Overstreet Goofs? 0

[Timely]

On 7/14/2018 at 8:19 AM, Timely said:

Actually, the 1st atomic explosion was at a test site. They hoisted the bomb up on old oil well cranes in the middle of nowhere and then dropped it. Perhaps that is part of the confusion as well.

 

Google Trinity Test site!

Atomic bomb Trinity test site images.

 

 

[SOTIcollector]

The Overstreet listing for Seduction of the Innocent has had numerous errors for years.  The information had been incorrect for some time, so years ago I wrote to them with a slew of corrections.  They implemented some of the corrections, but other parts of the entry they "fixed" to add new errors.  I opted not to write them back to say "you got this right, but you got so many more things wrong."

The listing correctly states that there are two mid-1950's US editions of the book, and that a few copies of the first printing survived with the bibliography intact, but most do not have the bibliography.

However, here's what's wrong with the listing:

- They list two different dust jackets with two different prices for the first print with bibliography and for the first print without bibliography.  However, it's the same jacket, so it seems absurd to me to imply that the price of a standalone dust jacket is different depending on whether it was removed from a "first state" (with bibliography) or "second state" (without bibliography) book.  More likely, they intended to list a separate price for the Second Printing dust jacket, but instead listed it in the wrong place and with the wrong description.

- They conflated the U.S. Second Printing with the U.K. first printing, by listing some attributes of each in this listing for a book that doesn't actually exist.  If they take out the text I listed in purple, and remove the text with the strikethrough, then they'll have a more accurate description of the US Second Printing:  "(2nd Version) - Published in England by Rinehart, 1954, 399pgs, has bibliographical page, 'Second print' listed on inside flap of the dust jacket; publication page has no 'R' colophon, unlike 1st version."  Neither the US Second Print nor the UK First Print had a bibliography.

- If they correct the listing above to make it a listing for the US Second Printing, then they'd need to add a UK First Printing (published by Library Publishers, 1955, 398pp., published with a dust jacket and without the biblopgraphy.)

- The 1972 reprint says it's a reprint of the "2nd version".  Because the 1972 Kennikat Press reprint had a bibliography, it's more accurate to say it's a reprint of the first printing/first state (which they are calling "1st Version").  Interesting side note:  This is the first edition that was intentionally distributed with a bibliography.

- The modern printings are listed as having been published in 2004.  This isn't wholly accurate.  There have been numerous modern printings, many with varying cover colors (blue, green, brown, etc), which seem to have started in 1996 and continue to this day.  These are ostensibly "limited editions" of 220 copies, but every time a printing sells out on Amazon, a new batch is published.  So the "limited edition" is a rather generous assessment, to say the least.

- The date of SOTI is listed as "1953,1954".  However, the actual publication date was April, 1954.  I understand Overstreet's confusion on this topic, because the copyright date of SOTI is listed as "1953, 1954".  This is due to the fact that a preview was published in Ladies' Home Journal in November, 1953.  So the preveiw material has a copyright date of 1953, while the remainder of the book was copyrighted in 1954.  Given that Overstreet lists publication dates, not copyright dates, the correct publication date for SOTI should be listed as 1954.

In addition to the factual errors listed above, there are a couple of what I could call editorial errors.- 

   - I've bought and sold literally dozens of copies of this book over the years, and have seen many, many more for sale.  Some have had dust jackets, and most have not.  However, I have never seen offered for sale a "dust jacket only" for the book.  One could easily make the case that the dust jacket is worth more when it's on a first print/first state (with bibliography) than when it's on a first print/second state (no bibliography).  Given that the guide is allgedly based on prices of actual sales of books, the listing should reflect prices of books with the DJ, and books without the DJ.  It shouldn't list the dust jacket as a separate entity with a separate sale price, because there's simply not enough data to justify it.

- The modern reprints are listed for $115 in NM.  That's just plain wrong.  Given that it's effectively still in print, and any buyer can pick up a copy on Amazon for less than half that price, the $115 price is made-up nonsense.