Out with "first edition", in with "first printing"?

Jon Meyers <stlouisTAKEbooks.RemoveThis@MEcharter.OUTnet> wrote in
news:rknXf.72$Je5.67@fe07.lga:

> my-wings wrote:
>> "Ted Jones" wrote...
>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>>As a seller, I try to identify both
>>>>edition and printing, and often show something like: "first edition
>>>>stated with full number line". I realize this is a bit wordy for
>>>>"real" collectors, but I want people to have confidence that they
>>>>know what they're getting from me.
>>>>
>>>
>>>Ah! I have wondered about that. This may fall into the catagory of
>>>"Too Much Information". I tend to have an internal conversation that
>>>starts with
>>>- "I wonder what is meant by that"? I know now it is a clarification
>>>not a warning. Either you have started a new convention or I must
>>>look at your books.
>>
>>
>> Hmmm. I guess you've just made the point that even verbose
>> descriptions are cryptic when the reader doesn't know why you said
>> what you did! Maybe I should just say "first edition, first printing"
>> myself instead of adding the number line bit. I always thought I was
>> adding valuable information, but perhaps I've just been confusing the
>> issue.
>
>
> Hmmm, also. Because I do the same thing when I sell on eBay. I
> describe any 1st/1st as a first edition, followed by a statement
> spelling out the first-printing identification. (If a book is a later
> printing, I say so and don't even use the phrase "first edition" at
> all.)
>
> I always thought I was anticipating the question I often have when I'm
> considering bidding on a book, and I had no idea that this might cause
> confusion.
>
>
> --Jon Meyers

I now agree with your descriptive style. In those cases where there have
been subsequent press runs, I'll ask the question, less I fall prey to
stupidity or cupidity.

Thanks,

Ted

Pausing between engagements, Michael replied:

<snipsnipsnip...>

I agree with Jerry on this one. And I think wiki summed it up quite
nicely with this:

"A common complaint of book collectors is that the term first edition
is used incorrectly. Typically, this complaint centers on the use of
the bibliographer's definition in a book-collecting context. For
example, J. D. Salinger's The Catcher in the Rye remains in print in
hardcover. The typesetting remains the same as the 1951 first printing
and therefore all hardcover copies are, for the bibliographer, the
first edition. Book collectors would use the term first edition for
the first printing only."

Michael