Goodreads Librarians Group discussion

Book Issues > Is it fine to add "first published" when the first publication doesn't have an ISBN?

Comments Showing 1-12 of 12 (12 new)    post a comment »
dateDown arrow    newest »

message 1: by Saharvetes (new)

Saharvetes (saharavetes) | 11 comments My first edit as librarian, so I want to be sure I'm not making a mistake.

This book:
The Ten Princes or the Dasha-kumara-charita
was listed as published in 1974 by Univ. Chicago P., with an ISBN. But actually the book was first published in 1927 (I have the physical book, and scan), without ISBN. So is it ok to change the "first published" to 1927 (as I did), or should I have created a new "edition" instead?

The book published in 1974 is certainly identical in every way to the 1927 book, and not a new edition (merely a reprint): the author died in the 1930s, and almost surely no one else worked on a "new edition".

message 2: by Lobstergirl (new)

Lobstergirl It's fine to merely add the first published date. If you have all the pertinent information of the first edition, such as publisher, it certainly doesn't hurt to create a new edition as well. If you own the 1927 edition and can scan that cover, even better. (But it's not mandatory.) If I had all the info, and a cover image, I would create a new edition, as it does make the database more comprehensive.

message 3: by Sandra (new)

Sandra | 26022 comments Saharvetes, please create a new edition. Lobstergirl is right again, it would make the db a better place.

message 4: by Saharvetes (last edited Mar 05, 2011 08:25AM) (new)

Saharvetes (saharavetes) | 11 comments Ok, done. My worry was that (what were effectively) reprints may not count as new editions, but on your advice I've created a new edition (

message 5: by Sandra (new)

Sandra | 26022 comments How many pages does your copy have Saharvetes? And can you scan a copy of the cover?

Any description of the story also would be helpful, even if it is only a few sentences. But not review like.

And every edition is good, reprints are just as good as the first edition.

message 6: by Jonathon (new)

Jonathon (jonp) | 146 comments I have a 1898 printing of Caleb West: master diver
That I created a new edition for

The cover is blank, should I post a image of the spine or perhaps the title page or copyright page, or jut leave it empty?

message 7: by Lobstergirl (new)

Lobstergirl Is this your cover?

If yes, I would use this cover - crop it first to get that white space out.

If I don't have an image for a book that I own, I'll do a google image search. Often Librarything will have it, or paperbackswap, or some other obscure website.

message 8: by Jonathon (new)

Jonathon (jonp) | 146 comments Since mine came from a library, it must have been rebound. But the one you found matches the edition information. I found a clean cover using google image search and put that on.

message 9: by Jonathon (new)

Jonathon (jonp) | 146 comments Saharvetes

This should be a link to the cover for the 1927 edition of the 10 princes.

message 10: by Michael (new)

Michael | 262 comments Jon wrote: "Saharvetes

This should be a link to the cover for the 1927 edition of the 10 princes."

That cover image is for the Panchatantra, not the Ten Princes. I don't think they are the same work.

message 11: by Saharvetes (new)

Saharvetes (saharavetes) | 11 comments Right, the Panchatantra is not the same work as The Ten Princes. But the latter has a very similar cover: I found a photo online (my scan doesn't include the cover, and I don't have access to the physical book anymore):
and I have uploaded it after trying to restore dimensions as well as I could; someone better at image-editing could upload a better image.
Here's a copy of the "inside cover" (is that what's it's called?) from my scan if that's an acceptable substitute:

I've uploaded the description and number of pages (not including the Roman-numeral pages of introduction up to "xvi".)

message 12: by Sandra (new)

Sandra | 26022 comments It looks excellent as is Saharvetes. And the intro is perfect for a description.

back to top