Books/Identical reprints65 messages

Kan me voorstellen dat je druk die het zelfde zijn! eenmalig vermeld
Misschien het veld druk uitbreiden met de vermelding druk.. t/m .. ga er vanuit dat ze dan ook echt het zelfde zijn.
Alleen het nummer van de druk + jaartal wijkt dan af.
Punt is ook welk jaartal: verschijningsdatum eerste druk?
Plus een veld, jaartal: betreffende druk
Maar dat geldt voor meerdere rubrieken
Bij je eigen exemplaar vermeld je dan de druk en jaartal in opmerkingsveld.
Zodra er een afwijking zit in layout of wat dan ook opnemen in catalogus.
En in opmerking veld de afwijking ten opzichte oorspronkelijke druk weergeven.

Can you imagine pressure that are the same! listed once
Maybe expand the pressure field with the mention pressure.. to .. assume that they are really the same.
Only the number of the edition + year differs.
The point is also what year: date of publication of the first edition?
Plus a field, year: relevant edition
But that applies to several categories
If you have your own copy, please state the edition and year in the remarks field.
As soon as there is a deviation in layout or whatever, include it in the catalog.
And in the comment field display the deviation from the original pressure.

Maybe expand the field pressure with the mention pressure .. to .. assume that they are really the same.
I think that's a good one, it should also be added year to year. Pinkeltje has HUGE many print runs and each print is just the same, except for the first one.

Most of the reprints of the Eagle's Eyes are identical. Before 1972 with dust jacket, after 1972 without. The only difference in the printings is the indication of the print run. There are no dates in the books, so they are all listed by year unknown. I find that unclear, so I have placed an explanation in the specificity box. Could we do with multiple identical reprints. If there are any visible changes to a cover, it is worth posting

hmmm, in the past each book was reprinted with the same cover as the previous one, now it is different and almost always a different cover is made with each reprint.
In the case of eagle eye (very much the same) it would indeed be useful if pressure X to pressure X could be stated, which runs from year X to year X. In the case of Pinkeltje the TOTALLY is useful, because every press is identical except for a few first presses.

I am also in favor of the same version in which only the pressure changes
to be able to enter from - to .
Advantage someone who owns a certain copy will therefore no longer have the tend to add his copy (print)

It remains difficult anyway, because the editions are not entered chronologically in Catawiki.
Suppose I have Pinkeltje's 34th edition. And that book is not yet in Catawiki.
Then I enter it as a reprint, with the remark under Specialties that it concerns the 34th edition; I do not know other prints.
Another user enters the 20th edition - which happens to look identical - but then cannot judge whether the 21st to 33rd edition are also identical.
And so on and so on.
In fact, you can only contract presses if they are first ALL included in Catawiki.

Je kan het ook anders bekijken, stel dat je kan zien de 21 en de 33 druk jij hebt 26 gelijk uitvoering valt in deze reeks, dan zet je bij eigen exemplaar 26 druk
Stel jou exemplaar wijkt af moet het zo worden
21 tot 26
26druk
27 tot 33
Het punt is dat je bij bijzonderheden geen druk vermeld alleen bij je eigen exemplaar hoor je dat te vermelden

You can also look at it differently, suppose you can see the 21 and the 33 print you have 26 right version falls in this series, then you put 26 print with your own copy
Suppose your copy deviates, it should be like this
21 to 26
26press
27 to 33
The point is that you don't mention the pressure for details, only for your own copy you should state that

If pressure 21 and pressure 31 are identical, then everything in between is often identical, if a pressure deviates, that person will probably add it.
You have to see in the photo display, that the "busy" runs from 1980 - 2010 or something. If you only see 1980, then it is indeed going wrong.
Pinkeltje is the best example, because every edition is identical, there was only one exception, a paperback edition series and a few first editions.
Who wants to scroll through 45 prints of Pinkeltje, Arendsoog, and probably more?

I find it quite annoying when I have to flip through two pages of books just because they are identical reprints. Moreover, when I have the 25th reprint, how do I recognize so quickly which of those books that are depicted I should have? ??
They are also not in order of printing in the overview. Just go to the 80 editions of In de ban van de Ring :-)

Such practical problems can always be solved by technical intervention, without compromising the information in the database.
Popular comic series always show the main series first for the general public. That does not mean that all other expenses have been sacrificed to this. Every stupid variant of, for example, Suske en Wiske, can still be found for enthusiasts.
The fact that you are not interested in all the prints of Pinkeltje or Arendsoog does not mean that that applies to everyone.

Exactly.
For the umpteenth time someone is disturbing the presentation and immediately confuses it with the database.

Unfortunately in this case that does not apply to the presentation. When I see 80 reprints, there are also 80 items in the database. You are right if I see only 1 and it turns out that 80 are included in the database ...

That's right, and I also argue that we just have to fill the database with all the prints and make requests to the builders of Catawiki in terms of their presentation.

@Skipper
Enter only the books you have. State the pressure in particular, the rest will - hopefully - fill up over the years

I own a book in new condition, still in plastic foil.

In the catalog the book is shown separately as 1st and 2nd editions.

Do I really have to remove that plastic foil to know the correct pressure? Then that book can no longer be described as new in my opinion. In this case, a potential buyer only wishes to buy AND receive what has been published in the shop.

Als je niet uit de afbeeldingen kunt afleiden om welke druk het gaat, zou je 'm veiligheidshalve als 2e druk in je shop kunnen zetten met in de notities de opmerking dat het boek nog in folie zit en je niet zeker bent van de druk.

If you can't deduce from the images which edition it is, you could put it in your shop as a 2nd edition for safety's sake, with the remark in the notes that the book is still in foil and you are not sure of the edition.

Why should a book no longer be in new condition if it has no foil on it?
If you make sure your hands are clean, I don't mind unpacking it.
The buyer does that too, I suspect ?!

For some buyers it is an advantage if a book is still in the original foil. But indeed, it will also remain in new condition if you remove the foil.

I would still be careful with this advice, depending on the item, foil is an extra appreciation and can sometimes be very high. For example, the Zappa boxes Old Masters with foil are worth 3 to 4 times more than those without foil ...

Fortunately, I have not yet encountered that kind of idiocy with book collectors. (Perhaps occasionally in comics and sporadically in comics.)

If you cannot distinguish two editions on the outside, the question is what you can ask more for: a 1st edition without foil or a 2nd edition (which may be a 1st edition) with foil ...

Usually you can open the foil neatly, because it is attached with an adhesive edge. I also find it strange that a book would then no longer be in new condition. Of course it could be that it is a special foil that if it is broken, it is not original. I haven't come across anything so strange yet

For example, I know about the existence of a Mickey Mouse envelope with a surprise in it from the 1930s / 40s (I believe). Nobody knows what is in that envelope, because if you open it, it will be broken or at least worth a lot less to collectors.

"So DisneyMeentwijc, what do you collect?"

DisneyMeentwijc: "I mainly collect surprises, my oldest surprise is from the 1930s" :)

Maybe Catawik must create a new section 'surprises''