&S had manufactured one of their own. The huge downside to the H&S edition was the criminally negligent packing job Waterstone's did, which resulted in quite a few damaged copies for US buyers. Mine was literally falling out of the box when it was delivered, but against all odds arrived intact.

Anyway, just something to consider if you're into collecting King limiteds (or any limiteds, for that matter).

[theenormityofitall]

One thing about UK editions, is that the cover art is almost always better no matter who the author is. And of course, the lower print run should make it more valuable, especially if it's the world's first edition. Having said that though, a man that is a very famous bookstore seller of all things King, told me the other day via email, that King signed US editions are more valuable than UK signed editions

His exact words:

sometimes there are fewer signed regular trade editions than limited editions. And UK books usually are always worth less than those in the US. The UK Bag of Bones (numbered 1-2000) can be found for $125-$140 if you look hard enough. A regular signed US trade edition still sells for more than that.

The fewer signed versions should be worth more than a lot of limiteds because almost anyone can get one of those if they want one bad enough. The flatsigned trades often times cost more than actual limited editions. Bag of Bones for example, the US version, can go for $200 or more. And of course, it also depends if a limited edition was actually done for a particular King book.

[gcgirl]

Ultimately, I don't care THAT much, but sometimes an Americanization of language is just too noticeable, and it grates on my nerves. For some books it doesn't really matter, but for stories SET in Britain, it annoys me to have a character saying "flashlight" instead of "torch." I think it's just because I'm prone to noticing language that it bothers me. It takes me out of the moment and I start thinking about publishing houses and why/how they decide to change things, and lose track of the story.

But I'm a dorky language geek.

[frik51]

One thing about UK editions, is that the cover art is almost always better no matter who the author is.

I don't really agree, but this did give me an idea for a new topic...

sk

[RonClinton]

One thing about UK editions, is that the cover art is almost always better no matter who the author is. And of course, the lower print run should make it more valuable,

Those are the two reasons I prefer UK HCs over US HCs, when given the choice. 'Course, the cheap paper that many of the UK publishers use tends to age/tan some, offsetting those two pluses a bit.

[Dave1442397]

I have some of the UK King paperbacks from the '80s, and the cover art is beyond horrible. They were going for a 'look' that would make all the books look similar in a display rack, and that involved lots of shiny gold foil and awful artwork.

[theenormityofitall]

Those are the two reasons I prefer UK HCs over US HCs, when given the choice. 'Course, the cheap paper that many of the UK publishers use tends to age/tan some, offsetting those two pluses a bit.

Yeah, lol the paper Headline used in the 90's was horrific. I bought a couple Headline HCs on eBay recently from R. Laymon, and the yellow "sides" looked like someone blew nicotine on them constantly for a couple years...no excuse for that! Lucky for me, all the signed Laymon HCs I bought way back then for about $50-55 bucks a piece, look like they were published yesterday since I kept them all sealed in plastic bags. I'm assuming even if you have books from then with all the yellowing, they would be worth virtually the same as mine? It's not the buyers fault....how could he know Headline (and I think WH Allen too) used such crappy paper?

[theenormityofitall]

I don't really agree, but this did give me an idea for a new topic...

sk

What ones in the US did you think looked better than UK editions? Of course, it depends on both the publisher and author, but I always thought the Laymon and King UK DJs were much better looking than the US editions, but they're put together cheap, that's the only problem (and the yellowing..but I don't think that happens anymore).

[theenormityofitall]

I have some of the UK King paperbacks from the '80s, and the cover art is beyond horrible. They were going for a 'look' that would make all the books look similar in a display rack, and that involved lots of shiny gold foil and awful artwork.

Hmmmm...don't know much about the 80's ones from Britain. I just know the Headline Laymon books from the late 80's and early 90's looked fantastic, and the Mylar cover just adds to the beauty.
But the only Grant edition I was missing concerning the DT books, was the first one (which everyone missed); I have it somewhere around here as a UK first edition trade paperback...the cover is kinds cheezy.

[peteOcha]

I have some of the UK King paperbacks from the '80s, and the cover art is beyond horrible. They were going for a 'look' that would make all the books look similar in a display rack, and that involved lots of shiny gold foil and awful artwork.

The Hodder & Stoughton UK editions of King's books were just plain horrible, although I do own several (when you have no choice you take what you can). It's these I'm talking about:


Thankfully, their 2011 lineup has been redone and now looks like this: (much better IMO)

[frik51]

What ones in the US did you think looked better than UK editions?

I'll post some of my US favorites once I'm back home again, late next week.

sk

[RonClinton]

Yeah, lol the paper Headline used in the 90's was horrific. I bought a couple Headline HCs on eBay recently from R. Laymon, and the yellow "sides" looked like someone blew nicotine on them constantly for a couple years... I'm assuming even if you have books from then with all the yellowing, they would be worth virtually the same as mine? It's not the buyers fault....how could he know Headline (and I think WH Allen too) used such crappy paper?

Yeah, those are the ones I'm primarily referring to. I have a full run of Laymon HCs w/ lots of Headline HCs, and the older ones in particular have noticably tanned over time (and it hasn't been that long!). WH Allen was indeed another such publisher; I have a few of theirs as well that look just as bad as the Headlines. I suspect, given the choice, a buyer would rather have a whiter copy than a tanned copy, so if somehow someone was able to have whiter paper (maybe, like you, kept it relatively air-tight) it might be worth a bit more...though probably not much. As you said, it's just a typical/common feature of books from that publisher, not a defect.

[theenormityofitall]

Yeah, those are the ones I'm primarily referring to. I have a full run of Laymon HCs w/ lots of Headline HCs, and the older ones in particular have noticably tanned over time (and it hasn't been that long!). WH Allen was indeed another such publisher; I have a few of theirs as well that look just as bad as the Headlines. I suspect, given the choice, a buyer would rather have a whiter copy than a tanned copy, so if somehow someone was able to have whiter paper (maybe, like you, kept it relatively air-tight) it might be worth a bit more...though probably not much. As you said, it's just a typical/common feature of books from that publisher, not a defect.

Yeah, mine are literally pure white. I was shocked at how badly the Laymon books looked. I knew they used sub-par paper, but not that bad.

[frik51]

What ones in the US did you think looked better than UK editions?

I'm only referring to the UK/US King HCs, as those are the only editions I buy - both of them. Way back in the eighties/nineties, King's UK publisher was on a roll resulting in some amazingly effective covers, much more so than their US counterparts.
Lately, however, King's US covers are better by far; the UK cover's up first:

[frik51]