Stephen King "Lettered" Editions-Define

[skyofcrack]

Are AAA-ZZZ lettered?
To a purist, only A-Z are lettered. Everything else should be considered important and valuable, but nothing compares to 1-26 (or less-see Danse Macabre).

As long as their are fewer lettered copies than numbered copies. I agree, it should be 26 maximum.

[Mr. Rabbit Trick]

26 maximum lettered for me.

[herbertwest]

A-Z, AA-ZZ are lettered.
PC is PC and not lettered.
Numbered is numbered and not lettered.

PC copies are extras for artist, author, etc...not part of the run.

To the point of first editions, I consider the first appearance of any story: short, novella, novel to be a first edition. I don't consider galley, proof or ARC's since they are promotional tools for review purposes. The exceptions are The Plant (which was signed/numbered and lettered but also given away) and DT7 ARC (which is signed/numbered). The first edition of The Plant 4-6 was the download in 2000. Firsts of short stories are in magazines, fanzines, books, etc...not the collection later on. Night Shift is a first but most of the stories are reprints.

Why would you count DT7 ARC?
It is what it says : an ARC, therefore a promotional tool, numbered or not (recently the limited UK proofs are numbered), signed or not.

[skyofcrack]

A-Z, AA-ZZ are lettered.
PC is PC and not lettered.
Numbered is numbered and not lettered.

PC copies are extras for artist, author, etc...not part of the run.

To the point of first editions, I consider the first appearance of any story: short, novella, novel to be a first edition. I don't consider galley, proof or ARC's since they are promotional tools for review purposes. The exceptions are The Plant (which was signed/numbered and lettered but also given away) and DT7 ARC (which is signed/numbered). The first edition of The Plant 4-6 was the download in 2000. Firsts of short stories are in magazines, fanzines, books, etc...not the collection later on. Night Shift is a first but most of the stories are reprints.

Why would you count DT7 ARC?
It is what it says : an ARC, therefore a promotional tool, numbered or not (recently the limited UK proofs are numbered), signed or not.

Yes, it's promotional but there are only 100 an it's numbered.

Everybody has their own rules of collecting.

[herbertwest]

I would disagree with your classification of it being the first edition because it is 100 copies. The UK proofs of DOCTOR SLEEP & REVIVAL are numbered. Does that make them first edition? For me, proofs/ARC/galleys, are not first editions, even if signed, even if numbered.
Na.
Not IMO.

[skyofcrack]

I would disagree with your classification of it being the first edition because it is 100 copies. The UK proofs of DOCTOR SLEEP & REVIVAL are numbered. Does that make them first edition? For me, proofs/ARC/galleys, are not first editions, even if signed, even if numbered.
Na.
Not IMO.

I was unclear. I don't consider ANY proofs, ARC's as firsts. I just want those in my collection whereas I don't normally collect those books.

Does that make sense?

[jhanic]

I would disagree with your classification of it being the first edition because it is 100 copies. The UK proofs of DOCTOR SLEEP & REVIVAL are numbered. Does that make them first edition? For me, proofs/ARC/galleys, are not first editions, even if signed, even if numbered.
Na.
Not IMO.

I was unclear. I don't consider ANY proofs, ARC's as firsts. I just want those in my collection whereas I don't normally collect those books.

Does that make sense?

I agree. Just because the ARCs and proofs came out before the trade editions, I don't think anyone would consider them first editions. A first edition, in my opinion, is the first book that is offered for sale to the public.

John

[ap275]

IMO, there are first appearances, such as magazine publications and first editions, which would be first publications in a book format. Regardless what country it was printed in, if was printed in a trade book form first it is a first edition. Then there would be a format distinction, a book can be first printed in paperback, which then would be a first edition and then printed in hardcover, which would be a first hardcover edition of the title. Proofs are not first editions, neither are limited editions unless they were published first or would be first hardcover publication of a novel originally published in paperback.

I would disagree with your classification of it being the first edition because it is 100 copies. The UK proofs of DOCTOR SLEEP & REVIVAL are numbered. Does that make them first edition? For me, proofs/ARC/galleys, are not first editions, even if signed, even if numbered.
Na.
Not IMO.

I was unclear. I don't consider ANY proofs, ARC's as firsts. I just want those in my collection whereas I don't normally collect those books.

Does that make sense?

I agree. Just because the ARCs and proofs came out before the trade editions, I don't think anyone would consider them first editions. A first edition, in my opinion, is the first book that is offered for sale to the public.

John

[herbertwest]

I would disagree with your classification of it being the first edition because it is 100 copies. The UK proofs of DOCTOR SLEEP & REVIVAL are numbered. Does that make them first edition? For me, proofs/ARC/galleys, are not first editions, even if signed, even if numbered.
Na.
Not IMO.

I was unclear. I don't consider ANY proofs, ARC's as firsts. I just want those in my collection whereas I don't normally collect those books.

Does that make sense?

It does

[Randall Flagg]

Bump. Still a great subject for discussion/debate.

[Cook]

Bump. Still a great subject for discussion/debate.

Man Jerome, you were such a dick to me back then...

[Randall Flagg]

Bump. Still a great subject for discussion/debate.

Man Jerome, you were such a dick to me back then...

Funny you say that. As I read the thread this morning, I thought the same thing. Not just you, but others too.
As much as I was "a dick", you were a bit of a "pussy". You'd never take that shit today.

[Hunchback Jack]

I think previous posts in the thread more or less capture my opinion on this topic, but here's my 2c:

• Editions with a letter that are intended to be part of the official limited run (the one of 26 or one of 52 or whatever) are lettered editions.
• It is not necessary for the state of the book to be different from the corresponding signed limited edition, if one exists. If it has a letter, is it a lettered edition, even if the book is identical to the signed limited edition is every other respect.
• PC copies of the lettered state are "PC copies of the lettered edition" but are not true lettered editions. However, I would argue that they should be, in all aspects other than the replacing of the letter with "PC", "Publisher", etc., identical to the lettered edition, including signatures, traycases, etc. Otherwise, they are not "PC copies of the lettered edition"
• Any edition with a numbered limitation, including a roman numeral, is a signed limited.
• If there are multiple numbered editions by the same publisher of the same title with different states or limitations, then the fancier/rarer state should be considered a "deluxe signed limited" or some other designation, but not a "lettered edition". (eg. The Windup Girl from SubPress)
• A PC copy of a S/L edition state is most definitely *not* a lettered edition.
• A copy of the lettered state lacking signature, signature sheet, or some other physical part of the lettered edition such as slipcase or traycase, is probably a manufacturer's "second", and not considered a limited or lettered edition in any way.

[Randall Flagg]

Very well thought out post.

[Hunchback Jack]

Thanks, Jerome.

(I have books in all of these various states, so I've spent way too much time thinking about this)

HBJ

[biomieg]

Minor pet peeve of mine: when discussing numbered vs. lettered editions, don’t designate the numbered edition as ‘the signed limited’. Both editions are limited so you always need to state whether it’s the numbered or lettered S/L edition gou are referring to

[Hunchback Jack]

Minor pet peeve of mine: when discussing numbered vs. lettered editions, don’t designate the numbered edition as ‘the signed limited’. Both editions are limited so you always need to state whether it’s the numbered or lettered S/L edition gou are referring to

Good point.

[biomieg]

Sorry for the typo BTW (I’d silently edit it but you already quote-preserved it for eternity)

[lotuz]

Neat thread!

As far as defining a “lettered” edition, I'll say that I agree with most of HBJ's points:

I think previous posts in the thread more or less capture my opinion on this topic, but here's my 2c:

• Editions with a letter that are intended to be part of the official limited run (the one of 26 or one of 52 or whatever) are lettered editions.
• It is not necessary for the state of the book to be different from the corresponding signed limited edition, if one exists. If it has a letter, is it a lettered edition, even if the book is identical to the signed limited edition is every other respect.
• PC copies of the lettered state are "PC copies of the lettered edition" but are not true lettered editions. However, I would argue that they should be, in all aspects other than the replacing of the letter with "PC", "Publisher", etc., identical to the lettered edition, including signatures, traycases, etc. Otherwise, they are not "PC copies of the lettered edition"
• Any edition with a numbered limitation, including a roman numeral, is a signed limited.
• If there are multiple numbered editions by the same publisher of the same title with different states or limitations, then the fancier/rarer state should be considered a "deluxe signed limited" or some other designation, but not a "lettered edition". (eg. The Windup Girl from SubPress)
• A PC copy of a S/L edition state is most definitely *not* a lettered edition.
• A copy of the lettered state lacking signature, signature sheet, or some other physical part of the lettered edition such as slipcase or traycase, is probably a manufacturer's "second", and not considered a limited or lettered edition in any way.

There are two points that don’t quite feel right together, for ill-defined reasons:

• If it has a letter, is it a lettered edition, even if the book is identical to the signed limited edition is every other respect.
• PC copies of the lettered state are "PC copies of the lettered edition" but are not true lettered editions.

Basically, it doesn’t sit well with me that an edition that is identical to a numbered edition, but is labeled with a letter instead of a number, is a “true” lettered edition, but an edition that surpasses the numbered edition in production quality (e.g., finer binding, traycase, etc.) but is labeled with PC instead of a letter is somehow “less than” a lettered edition. That said, I don’t even disagree with those points! It just feels funny. Part of this is because I don’t understand why books like the lettered Gunslinger sell for such a premium over their numbered counterparts. Granted, it seems to be an 80s/90s thing to have the same state of a book designated in different ways, and one that hasn’t held up over time, so maybe that squabble is trivial.

Also, from my personal collecting standpoint (YMMV), I am much more interested in the general production characteristics and qualities of a book than the designation on the limitation page. I happily collect PC editions, and in some cases prefer them (for example, in cases where it is not possible to match a “set” of books, I’d prefer to have all PC copies than unmatched numbers/letters). And if a publisher wants to use Roman Numerals or astrological signs or letters to designate a deluxe state, I don’t have a strong preference (as long as they are consistent!).

This leads into my second point, which is that letters are mostly just designators of a certain state these days, and the state is more important than the designation (in my view). I think you could categorize most books with the following hierarchy:

-1. Prototypes (usually designated as “prototype” or “dummy” or something else)
0. ARC/Proof (usually not designated but sometimes numbered, lately)
1. Ultra-deluxe Limited (generally 15 or fewer copies)
2. Deluxe Limited (26/52 copies)
3. Standard Limited (<1000 copies)
4. Artist/Gift/Publisher Edition (>1000 copies)
5. Trade Hardcover (>2000 copies)

I wasn’t sure where to put Prototypes and Proofs, or even to include them at all, but I like the idea that numbers less than 1 designate books that generally aren’t for public sale, and that their production generally precedes the others.

Generally 1-3 are signed, sometimes 4, so I think it’s appropriate to refer to all of these as "signed limited editions" (this is the one point where I disagree with HBJ’s original list, but which biomieg cleared up).

The number of copies is just a general guess, not set in stone – the important part is the relationship of the states to each other, and the fact that a letter/number/numeral/astrological sign is simply a designation within one or more of those states. Using the Gunslinger example above, I would argue that all 52 Lettered, 500 Numbered, 12 Publisher’s, 40 Author’s, 10 Artist’s and 25 or less Presentation Copies are six different designations within the same state - 3. Standard Limited.

My personal collecting philosophy compels me to try to obtain all the different states of any book that I really like, as well as particularly well-crafted books of any state, which makes it easier for me to not worry about some things (a lettered Gunslinger) and harder for me to not worry about others (a lettered Regulators)…

Anyway, this is a great example of a fun discussion that one can only have with fellow collectors because the rest of the world simply doesn’t care (their loss). I look forward to more opinions 8)

[Hunchback Jack]

Some interesting points you raise!

Neat thread!
There are two points that don’t quite feel right together, for ill-defined reasons:

• If it has a letter, is it a lettered edition, even if the book is identical to the signed limited edition is every other respect.
• PC copies of the lettered state are "PC copies of the lettered edition" but are not true lettered editions.

Basically, it doesn’t sit well with me that an edition that is identical to a numbered edition, but is labeled with a letter instead of a number, is a “true” lettered edition, but an edition that surpasses the numbered edition in production quality (e.g., finer binding, traycase, etc.) but is labeled with PC instead of a letter is somehow “less than” a lettered edition.

I know what you mean. I had to think for a while before I was happy with both of those points.

The question I come back to when categorizing books is: how would I describe them clearly and honestly if I were selling them on eBay? For the first category above, I would have no problem with describing it as a lettered edition. With the second, I would feel the need to add the qualification that it is a PC copy.

I consider my PC lettered editions to be lettered editions. I keep them on my lettered edition shelves. I order all my lettered editions by author and series; I don't separate the PC from the true. I enjoy them as much as I would a true lettered edition - like you, I also value them for the quality and craftsmanship, not the letter itself. But I still clearly distinguish them - whenever I talk about them - from a true lettered, just as I would distinguish a signed book from an unsigned book. Because it matters from a collecting standpoint.

... the important part is the relationship of the states to each other, and the fact that a letter/number/numeral/astrological sign is simply a designation within one or more of those states. Using the Gunslinger example above, I would argue that all 52 Lettered, 500 Numbered, 12 Publisher’s, 40 Author’s, 10 Artist’s and 25 or less Presentation Copies are six different designations within the same state - 3. Standard Limited.

I can see where you're coming from, but I don't think it's that simple. Sometimes the rarity or desirability of a particular designation is so different from the others, that it effectively becomes a different state from a collecting standpoint, where the number of copies with that designation becomes its own "print run" or limitation. Look at the red vs black copies of Salem's Lot. Or, potentially, the red vs black numbered copies of Misery.

Now, I'm not saying that those editions stop being "numbered editions" just because of ink color, but the difference in designation is critical. So I don't think it's unreasonable to consider an edition to contain both lettered and numbered editions, even if the only difference is designation, because the rarity of the designation is significant.

I'm not saying the value of the lettered edition should be any higher than the numbered, mind you. But just that the designation alone is enough for the lettered edition to qualify as such.

[lotuz]

OOOOOOOO HBJ you have me thinking now

First:

The question I come back to when categorizing books is: how would I describe them clearly and honestly if I were selling them on eBay? For the first category above, I would have no problem with describing it as a lettered edition. With the second, I would feel the need to add the qualification that it is a PC copy.

This is a good point, and it highlights the difference between how I feel about a book, and how I would describe it to another party. I would definitely include the fact that a book had a designation of PC, and I think if someone didn’t, that would be dishonest. And I would describe a lettered Gunslinger as a “lettered” edition, but I wouldn’t include in the listing “this book is identical in its composition in every way to all other signed editions of this book” even though that’s true. And I wouldn’t do it because I would fear that it would affect the ultimate selling price – so that’s a clear bias right there.

And this second point is fair as well:

I can see where you're coming from, but I don't think it's that simple. Sometimes the rarity or desirability of a particular designation is so different from the others, that it effectively becomes a different state from a collecting standpoint, where the number of copies with that designation becomes its own "print run" or limitation. Look at the red vs black copies of Salem's Lot. Or, potentially, the red vs black numbered copies of Misery.

In this case I could see two different reasons for desirability:

1. Completist collecting
2. Provenance

1. Being a completist is definitely something I struggle with as a collector. There are two different publishers for which I strive to own every state of every book published (an impossible task for one, and improbable task for the other). And I still haven’t settled internally whether I think that a different designation within the same state counts. I really, really want to say “no” because (a) it’s the differences in the physical composition of the books that makes them more interesting – different bindings, different endpapers, etc., and (b) it’s easier and cheaper. And so that’s where I’ve ended up with my collecting, which also jives with my philosophy of aesthetic appreciation, of really enjoying the book as an object of art. But if my resources were unlimited, I could almost certainly convince myself that I really needed all the designations of all the states.

2. The issue of provenance is, I think, the more interesting one! One thing about signed limited editions versus signed trade editions is that for signed limited editions, the author only ever interacts with one sheet of paper, whereas for signed trade editions, the author interacts with the whole book, and maybe even decides to add an inscription or a remarque or something unique. For trade editions, I definitely subscribe to the theory that the more words an author writes, the better, and if the inscription is not to me personally, the more important the designee is to the author, the better. In a similar way, I can see “added value” to a book because it came from the author’s personal stock of that edition, as opposed to a public sale.

In the case of DT1, I think the premium for some of the designations of the book that are signed and not numbered is kind of nuts. A more interesting copy, to me, is one of the ones that came up for sale not too long ago that was also signed by Grant, or one that has an additional note from either King or Whelan. But that’s just my particular collecting bias, and I also recognize that it’s an incredibly important book for SK collectors and the start of a pretty monumental work. So I agree with your ultimate conclusion:

Now, I'm not saying that those editions stop being "numbered editions" just because of ink color, but the difference in designation is critical. So I don't think it's unreasonable to consider an edition to contain both lettered and numbered editions, even if the only difference is designation, because the rarity of the designation is significant.

I'm not saying the value of the lettered edition should be any higher than the numbered, mind you. But just that the designation alone is enough for the lettered edition to qualify as such.

The last note I’ll make in this post is that reasons 1 and 2 drive up the price in different ways, which is kind of interesting. Reason 1 drives up the price because some collectors have odd habits and the limited number of books causes bidding wars for collectors with these habits. Reason 2 is that added value is placed on the chain of ownership of an individual book. And they overlap, of course!

[Mr. Rabbit Trick]

IMO PC = Publisher's Cheating

They have as many as 50 "PC Lettered" editions as well as the official 52 Lettered copies. A certain publishing company who have a thread on here have dozens of PC copies of their books.

[herbertwest]

Arent those "extra copies" also to help in the case that there would be issues with copies (being lost etc)?

[Mr. Rabbit Trick]

Arent those "extra copies" also to help in the case that there would be issues with copies (being lost etc)?

One or two yes.

[Hunchback Jack]

I don't have a problem with publishers making extra copies, and I could believe that for a lettered edition, they might have up to half the print run in extras, to deal with all the things that might happen. It's way cheaper to do that up front than to have to go back to the manufacturer to make extra copies after the fact. I also understand why they might sell them after the fact, too, to recoup the cost.

I don't think the presence of PC copies devalues the lettered edition itself. I think it would be a different story if a publisher released them later as true lettered copies, thereby increasing the size of the official print run.