![[The] Silmarillion; book-collecting minutiae](https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEi7NXZeS-e6C3roxz2c7UWFEcUEINpMfgDkihMCeoVgjBGA-K9_wE7HmJ0J5LSIJqNm8fDVUqJ5HOvdvgIHgPctu9xPEx_CjPUqrXJEyd5Q-ftA4tlo6NhRx3V9JZl-IBbGvIvBQVjE9GFyKMqd_JrWwkLEqMMbhG2m3Q3FQuyhnjhlhdpebGxovD9adS1H=s456)
The Silmarillion — Clowes First State (Paper Binding Variant) (1977)
 |
NOTE: For an introduction and more detailed overview of CLOWES' primary role in the typesetting and printing of The Silmarillion please read earlier companion post (link below).
The Clowes First State (Paper Binding Variant) is the second Clowes first state variant—setting aside the non-standard 1982 Collector's Edition (and ignoring the Clowes Dummy)—identified: published by GEORGE ALLEN & UNWIN (GA&U), printed by WILLIAM CLOWES & SONS, first impression, all textual errors present (first state), top page-edge dyed, decorative headband. In almost all respects identical to the Clowes First State (Cloth Binding Variant); see companion post for more detail of bibliographical points. The alternative board covering (or paper “binding”) raises a number of questions; jacket pricing and distribution of copies also (again) calls into question the usefulness of the ubiquitous ‘export’/‘domestic’ label in respect to priority.
Companion Article:
In 1977, four different printing companies were entrusted with the task of printing the first edition of The Silmarillion. As part of the book design process GA&U—in consultation with their printers (including CLOWES)—would have chosen the type of paper for the printing the text, board covering materials (the casing), the option of decorative features (dyed pages and headbands), and so on; to say nothing of dustjacket production. While printed matter would be (or aim to be) identical, there would also be a requirement for books produced by different printers, but all published by GA&U, to be of uniform appearance. Since all four printers produced cloth-covered casings for their impressions—typical of GA&U at this time (dummy copies were similarly cloth-covered)—it would seem safe to conclude that GA&U only ever intended to produce trade copies of The Silmarillion in cloth-covered boards. Decorative features were clearly optional; not all copies feature, for example, headbands.
That both BOOK CLUB ASSOCIATES (BCA) book club ‘editions’ (printed and bound by WILLIAM CLOWES & SONS and UNWIN BROTHERS) have paper-covered boards—I have never personally seen a cloth-covered BCA copy—further supports the theory that paper-covered boards were viewed as distinctly inferior and were not the covering of choice for GA&U's trade copies; a legacy of the requirement to clearly differentiate book club copies from trade copies, but possibly not a requirement for those issued by simultaneous book clubs, as was the case with BCA and The Silmarillion in 1977. For more detail see Clowes Book Club article.
 |
| Decorative features: dyed page-edges and headband |
Why, then, did CLOWES produce first state (text) GA&U copies—there is nothing to suggest these are anything other than standard trade copies—in paper-covered boards, which also exhibit decorative headbands and dyed top page-edges? And where does the Clowes First State (Paper Binding Variant) sit in the larger family of CLOWES printed copies?
In Descriptive Bibliography Hammond & Anderson state that CLOWES (and three other printers) were ‘working in blocks of 50,000 copies’. During this ‘continuous production’ (pre-publication) CLOWES produced (at least) five distinct variants: the Clowes First State (Cloth Binding Variant) and its closely related binding variant the Clowes First State (Paper Binding Variant); the Clowes Intermediate Second State and the Clowes Book Club (both second state); and finally the Clowes Second Impression (third state). This list excludes the non-standard 1982 Collector's Edition and Clowes Methuen binding variants, both of which were also printed at this time.
 | |
|
At no fewer than two points, therefore, CLOWES must have paused (or stopped) printing in order to correct errors to the text (presumably under the direction of the publisher), producing the three textual states identified. The additional variation of binding states (producing combinations of different binding and textual states), rather than being indicative of a complicated sequence of planned printing and binding steps, with further pauses/stops in production—something that would presume to integrally link printing and binding processes at CLOWES (which is not clear, but entirely possible, perhaps even likely)—is perhaps more suggestive of the indiscriminate binding of printed stock. But as stated previously, without knowledge of the specific press and prepress equipment used by CLOWES in 1977, it remains difficult to say, with certainty, the order of production steps; guesswork and speculative comment inevitably follow.
In the previous companion post, I stated that ‘at best guess it feels safe to assume that at least the first 50,000 copies printed by CLOWES must represent the Clowes First State (Cloth Binding Variant) here described.’ Taking into account the number of Clowes variants identified, the final impression total quoted by Hammond & Anderson (of 300,000 excluding book club copies), and the reported order total for export to Canada alone (see Clowes Methuen entry)—it would seem likely that CLOWES were responsible for the production of at least two ‘blocks of 50,000 copies’ i.e. 100,000 copies (or more). The proportion of copies featuring either cloth- or paper-covered boards, within this (or any other) total, remains unclear. Whether two blocks (of 50,000 copies) printed by CLOWES represent Hammond & Anderson's stated initial print order of 100,000, or whether the other printers (particularly BILLING & SONS) had already been engaged at this early stage, remains an open question.
I have three copies of the Clowes First State (Paper Binding Variant). The first copy that I acquired—my privately named ‘Concetto Review Copy’ (S.093)—is interesting for several reasons: it is a review copy, it was distributed in the UK, the jacket is priced.
 |
 |
The fact that this particular Clowes First State (Paper Binding Variant) would appear to have been distributed post-publication tells us nothing about when it was printed and bound. CLOWES corrected the text, creating the second state, no later than the end of August (see previous discussion here); both Clowes First State binding variants must, therefore, have been printed before this, between late April and August 1977. But why two GA&U/trade binding variants emerged from this initial production period, and whether this was intentional, remains unclear. Priority is, likewise, unclear and undetermined. Of the two other copies of this variant that I possess, one (S.164) is identical to the ‘Concetto Review Copy’ (although not a review copy), the other copy (S.134) is identical but has an unpriced jacket. Who is talking about Clowes first impression ‘domestic’ variants? No one.
The export priority fallacy.
In 1977, GA&U exported UK first edition copies of The Silmarillion to locations outside of the UK; they did this primarily to Commonwealth countries like Canada, Australia and New Zealand, South Africa, etc. There would be no requirement to export books to the US, who were to print their own edition. This export distribution model is not being called into question; although, I do not believe there is much (if any) published information on GA&U's practises, in this regard, during the 1970s. These books are ‘export’ copies—Rayner Unwin's ‘special export editions’ (Remembrancer p. 259)—by virtue of having been distributed outwith the UK. This is the only factor that should define them as such.
With this in mind, I think the labelling of individual books as ‘export’ copies (particularly retrospectively), without any evidence of said distribution, should be avoided; I believe it now serves no useful purpose, beyond unfounded superior priority claims. Variants are defined (by me) as books displaying variation in bibliographical points (features). And while (to quote myself) the ‘rationale behind unpriced books for export markets is a sound one in principle’, confirmation of export status by jacket pricing only is presumptive. To take this further and assign (or vaguely imply) priority is mostly conjecture. The claim does not need to be made. If anything is pointless, it is claims of printing priority on this basis. Many booksellers and collectors continue to make these claims.
In the Clowes First State (Cloth Binding Variant) companion post I presented the cloth variant—for reasons of clarity of discussion (more than anything else)—as essentially an unpriced variant in all instances. Dustjackets exist independently of books, are printed separately (possibly even by different printing companies), and are (while certainly linked) separate objects/subjects for bibliographical description; there is also the possibility of later non-publisher (origin) jacket substitution. The Clowes First State (Paper Binding Variant) has been noted in both priced and unpriced jackets. Would it be surprising to encounter a Clowes First State (Cloth Binding Variant) in a priced jacket? Probably not. So, again, one should question the logic of proclaiming priority on the basis of dustjacket pricing only, and ask why this is given so much weight in collecting circles; bearing in mind, also, that hundreds of thousands of copies were printed over at least four months (pre-publication).
With a great many—you could argue, most—Clowes First State copies of The Silmarillion, how they were originally distributed (and to what market) is unknown or at best unclear. If you have a David Fielder UK distributed ‘Concetto Review Copy’ then great, use that ‘domestic’ tag; if you bought your copy in Canada in September 1977, then you can justifiably claim to hold in your hands an ‘export’ copy. But that priced jacket is not the determinant; just like that unpriced jacket is not an invitation for “true first” priority claims. Let us not get started on declarations of rarity or scarcity either.
Also on SILMARILLION MINUTIAE
.jpeg)
Comments
Post a Comment