Edition and date published?

[Tim]

I did a search, and couldn't find any previous discussions on this. If I just missed it (entirely possible), will someone please post a link? Thanks.

I'm wondering about the publication date field when I'm editing books. I'm looking at the publication information in a book right now. It says it was published by Berkley in May 1958, had two additional printings in Oct 1958 and July 1960, then was published as a Berkley Medallion edition in Aug 1963, but lists that as the 4th printing. The copy I have says it is a Berkley Medallion edition that was the 5th printing in Sep 1966.

So, taking into account the printing history of this book, are the original Berkley edition and the "Berkley Medallion" edition different editions, in your opinion?

I typically use the oldest publication date, not the date of the latest printing listed. Is that the right way to do it?

Hypothetically speaking, what if each printing had a different cover, and I entered alternate cover editions for each one? Should I then use the publication date that goes with the specific printing, rather than the earliest publication date?

Your thoughts and comments are welcome.

[rivka, Former Moderator]

In general, I would say that all printings of a given edition are one edition, with two exceptions: if the ISBN changes (very rare, I think); or if the cover changes (in which case an alternate cover edition would be created). Therefore, the publication date of that edition should be from the first printing. (Renaming of subsections of a publisher is fairly irrelevant, I think.)

[Tim]

Thanks, rivka. That's how I've been handling it. Just wanted to make sure that was the accepted practice.

[rivka, Former Moderator]

Seems like. :)

[Peter]

rivka wrote: "In general, I would say that all printings of a given edition are one edition, with two exceptions: if the ISBN changes (very rare, I think); or if the cover changes (in which case an alternate cov..."

I have found in many older (preISBN) books listings of printings that include printings by other publishers. If they were published after ISBNs were in use, they would have had different ISBNs. Should both editions be treated as a single edition?

[rivka, Former Moderator]

Which "both editions"? The one in your hand and the one(s) it references?

[Peter]

rivka wrote: "Which "both editions"? The one in your hand and the one(s) it references?"

Yes.

[rivka, Former Moderator]

I think I'm missing something. Why would you want to create an entry in the database for a non-ISBN edition other than the one in your hand?

[Peter]

I'm sorry; my comment was meant in the context of this thread about dates.

I'll give a concrete example:

The cipher by Alex Gordon
The printing history lists:
Simon and Schuster edition published July, 1961
Pyramid edition published July, 1966

Should the publication date be listed as July, 1961 or July, 1966 for the copy of the Pyramid edition?

[rivka, Former Moderator]

Ah! I think the latter. This happens with ISBN'd books all the time too, BTW. Especially if it's a paperback of a book first issued as a hardcover.

[Peter]

rivka wrote: "Ah! I think the latter. This happens with ISBN'd books all the time too, BTW. Especially if it's a paperback of a book first issued as a hardcover."

Exactly. With old pulps, a book may be printed by several different publishers, and they might all be listed in the printing history.

So my answer seems to be, as I had guessed, to treat each publisher's printings as separate editions, but to treat all printings by a single publisher as a single edition unless there is some noticeable change, such as an alternate cover or a change in pagination.