In truth, Grosset & Dunlap was a low-budget publisher that had no interest in going to any extra trouble to promote series that were already selling for them. Grosset & Dunlap showed no favoritism towards the Syndicate, as evidenced by the fact that Harriet Adams sold the rights to the new Nancy Drew titles to Simon and Schuster in 1980. People often think that a conspiracy exists when it does not.
This brings me to sellers' comments in eBay auctions. Sellers who have Farah's Guide sometimes give explanations for why a book is scarce, and their explanations are based completely on flawed speculation. Here is an example:
Clue of Broken Locket Nancy Drew HTF Short Print Run Item #200291053097
This auction is for the first picture cover printing of Broken Locket which has the "man with pipe" cover art. There were just three printings of Broken Locket with this cover art. The first two printings have the original 1934 text, and the third printing has the revised 1965 text. The seller states:
"Hard to find but wanted a lot since there was a short print of the 1st edition PC printed....You won't see this on the block very often. As we collectors know these type books enrichen in value yearly....I have only seen this 1st ED once on the market for sale once in two years. I grabbed this one and now putting it back up for someone who knows their 1st ED PC Nancy Drew per Farah's books. The price goes up every year or even less sometimes when added attractions are involved like the artist drawing a pic of himself in the back ground. That is why printing copies were so few on this books 1st Ed , 1st print. To make it more valuable."So much is wrong with the seller's comments that I hardly know where to begin. The seller states that only one has been for sale in the last two years. Really? I can find one copy listing to Fire Dragon in the last two weeks' worth of closed auctions. Is that it? No, because I can also find one that is currently for sale in an eBay store. Far more than one copy has sold in the last two years. I am confident that at least one copy of the "man with pipe" Broken Locket that lists to Fire Dragon sells each month on eBay.
If the book is so scarce that only one has been available in the last two years, why would a seller try to get only $23.00 for it? $23.00 was the Buy It Now price, and the book sold at the opening bid of $19.99.
The seller also states that the book is desired because of how few copies were printed. It is not the number of copies of a book that determines a book's desirability. Remember that many library bindings are one-of-a-kind, yet they have no value because I'm the only one who wants them. Scarceness does not determine value. Many scarce books have no value because nobody wants them.
The seller states that very few copies of this book were printed "to make it more valuable." Grosset & Dunlap had no interest in limited edition collectibles. Exactly how would it have benefited Grosset & Dunlap to create a book that was valuable on the secondary market? They did not have a stake in the secondary market.
Whatever happened is what happened, and Grosset & Dunlap had no reason for it. If there was a reason, then it could have been because the cover art had a man smoking, and this may not have been to Harriet Adams' liking. Nobody knows for certain.
I am also not impressed with the supposed rarity of the "man with pipe" cover art that is hyped by so many sellers. They all tend to state that the "man with pipe" cover art is extremely hard to find, yet the book is not that hard to find. Of course buyers can't just grab a copy for a couple of dollars at any given time, but the book is up for sale most of the time on eBay. It can be had for under $10.00.
The printing that is truly scarce and possibly rare is the third printing of the "man with pipe" cover art that has the revised 1965 text. Exactly how many of those are seen up for sale? I estimate that I see only one per year. Farah assigns the same value of $50.00 to the first and the last of the three "man with pipe" cover art Broken Lockets. The third printing is by far more scarce and should be worth far more than the first printing. If the first printing is worth $50.00, then the third printing should be worth $100.00 or more. On the other hand, if the third printing is worth $50.00, then the first printing should be worth far less since it is more abundant.
The point of this message is to give another example of why all buyers should question the comments of all sellers and never take a seller's comments as the gospel. Always remember that sellers are making a sales pitch and are trying to make their items sound better than everyone else's items. I try to be cautious with what I claim in auctions, but I make mistakes at times.
I used to believe the whole "Grosset & Dunlap conspired with the Stratemeyer Syndicate against Margaret Sutton and Helen Wells" conspiracy theory until I realized why it made no sense. Grosset and Dunlap had an equal amount to gain from sales of all of its series books. Undermining the sales of most of its books to the benefit of just a few would only have hurt profits in the long run.
11 comments:
A great post and I agree with what you say and have some comments to add.
When you talk about questioning seller claims, this is a good idea since most eBay sellers are mildly informed at best and sometimes they repeat long-running myths. However, some sellers appreciate suggested corrections to their listings and some do not. However, if by "question" you mean "be wary of" then I agree completely.
Another area where sellers are often clueless comes to the topic of printing identification. A number of former Syndicate books were reprinted by imprints of the Commercial Bookbinding Company of Cleveland. Two examples are World Syndicate and International Fiction Library. Yet, copies of these books are routinely offered as "firsts" even though the name of the publisher on the copyright page is not the same as the name on the title page and the spine of the book. These 1930s reprints have cheap paper and no illustrations on glossy paper as do the original editions of the books they reprint.
The original sales of series books rose and fell with the economy and the number of children in the right age range to be reading them. Other factors can play a role such as the influence of television, etc. on reading interest.
One thing we see is an abundance of copies printed from the mid 1950s to about 1962 or so. The big reason for this is that people in the Baby Boom Generations were born between 1946 and 1952 (at least the largest numbers directly tied to soldiers returning from WWII) and these children turned 10 beginning in 1956.
However, as this large body of kids outgrew series books and moved on to other kinds of reading and entertainment, there was not a similarly-large population of kids behind them to continue the sales. This, coupled with the rise in popularity of color television in the 1960s caused competition for series book sales and they were generally lower for both Syndicate and non-Syndicate books.
As the series became longer, the shelf space required to offer full runs of the titles became greater. With a limited space to devote to kids books of this age range, store buyers (ie department store and dime store) were selective in the volume numbers they carried as well as the number of series they ordered. Early volumes usually do well because most people want to start at the beginning. The latest volumes are also of interest because they are new.
With several series of their own and feeling shrinking per-volume sales in the 1960s, it is natural that the Syndicate would want to promote its own series first. This occurred in the 1910s and 1920s when the post-text ads would sometimes contain lists of several other series from that publisher. However, when Stratemeyer thought that G&D was promoting the Boy Scout and other non-Syndicate series too much, he directed them to advertise the books he owned.
In the very late 1920s, 1929 I believe, Stratemeyer entered into an agreement with G&D which lowered the royalty rate for the Syndicate books to about 4% (2c on a 50c book). This especially applied to an initial number of books which needed to be sold to pay for the typesetting, illustrations, and other production costs. After that number was sold, the royalty was to rise back to 5%. A 10% royalty is more common today and for some publishers back then so this was an aggressive marketing strategy to get as many of his books sold as possible.
There is a long series of letters from the 1950s-1970s where G&D sends a royalty check and says that it is the biggest one they have written to the Syndicate. However, the actual sales per volume had been shrinking and they continued to add new volumes each year to about a dozen series. Harriet long tried to get G&D to renegotiate the royalty rates from 4% to something higher but G&D refused. Instead they evaded the question by saying that the per-volume amount had increased...because the retail price had risen. The percentage stayed the same.
Stratemeyer's 4% gambit made his books a bit more attractive for the publisher representatives to sell than the 5% royalty books from the independent writers. Both types of books sold at 50c in the 1920s so there was more profit for G&D to sell Stratemeyer books than others. If this trend continued in the 1950s-1970s, it would go a long way to explain why more copies of Syndicate titles sold than independent writers' works.
Also keep in mind that there was a good deal of discounting below this suggested retail price in both catalog and store venues.
Another persistent myth (originated in the Apr 1934 Fortune article) is that Stratemeyer set the price of his books at 50c very early on. However, although they were mostly selling at 50c (MSRP) in the 1930s when the article was written, this was not the case for the time period described. In 1910, for example, the books sold for almost any price other than 50c. C&L books were listed as high as $1 (Musket Boys) and as low as 25c (Webster) but none were 50c. G&D books were typically 40c (Tom Swift & Bobbsey Twins) or 60c (Rover Boys). In WWI the price for books increased to 50c for the former 40c books and 75c for the former 60c books. This was the true beginning of the "Fifty Center."
The Syndicate moved its series to S&S because G&D had done little to promote the books and would not discuss the royalty rate for the old series. I think we'd find that the newer series (eg Brett King, Chris Cool) were done on higher royalty rates (eg 5%) and this might account for the lower sales for them.
I think everyone was disappointed in lower sales in the 1960s when compared with the 1950s. Some of the writers developed theories in a vacuum which don't account for the other evidence now available. The Syndicate books had better name recognition and this could be attributed to a long history as well as appearing in more stores. However, this is more an issue with the G&D traveling salesmen trying to maximize the company's profits when they visited book buyers for stores than any mandate from the Syndicate to suppress sales of the non-Syndicate books.
Sorry about the length of this comment. It's a complex topic.
I always appreciate and enjoy reading your comments, James.
To clarify, I do mean that buyers should be wary of all claims that sellers make in their listings. I believe strongly that buyers should avoid asking questions whenever possible since they often get the wrong answer.
I agree that many sellers become defensive when buyers suggest corrections. Additionally, some sellers mislead their buyers on purpose.
There is a seller of series books who I believe most buyers greatly respect who sometimes purposefully misleads buyers. On more than one occasion this seller has stated that a Nancy Drew book is a "likely" or "probable" first when it is definitely not a first. This person owns a Farah's Guide and always states for certain when a book is a first printing. The seller is not lying by stating that a book is a "probable first," but I feel that the practice is deceptive.
There are other respected sellers of series books who like to imply that books are first printings by using "first edition" knowing that buyers will assume that "first edition" and "first printing" mean the same. Buyers should never believe that a book is a first based only on the seller's comments unless the seller backs the claim with hard evidence.
Great posts, and this is exactly why I read the blog a few times a week. I want to understand more about the publishing factors and what is out there to collect. My knowledge is limited, although I certainly know more than a casual book buyer on Ebay wanting to get some Drew's or Hardy's for nostalgia reasons.
Jennifer- I have added your name as a favorite seller on Ebay to keep track of what you are offering and how your sales seem to go. I always appreciate your transparency as you express your frustration with Ebay and trying to sell on the site. I am interested in acquiring as many OT yellow matte Nancy Drews that I can find. Do you offer sets ever of these titles? Is the secret of identifying these early edition PC books to look for "Fire Dragon" as the last book? Or do I need some additional knowledge to identify the books I want?
In addition, what should I expect to pay for these copies? Afe the Farah prices a good guideline, or are they a little high?
I also try to look for library bindings, but if you are looking as well, chances are you'll beat me out every time!
Regardless, thanks to both James and Jennifer for your series book "savvy". Those of us still learning appreciate your insight!
Jack
I am interested in acquiring as many OT yellow matte Nancy Drews that I can find. Do you offer sets ever of these titles?
I sometimes do. I do have a bunch of extras of various picture covers, some of which are the original text. I might get around to putting some together in a lot in the next few days.
Is the secret of identifying these early edition PC books to look for "Fire Dragon" as the last book?
That does work for all of the books that were not revised until the late 1960s or 1970s. Most of the picture covers that list to Pine Hill or Whistling Bagpipes are also the original text. Also, many of the books that were not revised until the 1970s can even list way past Fire Dragon and be the original text.
I know just by looking at the cover art, but that isn't much help to others. It is hard to convey what is in my head. You would have to get more familiar with when the different cover art variations were used.
Grosset and Dunlap usually changed the cover art when the text was revised, so that is why I can look at the cover art in most cases and know which text is in the book.
If you want to be able to do this, take a look at the picture cover art on this page and see the years that the cover art was used. At the same time, look at a list of the copyright dates to see when the books were revised.
In addition, what should I expect to pay for these copies? Are the Farah prices a good guideline, or are they a little high?
I feel like buyers pay too much when they buy the books individually. Most all of the people selling the original text PCs bought them in bulk lots and only paid a few dollars per book. If you can get them in bulk, you don't have to pay much.
Without opening Farah's Guide and checking, I feel like his prices are on target for some and way off for others. I personally feel that the average original text Nancy Drew picture cover can be had for no more than $10 to $15, but that is just my opinion. I like to pay low prices for picture covers and save my money for the old dust jackets. I have seen people pay $30 to $50 for picture covers, and I feel that is too high.
I also try to look for library bindings, but if you are looking as well, chances are you'll beat me out every time!
I am holding back more these days on library bindings. I have declined bidding on some recently since I now have so many of them. You might stand more of a chance than you realize! I am still interested in hardcover post-#56 if I don't have any example of a certain title, but I am holding back on variations of titles that I do already have. I do still want different colors of what I call the Cameo-style library binding, or what Jenn Fisher calls the magnifying glass editions. Those are my favorites!
The comments section of this post has to be the longest of any post in this blog!
Jennifer.... I just finished reading one of my Nancy Drew books, the hidden window mystery ... I have the whole series of yellow bound Grosset & Dunlap... I've had most since childhood... and filled in the holes as an adult.. anyway... I realized that my copy of "the Hidden Window Mystery" #34 was bound upside down! I was wondering if this makes it "rare" or "scarce" or is it worth less since it is goofed up? I did a search online and found your blog... you seemed to be quite informed about these books... so I thought I'd ask!
You may have heard that coins or stamps with errors are valuable. This is so because there were serious efforts (not always successful) to monitor the quality and ensure that the stamps, coins, and currency released are as near perfect as possible to make them harder to counterfeit.
Mass-market books like those from G&D had far less attention to details such as binding errors. Many were allowed out and the variations are interesting.
* page block is bound upside down from the covers
* a different volume from the same series is bound in the covers
* a volume from an entirely different series is bound in the covers (I have a TSJr #1 bound inside covers for ND #36. Imagine her disappointment.).
* missing, blank or repeated pages
These are just interesting anomalies and generally don't have a lot of value. Book values go by supply and demand. If a lot of people want them and there are few available, there will be competition to obtain them and the price will go up.
With ND the original texts (25 chapters vs. 20, BTW) are considered to be better written despite being products of the time with some outdated racial and ethnic portrayals. Plus, because they are different from what is available now, that is an attraction.
Of course, the process for revising the ND series took time. The first revised text books came out in 1959 and the process continued through 1977. Hence, some books are easy to find in OT because they were revised late. At the same time, it can be hard to find them in RT with a matte finish because they were revised late.
Titles which were revised early may not exist at all in pictorial cover format (introduced in 1962) or be very hard to find if they were only available for a year or a few. ND #11 is in this category with just a couple OT printings and one RT printing with the first picture cover art.
G&D did not like to go to the expense of changing cover art. The 1930 Tandy cover for Old Clock was replaced in 1949 by Gillies art. When the story was revised in 1959, they did not want to issue a new illustration even though the art no longer reflected the text details. Several years later the art was replaced to the current version.
A lot of collectors like to get all of their books in a consistent format. Of course, this is often not possible and sometimes the gaps are particularly frustrating.
For example, Tom Swift Jr. ran for a long time and you can get 1-17 in dust jacket, 1-18 in blue spine (18 is a special wraparound pictorial cover variation), and 1-33 in yellow or orange spine.
However, for a series like the Bobbsey Twins, only a little more than half of the titles from 1-72 exist in purple spine pictorial covers at all. As I note on my Bobbsey Twins Purple page, v. 21-23, 26, 28-34, 36-37, 39-41. Some books (v. 35, 38, 42-46) are very hard to find in purple spine format because they were dropped from the series so quickly and never revised.
Ken Holt is another series which annoys collectors this way. With a lot of work you can find 1-17 in DJ and 18 in pictorial cover. Only about a half dozen books in the first 17 can be found in PC at all (1-4, 6, and a middle number).
Collectors who have a hard time finding these at all have occasional victories and feel that if they try a bit harder they can fill in the gaps. However, this is not the case for books which do not exist.
The Internet helps today but before we had to exchange information in person and in publications like Yellowback Library and the series book checklists. The boys' series references (like the Hudson bibliography) have more format info than books like the Girls' Series Companion from the Society of Phantom Friends.
James
Since we are on the topic of series book myths, I'd like to mention that I made a presentation at a Feb 2007 Nancy Drew Conference at Wilson College in PA which was called "The Nancy Drew Mythtery Stories." In it, I tried to address some of the legends and myths which connect with Edward Stratemeyer, the Stratemeyer Syndicate, and the origins of Nancy Drew.
Michael Cornelius, who organized the conference, edited a book with papers from the conference and it came out from McFarland a few months ago. If you haven't seen it, you may want to consider adding it to your series book reference library. My presentation was the first main chapter in this book:
Nancy Drew and Her Sister Sleuths: Essays on the Fiction of Girl Detectives
The link has my Amazon Associates ID but I get nothing else from the sale of this book.
James
I realized that my copy of "the Hidden Window Mystery" #34 was bound upside down! I was wondering if this makes it "rare" or "scarce" or is it worth less since it is goofed up?
I missed this comment when it first posted, so I apologize for the delay in response. I receive a message whenever a comment is posted, but a lot of them end up in my spam folder.
As James stated, binding errors usually make books less valuable. Most people prefer for their books to be bound correctly. Some collectors do seek out variations, so there is a small amount of interest. Most binding errors that I see on eBay either fail to sell or sell at the opening bid. There is usually not a lot of interest.
Question regarding Library Bindings, which you mention above: although I don't tend to collect library bindings most of the time, I always look for library bindings that were never circulated in a library. And I've been fortunate enough to come across some in various Syndycate series', like Nancy Drew (the lavendar spine ones with the Grosset & Dunlap "peacock" on the back, and full coler front).
Regarding value, have you found a greater value in re-sale for unused library bindings, or do they still seem to bring low prices?
Also, regarding another post I can't find now, which mentioned the '70's double edition ND's and their relative low value (not RARE as a seller had claimed), have you found collectors looking for the harder-to-fine tall versions of these double editions, or do both tall and short seem to command low prices? I came across 5 of the tall ones yesterday, and picked them up since they were only $1.50/ea. But not sure if they're really collectible.
Thanks for your input!
The lavender Grosset and Dunlap library bindings definitely command a higher price when they are not library discards. I find that the lavender G&D library editions are the one type of library binding that many collectors desire, but they only want them when the books are not library discards.
For all other library bindings, I don't find that whether the books are library discards makes much of a difference. Most people have no interest in the vast majority of library bindings.
The tall double edition books tend to be worth more than the short ones. The tall ones are harder to find, and they seem to be made better. I like them better, so I feel like they are worth more than the short ones. They are definitely collectible.
Thank you for the follow-up! Always interesting to hear your thoughts on these issues =) I feel smarter already!
-Daniel
Post a Comment