Big mistake on Ebay

[Blytonboy]

http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/ws/eBayISAPI.dll" target="_blank? ... otohosting
Someone's not going to be too happy when their £365 parcel arrives. They have just paid a lot of money for possible (but unlikely) first edition books in later jackets. The seller has simply listed the publication dates and some gullible person has assumed that both the book and the jacket are firsts! The first 8 books had white spines and the numbering system didn't start until book ten! Caveat Emptor etc etc.

[Blytonboy]

Might be a problem with the link so item is 200189176955

[Petermax]

Something is definitely not quite right here, those dust jackets are absolutely immaculate. Surely it is far better to go to an established reputable dealer, someone who really knows something about childrens literature.

[Mollybob]

Oh dear. I saw these last week and thought people would realise from the spines that the date was wrong. The winning bidder has bought a lot of things from me recently, as I have had to sell a lot of my first editions.
The dust jackets look genuine to me, but they're so obviously later. It just shows why you should do your research before bidding.

[Blytonboy]

Tony, is it me or has your post on this subject been removed ? Pity if it has because you did raise some very valid points. It wasn't you who bought the books was it?

[Tony Summerfield]

No, it isn't you. I deleted my post as I didn't want to bore everybody and no, it certainly wasn't me that bought them - I haven't bought any Blyton books on ebay for a few years now.

[Lucky Star]

I deleted my post as I didn't want to bore everybody

Tony I dont think anyone is ever bored by your posts, they are generally among the most authoritive and informative ones on the forums.

As regards ebay, as Mollybob said, research is everything. You need to know exactly what you are looking for and any distinguishing characteristics that it should have, you need to have a rough idea of the price it should fetch and you need to have a look at the sellers feedback rating and comments. I have found that I am usually Ok if I do all that. I have made many ebay transactions and have only been disappointed on one or two occasions.

[Petermax]

Tony I dont think anyone is ever bored by your posts, they are generally among the most authoritive and informative ones on the forums.

I will second that, I also find Tony's posts to be most informative.

Ebay is fine as long as one approaches a desired item very carefully indeed. As mentioned previously, the feedback rating of a seller is extremely important as is the length of time that they have been trading. Newcomers are best treated with caution although everyone has to start somewhere. Don't forget that is is possible to contact other Ebayers who have had dealings with your intended trader, most will reply.

As well as books, I find Ebay to be a great source for rare DVDs, videos and car spares.

[Moonraker]

No, it isn't you. I deleted my post as I didn't want to bore everybody

I have yet to read a post of yours that is in anyway, shape or form, boring. I just love and admire your quiet, authoritative tone that underlines your comments.

and no, it certainly wasn't me that bought them

As if!

[Julie2owlsdene]

I buy most of my second hand Blyton books, from EBAY, and have so far been lucky, as they've arrived, in good condition and better than I imagined. Nor have they been expensive. They may not always be 1st Editions, but then that doesn't bother me too much, as there are many of the books I've not read, and I'd rather read an older copy than an updated one.

[Mollybob]

I've spoken to the winning bidder (as I know who they are). They realised that the early titles weren't first editions, but bid on the assumption that the later titles were. They are now going to double check this before parting with their money, so hopefully a disaster has been avoided.

[Tony Summerfield]

Just to paraphrase briefly what I said in my post that I removed, technically the seller was correct, these were 1st editions. A book only becomes a 2nd edition when it is reset. Collectors of older children's books (myself included) refer to a 2nd edition, when the correct terminology is 1st edition 2nd impression. There is no excuse whatsoever for calling Dean books 1st editions as they are plainly not - nevertheless I am always seeing the Dean version of The Three Golliwogs listed as a 1st edition and normally it isn't even the 1st edition 'as such' as it is the laminated cover version which is an umteenth impression!

Current children's books use a completely different system as they are listed as 1/1, 1/2 etc. to show which impression they are.

[Mollybob]

Tony, I think the confusion arose from the fact that, when asked for the printing dates, the seller listed the 1st impression publication dates and not the actual publication dates of these particular impressions. For example, he/she claimed that the copy of Five On a Treasure Island in the listing was published in 1942, when it is clearly a later copy.

However, you are quite right that I should have referred to "first impressions" in my previous post