General Asylum

Posted by Neil49 (A) on November 11, 2011 at 22:26:54

In Reply to: RE: Interesting indeed---a business model based on ripping off from both ends: posted by mwhitmore on November 11, 2011 at 09:53:29

as far as their physical qualities, and the case for them being worthless (to collectors) can't always be assumed.

"Finally, many booksellers assume that most BOMC editions are inferior in quality to their trade counterparts - this was and remains most definitely the case with the BOMC's primary competitor, the Literary Guild - but it's not often understood that BOMC editions were different animals in this respect. Even after the BOMC took over publishing themselves (July, 1930), with few exceptions they adhered to a policy of producing books that were equal in format and quality to the original publisher's books. In some cases, in fact, binder's boards were superior in quality. And talk about complexity - there were instances when trade publishers ran off their own editions simultaneously with BOMC's in the same plants! And here - how does one even begin to nail down edition state??? But even when trade and BOMC books were printed in different plants, great care was taken by the BOMC to duplicate trades. This is an important point to keep in mind because in part it explains why collectors find BOMC editions of collected authors desirable and, conversely, Literary Guild, Doubleday Book Club, et al editions not."

• http://www.bookthink.com/0005/05bce2.htm   (Open in New Window)

Edits: 11/12/11