Let's Talk About Covers . . .
- Thread starter Tonyblack
- Start date
Thank you Tony!
So people, I'm a Pratchett fan for a while now.. but just recently got obsessed with the covers as well.
I've started reading all story lines for all series in English (have done it already in Bulgarian for most of the books), and noticed some changes in the covers.
In the "Top 10 favourite Josh Kirby covers", Tonyblack mentioned that all before Night Watch were Josh Kirby's work.
And here's the thing - there are Corgi editions of the books with the art covering both front and the back of the cover.. or at least until "The Truth" ("The Fifth Elephant" was the last one with both front and back covers used for the picture?).
"The Truth" is however having the picture on the front cover and only small additions on the back (the annotation is bigger?).
Can someone confirm that? Do you know why they changed the (imho) nice look of the books, with this prosy (yet with different colour (if I'm not mistaken)) cover design?
So people, I'm a Pratchett fan for a while now.. but just recently got obsessed with the covers as well.
I've started reading all story lines for all series in English (have done it already in Bulgarian for most of the books), and noticed some changes in the covers.
In the "Top 10 favourite Josh Kirby covers", Tonyblack mentioned that all before Night Watch were Josh Kirby's work.
And here's the thing - there are Corgi editions of the books with the art covering both front and the back of the cover.. or at least until "The Truth" ("The Fifth Elephant" was the last one with both front and back covers used for the picture?).
"The Truth" is however having the picture on the front cover and only small additions on the back (the annotation is bigger?).
Can someone confirm that? Do you know why they changed the (imho) nice look of the books, with this prosy (yet with different colour (if I'm not mistaken)) cover design?
Don't mind either. The wraparound covers are iconic of the Discworld series for me, but the drawback is that the text (blurbs, titles, other descriptions) get in the way as you're trying to take in the weird details, and you have to look them up elsewhere. Meanwhile, the tidier covers suffer less from that problem.
That is true - blurbs and texts get in the way and maybe black covers are more subtle, but I like the wraparounds better.
Where do you think I can find the old covers? I've collected most of them, but 4-5 are still nowhere to be found.. (in the local bookstores). Booksellers say things like "These editions are out of print.. These are the covers (the new ones).." and stuff
I'm looking for a brand new copies (no need to be first edition or something.. as long as it is Corgi and with a wraparound cover design).
Where do you think I can find the old covers? I've collected most of them, but 4-5 are still nowhere to be found.. (in the local bookstores). Booksellers say things like "These editions are out of print.. These are the covers (the new ones).." and stuff
I'm looking for a brand new copies (no need to be first edition or something.. as long as it is Corgi and with a wraparound cover design).
And one more thing.. it seems that they are reprinting the most recent novels as well.. for example today I saw this cover:
http://www.amazon.co.uk/The-Truth-Discw ... B00354YA3G
on a Corgi edition, while I think the (first?) edition was with this cover:
http://www.lspace.org/ftp/images/bookco ... ruth-1.jpg
http://www.amazon.co.uk/The-Truth-Discw ... B00354YA3G
on a Corgi edition, while I think the (first?) edition was with this cover:
http://www.lspace.org/ftp/images/bookco ... ruth-1.jpg
It can be really annoying, especially if you are trying to build a collection where all the copies are the same format.
They have recently started to bring out paperbacks that are slightly larger 200mm x 130mm as opposed to 180mm x 105mm. It's a nightmare for collectors.
Then there were the special Unseen Library editions See Here. Which a lot of people signed up to, but then stopped being made before they completed the series.
The "Black" paperback editions. See Here.
And the hardback "Collector's Library" editions. See Here.
I guess it comes down to what you are prepared to pay.
They have recently started to bring out paperbacks that are slightly larger 200mm x 130mm as opposed to 180mm x 105mm. It's a nightmare for collectors.
Then there were the special Unseen Library editions See Here. Which a lot of people signed up to, but then stopped being made before they completed the series.
The "Black" paperback editions. See Here.
And the hardback "Collector's Library" editions. See Here.
I guess it comes down to what you are prepared to pay.
I just go with whatever's there at the time, though most of mine are the classic wrap-around sort.
As much as my Terry Pratchett shelf looks like crazy paving, I've never gotten one of those bigger ones with the plainer covers, though. They just look wrong to my eyes, like a lot of stuff that should be there is missing, and not in the kinda-artsy minimalist style the black covers or collector's library editions are. Ugh.
Never heard of those Unseen Library editions before. Nice.
As much as my Terry Pratchett shelf looks like crazy paving, I've never gotten one of those bigger ones with the plainer covers, though. They just look wrong to my eyes, like a lot of stuff that should be there is missing, and not in the kinda-artsy minimalist style the black covers or collector's library editions are. Ugh.
Never heard of those Unseen Library editions before. Nice.
@Who's Wee Dug - is your copy with the logo on the top? Mine is a reprint..
@Tonyblack - is yours an reprint as well?
And while we are on the subject.. the printing history is kind of awkward for me.. I can't understand it, maybe you have some insight?
On another book (but this is true for all reprints (the book is Equal Rites, with the new design.. like this: http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/9 ... L1500_.jpg))
I have this as a history:
PRINTING HISTORY
Victor Gollancz edition published 1987
Corgi edition published 1987
37 39 40 38 36
Now these five numbers have me wondering - do you know what they mean?
@Tonyblack - is yours an reprint as well?
And while we are on the subject.. the printing history is kind of awkward for me.. I can't understand it, maybe you have some insight?
On another book (but this is true for all reprints (the book is Equal Rites, with the new design.. like this: http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/9 ... L1500_.jpg))
I have this as a history:
PRINTING HISTORY
Victor Gollancz edition published 1987
Corgi edition published 1987
37 39 40 38 36
Now these five numbers have me wondering - do you know what they mean?
Stst! I don't have any of the p/backs mine are all hardbacks.
The numbers you have listed are the print/impression edition's, IE if it was a first it might have numbers 0- 9 or 1-10 not always running in order. Which while still a first edition it may have it starting at 1-9
Shows that it's a 1st edition but 2nd impression. If I was indoors on my desktop I could show you examples but I'm out having a beer.
The numbers you have listed are the print/impression edition's, IE if it was a first it might have numbers 0- 9 or 1-10 not always running in order. Which while still a first edition it may have it starting at 1-9
Shows that it's a 1st edition but 2nd impression. If I was indoors on my desktop I could show you examples but I'm out having a beer.
Here's another thing about the covers. Although I personally dislike the Josh Kirby covers because of the style, I noticed a while back that most of them have a hidden image, like the pictures by Arcimboldo. Arcimboldo specialized in making pictures of people that were actually pictures of heaps of fruit and objects. They used the human tendency to see a shape in a heap of objects and see it as a face. When I look at a Kirby cover, if I take off my glasses and blur the image I can find the hidden face. It's most obvious to me in the cover for Feet of Clay, but I've found it in almost all of them. To some extent, Darrell K.Sweet used to do that in at least some of the American paperback covers. Sometimes it's easiest to see in a thumbnail image.
In order to get the shapes right for the effect, the artists had to do odd things to the characters, which explains some of the weirdnesses.
I still prefer the simple iconic covers, but I wanted to point this out because they went to so much trouble to do it, I think it ought to be known.
ETA: Paul Kidby seems to be continuing with the concept.
In order to get the shapes right for the effect, the artists had to do odd things to the characters, which explains some of the weirdnesses.
I still prefer the simple iconic covers, but I wanted to point this out because they went to so much trouble to do it, I think it ought to be known.
ETA: Paul Kidby seems to be continuing with the concept.
@Who's Wee Dug and pip: so
1 3 5 7 9 10 8 6 4 2 (this is another book)
means second reprint of the fifth edition?
@Tonyblack: which means that they have put the logo on the bottom of the spine intentionally? Maybe there is something in the picture that they didn't want to be hidden by the logo.
@=Tamar: I was hoping that when I put each book to each other in a row, the spines of the books will make a picture..
but I will check your explanation of the hidden picture and will try to find one
1 3 5 7 9 10 8 6 4 2 (this is another book)
means second reprint of the fifth edition?
@Tonyblack: which means that they have put the logo on the bottom of the spine intentionally? Maybe there is something in the picture that they didn't want to be hidden by the logo.
@=Tamar: I was hoping that when I put each book to each other in a row, the spines of the books will make a picture..
but I will check your explanation of the hidden picture and will try to find one
