Let's Talk About Covers . . .

Welcome to the Sir Terry Pratchett Forums
Register here for the Sir Terry Pratchett forum and message boards.
Sign up
Jul 27, 2008
19,425
3,400
Stirlingshire, Scotland
#21
No! that's a first edition as it starts from 1 to10 (1 3 5 7 9 10 8 6 4 2) same as if it started at 0 to 9 thats a full set of run numbers in both cases, when it starts with a zero it only goes to 9 when it starts with a 1 goes to 10.
 

stst

New Member
Jun 26, 2015
10
1,250
#23
Right. For first editions I get it (I think).
Still unclear why they are not running in order, but it is more important to understand these:
37 39 40 38 36
Can I tell which eddition is it?
It is not that I need particularly these, I'm trying to understand the logic behind the numbering they use..
 

raisindot

Sergeant-at-Arms
Oct 1, 2009
5,125
2,450
Boston, MA USA
#24
Ooooo....this topic is stirring up the astral plane, and I feel the presence of a adorably curmudgeonly departed member entering me and takng over my keyboard fingers.....


Poohcarrot said:
All those numbers inside the covers mean absolutely nothing to me because I have every single first edition and proof in multiple formats locked inside a titanium vault and surrounded by sharks at the bottom of the Sea of Japan bwa ha ha ha ha ha ha haaa!
 

=Tamar

Lieutenant
May 20, 2012
11,959
2,900
#26
stst said:
For first editions I get it (I think).
Still unclear why they are not running in order, but it is more important to understand these:
37 39 40 38 36
Can I tell which edition is it?
The edition number is given separately. Sometimes it will say "First edition" or "second edition" but later ones often just say "First published by [company name]" and it's up to you to notice whether the publisher's name on your copy matches the first publisher.

The lowest number in the number line tells which printing it is. A first edition would have a number line including the number one. If the one is gone and the lowest number is 2, then it's a second printing. It can be a first edition and a 37th printing, considerably less valuable than a first edition, first printing would be.
The number line you gave, 37 39 40 38 36, would mean it was a 36th printing.
 

stst

New Member
Jun 26, 2015
10
1,250
#27
Thank you!
Actually I wanted to know, because I just like to know things.. not that I'm interested in the first editions (for being first editions, first printings, etc.. for me only the "correct" covers are important).
And @raisindot: I'm not sure that I understand it all, but it is very funny :)
 
Sep 13, 2015
11
1,750
70
Bristol
#28
Hi Everyone,im not sure if this constitutes a cover but il try anyway.
The last two Discworld Diares were to say the least very disapointing,the covers could of looked much better,given that old rough look,so it actualy looked like an old book-but they look cheap,im sorry to say,i think the covers or front cover is a big part of the big,not only from a selling point of view but a personal view,Lucy
 

=Tamar

Lieutenant
May 20, 2012
11,959
2,900
#29
The diaries can be used as a real diary or datebook, but most people get them as souvenirs; as you say, the cover is a big part of the effect. A deliberately created "used" look can add to the charm if it works with the theme of the diary. (The Igors diary could have been made to look stitched together, for instance.) I haven't seen the Witches diary in person but I'm not fond of the thumbnail photos I've seen online. I don't like the artist's image of the witches. I hope it looks better close up.
 

Paul_C

New Member
Apr 27, 2019
3
50
67
#30
I've had these two copies of Eric sitting on my shelf for years. Notice that one has the silvered / blueish text missing. Just wondering if these are common? I had already read the normal one when I saw the other in the shelf in Smiths and just bought it as it was unusual.
 

=Tamar

Lieutenant
May 20, 2012
11,959
2,900
#32
The author's name (on the one that has it) looks slightly faded; is that a trick of the photograph?
If it has faded, perhaps the ink was light-sensitive and the other one was in full sun for a while. Otherwise I have no idea how they could have left the author's name off the front.
 

Paul_C

New Member
Apr 27, 2019
3
50
67
#35
I've just dug it out of the back of the bookcase. My correct copy has Terry's name in a slightly embossed reflective blue. Bought in April 1992 detailed as a fourth impression, December 1991. The faulty one is an eighth impression, December 1993. I didn't note inside when I bought it. Terry's name is on the spine in black. Interestingly the cover price went from £2.99 to £3.99.
 

=Tamar

Lieutenant
May 20, 2012
11,959
2,900
#36
I once had a t-shirt with some kind of goldish stuff making the design. It lasted for years until someone bought a different detergent, then it was gone in one wash, leaving only the substrate the gold had been stuck to. I wonder if something like that was used for one printing. In any case, it's an amusing odd-one-out to have.
 

User Menu

Newsletter