there are 11 facsimiles of the first Edition books (2x Congo) that have been translated into English?
I don't know that they are facsimiles of first editions, I can't even say that they true copies of any specific edition - for example, there's a French Picaros
"facsimile" which has a cloth spine; there was
a version of the book given to guests at a book-launch party and to friends and colleagues of Hergé which did have a cloth spine, but it was also different from the standard in that it had unique end papers, a printed message from Hergé, etc. None of these are in the "facsimile", so it effectively doesn't copy anything. This could also apply to any or all the others.
The English Soviets
"facsimile" contains the originally omitted (from the book) page 99a, so it doesn't represent a period volume either, even if we had had a contemporary English book to copy.
I also have to repeat that - as I corrected myself above - I don't actually personally know for certain how many of the colour "facsimiles" appeared in English, as other than getting the early colour version of The Black Island
, they didn't hold any appeal. Five was the initial launch number, I think, but there may have been more.
Does this mean that there are 11 French facsimiles albums also then?
All the black-and-white albums are available in facsimile for certain, and I think
that there have been versions of all the colour books too, including the Picaros
book mentioned above.
If so presumably these would contain the original lettering.
Again, no idea. I don't know how the lettering fared in the French editions over the years; I do know that every English standard album first published by Methuen (so excluding Soviets
(which was lettered differently by Sundancer), Congo
) was hand lettered by Neil Hyslop, and this lettering is not found in the "facsimiles".
there is no facsimile albums at all for many of tintin's later adventures perhaps this is due to the fact that not much changed after the first ed of the later books.
No, if there was a way, a facsimile seems to have been made. You are focusing too closely on what you see to be differences and changes - you need to think of things like which end-papers a book might have had, or what the binding was, or the quality of paper used. Early books were not laminated, they were varnished, or even unvarnished - each would be a change.
I may have to lower my sights then because trying to find the first English edition of every Tintin I'm sure will prove to be expensive and difficult.
Expensive surely, difficult not so much - plenty of people have latched onto the speculator market, and will try and suggest that you have to pay huge sums, but that's the game in speculation. But the first editions were printed in large numbers, so there are many available.
rarities - the two Casterman books of 1952 are very scarce, but then that edition seemingly failed to sell, so unless they are all sitting in a warehouse, relatively few made it into the wild.
I guess the idea of creating a master table for all the tintin editions and changes would be difficult but maybe possible with a collaborative effort from different experts
It's sort of what we are doing with the forums - whether the data could be tabulated meaningfully is another thing entirely - I mean, you'd have vast swathes of table just to contain tiny, tiny changes, and other packed bits where you'd have to annotate how the story in Black Gold
It may be interesting to know that the star fish on the cover of The Secret of The Unicorn
wanders about (it does - it starts off above the box with the publisher's name on early Casterman copies, and makes its way down and round in later editions), but I'm not sure that there's really much value in making exact notes of its stops along the way on a table!
one must first simply list all the editions for each adventure this shouldn't be too difficult you could even just buy the latest book from Waterstones and look at the first page for the editions list
Nope, as I just explained in another thread
, the publication information isn't comprehensively reported in each book. For the Methuen/ Mammoth Blue Lotus
copy I reference there, I am told it was (in English): First published by Methuen Children's Books in 1983, in paperback by Magnet (also a Methuen imprint) in 1984, reprinted five times (no years or whether that's paper-or hard-back), reissued by Mammoth (also effectively a Methuen imprint, but at this point owned by Reed Consumer Books Limited)) Then reprinted 1992, 1993 (twice) 1994, 1995 (twice), 1996 and 1997.
My Egmont 2003 hardback copy has the following: first published 1983, reprinted five times, this edition published 2003. So barely any information, nothing about the hard-back/ paper-back publication, and nothing to explain the "Reprinted five times".
So you are looking at a minimum of fifteen books just for one title, between 1983 and 1997, just to check and see what changes might or might not exist between them. And that's before making sure that the paperback and hardback versions remained uniform. That's a lot of work...!
And Blue Lotus
was one of the last ones to come out - imagine what something like Crab
or Secret of The Unicorn
which had a quarter of a century or more head start on Lotus
would be like!
can you think of any other ways?
We have tried to secure access to the publication history, at least for the Methuen years, but unfortunately the paperwork is no longer available so that is dea end, I'm afraid...
surely it's safe to assume that each like edition of a particular adventure will be identical ... I.e The 1974 English edition of secrets of the unicorn will be identical to every other English 1974 edition in the same way that the 2002 edition will be identical to all the other 2002 editions?
Well, no - why make that assumption? Until it was all checked, there's no way to assume anything, and unless you check everything, then the research is going to be (by necessity) not comprehensive. There's just no way to know that half the 2002 run had one thing, half the other. You'd also need to check multiple copies from any batch to see that a change hadn't just happened on one press, and not on the others - the starfish might be above the publisher on one and not on others.
Furthermore, like many facsimile listings, the Item doesn't even describe exactly what it is!
That's probably because if it's difficult to get across in the groups dedicated to the subject (what is a facsimile a copy of when there is no original to copy?), it would be painful to explain to a lay audience!