Jewel in the Skull | Savoy Mis-print

[Rothgo]

According to Savoy's website,

A supposedly pulped very rare mis-printed edition of The Jewel in the Skull, with non-facing double-page artwork, exists.

Well, I was just reading a copy here, a lo, the artwork is indeed on the wrong pages.

I'm thinking this probably isn't as rare as Savoy have suggested then?!
One imagines publishers tend to play down the mis-prints!

[Rothgo]

If prosperity cares, I can do better images than these; but for the sake of simple curiosity:

The proper double facing images edition:

The non-facing edition:

[TheOutcastEnchanter]

Non Facer

I have a non-facing copy of The Jewel In The Skull, does this mean I`m rich!!

[Pebble]

Very Intriguing.

Usually the publishers blame the printers for this kind of mistake and just looking at my correct copy, I have a tendency to agree. Without breaking down my copy, it would appear that the pages have been transposed in the laydown.

My copy is by Lowe & Brydone and by googling, appeared to have been a printer of sheet music, but why books? Excess capacity? So did they print the original the wrong imposition copy, Rothgo.

You would expect that the proof readers would have picked up on this. I do think there is a story here.

Incidentally, you can find book where a page has been taken out of and replaced with a single leaf in the right place, but this costs a bit of cash. Yet it always easier to reprint the book rather then ship it to be corrected and printing the odd signature.

[Rothgo]

... Without breaking down my copy, it would appear that the pages have been transposed in the laydown...

What's the gen pebble? Does getting the page ordering wrong do anything in particular, other than the fairly blatant screw-up of dual pages? Problems with whitespace on the outer/inner margins for example? I imagine with motif colour pallets of the Watchman, that facing/not might have less obvious effects when Mr Moore is having his way!

[Pebble]

Rothgo - I need to do a bit of theory, but the book is likely to have been printed in 16 pages sections or signatures. You can find the middle of them easily. I suspect that the pages were shot as double page spread, but these two pages have to split up on the sheet, so when they are folded they will read on the right page.

At that time, the pages probably will have been shot by camera and then re-planned on a light table and this is the point I think they were mislaid. At that point, in the industry, the printer would or should have had a proof read who would check the planners work. After a sheet was printed and approved for quality by the print overseer, it would have gone to the bindery manager for approval who would have checked the folding.

Of course, there are many slips between cup and lip. Proof reader on hols, junior standing in for bindery manager, etc. Mis numbering maybe by the publisher or printer. Note there are no page numbers in the book, unusual and it happened to me on a publication.

There was an index content page, but no page numbers throughout the book. Whose fault was it, was discussed for a long a long time. It was put down to the editor as he was given proofed copies after the pages had been set. No house style to follow. He didn't put them on his returned proofs, so why should we put them on?

Unless we can find some one who might have seen it in production, we will never know.

The only other possibly is that when Mike or James got a printed copy from the publisher, one of them realised and pointed it out to the publisher. We should then wonder how the 'bad' copies got into the selling chain. Either they weren't pulped before going to the distribution point or some copies were sent on and then sold, but as there are so few. The copies that are in existence might just be save production copies that were handed out or 'saved' by the manufacturing staff.

Probably how I managed to get a proof copy of Mike - The Vengance of Rome in Dorking, although a proof run of books is use to send to reviewers, etc.

At my company, we had to discipline some one who was 'taking' books and putting them on ebay. He was found out as the books were not in the distrubution chain or on sale yet.

Of course, technology has changed a lot of this, but it can still mess up as I found out on an end of a shortened page chapter. It only had a few paragraphs and the computer dropped the type to the bottom of the page. So instead of having space at the foot and type at the top. You had empty space at the head of the page and the text at the bottom. If you run across of Elizabeth's Irish Wars paperback, it should be in that.

[Rothgo]

I went back to check pebble, and it seems the same publishers were used for both editions. And I use the term "editions" advisably. Some more images first, as the edition text is on different pages:

Non-facing edition

Facing edition

So the non-facing edition was printed in 1978, the proper facing edition in 1979. However, the '79 edition claims it is the first edition, which implies the '78 was not meant to get out. That all sounds like error caught quite late then fixed. But how far was "quite late". Are we talking a December / January switch, or was there a long time between editions? And did the '78 edition actually get published, then the '79 put out with a "never happened" approach, or has there been a leak of '78 editions via a staff member(s) of the publisher/warehouse/printers/whomever?

[David Mosley]

Great detective work guys; this info definitely needs to be included in the Image Hive/Wikiverse. :thumbs_up:

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Brian]

Man, I dig that artwork! I'd love to be able to see some original reproductions.

[Pebble]

Rothgo - I have been looking at your pages and relating them to mine.

Is the whole edition out?

On the correct copy, the imprint page is opposite the main title page.

In the misplaced edition, it is behind the title page. So the double page spread of this printing is split up. So the left hand page, becomes a right hand page and this would ripple though the whole book. I take it you photo'ed the most obvious pages?

There is blank page at the end of the book, which would have been printed the Cawthorn interview. So it fitted in the pages, just and some of the imagery might appear to be correct.

Page 1, closed up shot of rifle, is echoed in the left hand page, but it is now 'bumped' on to the next right hand page. So in the non facing edition, you have Meliadus looking across to Count Brass.

Just wondering if the first place of non-facing book have the title on it or is it blank? Not sure, if there was a house style, which said imprints have to go behind the main title page. It could not go on page 1 of the text, would look a bit odd.

Just looked at some other books and the imprint page does go behind the title page. So I suspect this is the likely answer. Whose fault is it, we will probably never know, unless some one owns up to it.

[Rothgo]

I'll number pages as follows:
Open cover: page 1 is facing you.

Page 1:
Both editions have centered text "The Jewel in the skull".

Page 2:
Non-facing edition: blank.
Facing edition: dedication plus publishing details

Page 3:
Both Editions "The Jewel in the Skull, adapted by James Cawthorn..." etc.

Page 4:
Non-facing: dedication plus publishing details
Facing: first story page

Page 5:
Non-Facing: first story page
Facing: second story page

Towards the end:
Non-facing: last image ( inc. "...will be continued in The Mad God's Amulet") is on a even page (i.e. LHS page). The next page (RHS, odd number) is the start of the James Cawthorn interview.
Facing: last image is on a (more satisfying) RHS odd page. Turn page to interview.

Last page:
Non-facing: last leaf is printed to the end: last page on an even page.
Facing: last leaf even side is blank.

So from the first the story page onwards, the editions are exactly out by one page position, but before that, page 1 and 3 match though page 2 doesn't.

[Pebble]

Mystery solved!

[David Mosley]

Wikiverse article

(Feel free to make comments to improve it.)

[Rothgo]

Nicely done David!
Two spaces needed between two of the images for consistency, but I'd need to edit my own rights before doing that, and its a rather lovely Sunday morning, so I'll just leave it... ;)

[white wolf's son]

Hi Rothgo, I've just checked my edition, it's the 1979 ' facing ' edition which is the one I probably prefer. The artwork yet again is amazing, a brilliant piece of work. Thanks for letting us know.