Question about (addendum to?) Rule #1

I have 24 books that I've tagged ULTB but which have {gasp!} more than "one-and-only-one" member. The simple explanation is that I am the sole owner of all cataloged copies! (They're all comic books; 485 of my 489 ULTBs are comic books.)

I have two copies of Malcolm the Waterboy, a rare book first published by Mershon under the D. T. Henty pseudonym and owned by Edward Stratemeyer. These two copies are the only ones on LT so I feel justified in applying the ULTB tag on them.

James

The couple I have looked at are both owned by you. Did you have two copies? Did you catalog twice? Or thrice? I notice several that have three owners all you. It looks like you did a very good job of cataloging them. Nice cover, author, artist credits, nice tags and series info. I am just not sure why you have multiple copies showing up.

keep an eye on them I bet more people will add them. I personal haven't added my comic...but I should.

Sorry, to some extent I get the ULTB tag. But you can't expect the database to cater for that. If you have more than one copy, then there is more than one copy on LT - simple as that.

I have two copies of this scarce title.

One is the first printing published by Mershon in 1900. Edward Stratemeyer owned the 8 titles in the "Boys Own" series as it is referred to in some internal documents. A couple of the titles are considered to be his writing but this one is likely an edit from a British serial, much as he rewrote another story published in the series, The Wizard of the Sea by Roy Rockwod. (For details on this please see my PCA presentation on the topic).

The other copy is a reprint with an early dust jacket published by Wanamaker, the Philadelphia department store that used its name for a group of reprints of books published by Mershon. Among Edward Stratemeyer collectors, (and Edward S. Ellis and G. A. Henty and some Horatio Alger Jr. collectors) these reprint variations are in demand. They are very seldom seen in dust jacket.

When I first began to use the ULTB tag I asked about this specific example of a scarce book for which I happen to have the only two copies on LT. Were I to bend to the will of @BarkingMatt then I would either remove the tag on the two copies or remove one of the listings to keep the tag on the other. I think I'd like to hear from more people before taking action on this.

The story is sought, strangely, by collectors of G.A. Henty even though it has very little to do with the works of George Alfred Henty. It is set in historical London but was not written by George Alfred Henty. Perhaps some think that they should hedge their bets and get it, if they can, in case it proved to be a publisher's typographical error on the title page and cover. Such things have occurred before, especially by cheaper publishers with less quality control.

Usually there are no copies on the used book databases. However, I see that there are presently two and possibly three copies listed now. Possibly they have been priced just high enough to stay. The $200 copy (on multiple databases) does not sound like the first binding format but a later generic cover.

It seems to me that the point of ULTB is to highlight rare works that are not found in other LT member collections. It does not, for example, point out rare printings like a first printing of a well-known title, etc. In this and many other ways, LT is not set up to cater to rare book collectors first and foremost. It can be successfully used by them but sometimes tricks and workarounds are required until desired features are added.

James

I agree with Keeline >5 Keeline:. LT is NOT designed as a forum for owners of Rare books, but for book lovers in general. And book lovers in general often have obscure titles in their collections, which become their own "point of interest".

I think it is quite correct to list as ULTB all the copies of a singular title when they are all in one's possession, rather than delete listings so as to have only one in the LT database.

That's how I see it, at any rate.

>6 SaintSunniva:. Makes sense to me too. Although I may have come to the opposite conclusion when it was my own collection that had two of the same title, otherwise unique on LT, deleting either one book or the ULTB tag didn't seem like a happy solution.

I've just joined this group, so please pardon me introducing myself with a question.

Besides my own library, I am the legacy librarian for Arthur Ransome (AR), and have let him guide some of my recent aquistions. According to "Vous et nul autre", besides a reasonable number of ULTBs, I also share a round dozen titles with AR, and AR only. As AR no longer "physically possesses" his books, can I treat them as ULTBs?

Hmmm interesting question. I think we hit on this before in a different thread. I wonder about the "physically possesses" of a Legacy Library. Are the books somewhere held as Arthur Ransome's books? The books in the The Pollak Library to establish an Arthur Ransome Collection (currently c.192 items), wouldn't those books sort of still be Arthur Ransome's books? Beside why do you want a to tag a "unique to library thing" book?

As many on the ULTB list have noticed, a book entered may seem unique to LT until some combination efforts are made.

Some legacy libraries may be intact while others are dispersed and known only through lists. I have not explored the various legacy libraries out there but would hope that the description and/or tags would let one know if such a library could be seen somewhere. Likewise, if there is a bookplate used, that would be interesting to see as well.

James