|
Author
|
Topic: Value of signed "Lost Moon" vs. "Apollo 13"
|
Mike_The_First
Member Posts: 436
From: USA
Registered: Jun 2014
|
posted 09-26-2014 01:23 PM
   
Is there a big difference in market value between a Jim Lovell signed copy of "Lost Moon" and a copy of the anniversary edition "Apollo 13 (Formerly 'Lost Moon')" bearing the same signature in the same spot?Clean, unsigned copies of the latter are easier (and cheaper) to come by, and I'm wondering if that price difference carries over to the signed book market. |
JoKepler
Member Posts: 515
From: Houston, Texas
Registered: Jul 2001
|
posted 09-26-2014 03:34 PM
My opinion... no difference. |
Robert Pearlman
Editor Posts: 42988
From: Houston, TX
Registered: Nov 1999
|
posted 09-26-2014 04:18 PM
I'm told by book collectors that a premium is placed on first edition, first printing copies, so in theory that would assign preference to a "Lost Moon" signed copy. But among autograph collectors, that difference may be negligible. |
capoetc
Member Posts: 2169
From: McKinney TX (USA)
Registered: Aug 2005
|
posted 09-26-2014 08:26 PM
For what it's worth, when Lovell signed my copy of Lost Moon, he opened it to the copyright page and said, "Oooh, this is a 1st printing -- this will really be worth something some day!". I told him I bought it when it was first released, and he seemed to be pleased by that. |
jtheoret
Member Posts: 344
From: Albuquerque, NM USA
Registered: Jul 2003
|
posted 09-26-2014 09:23 PM
First printings will be rarer because there are a limited number of them (and I would guess fewer Lost Moons than Apollo 13s). I agree, probably negligible difference for most autograph collectors (who don't seem to value books as much as photographs) but I prefer and always try to get first printings signed. |
freshspot
unregistered
|
posted 09-27-2014 05:14 AM
First editions first printings are always worth the most. For example, there are many books signed by JK Rowling but a first edition, first printing of Harry Potter and the Philosopher’s Stone - the 1997 debut book by the then-unknown author, had a print run of just 500 copies and is worth tens of thousands of $$ dollars. Many people don't understand the difference between editions and printings. There is a new *edition* whenever the book itself changes -- a new paperback edition for example or in the case of Lost Moon going to a new title and cover. There is a new *printing* when an existing edition goes back to press for more copies. On the copyright page of a book (the one with the legal mumbo jumbo), it will say something like "first edition" sometimes with a date. To confuse matters if there is a new publisher for the same book, it might say "first ABC Press edition September 2014" and you need to see if the book was released previously by another publisher which would be the actual first edition. To find the printing number, look on the copyright page for a series of ten numbers. It usually looks like this: 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 Whatever the smallest number is would be the printing. So if those ten numbers are 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 Then you've got a third printing. |
Mike_The_First
Member Posts: 436
From: USA
Registered: Jun 2014
|
posted 09-27-2014 06:29 AM
Yes, I'm aware of that, but there are technically first/first copies for both books, as they are technically different books.While I'm sure a first/first "Lost Moon" would be more valuable to a book collector than a first/first "Apollo 13" (due to scarcity and age), condition and such would play a role in that as well. Not wanting to get into all that, my question was in regard to the books in general, not the specific copies of the book. Looking at both again, personally, I think the "Lost Moon" jacket would look better on my bookshelf than the "Apollo 13" jacket (thus making it more valuable to me, as that is what value is), though I'm still quite interested in hearing the opinions of others. |
YankeeClipper
Member Posts: 617
From: Dublin, Ireland
Registered: Mar 2011
|
posted 09-27-2014 07:50 AM
Lost Moon may also be more valuable than Apollo 13 because the original book was rejected by 11 of 13 publishers due to lack of interest.  |
moonnut
Member Posts: 248
From: Andover, MN
Registered: Apr 2013
|
posted 09-27-2014 09:12 AM
"the original book was rejected by 11 of 13 publishers due to lack of interest."I'm sure that if one of the desperate housewives was going to do a book, they would have picked it up. The 'interests' of people baffle me and frankly sometimes scare me. Of what I've seen of the next generation, please tell me there are kids that have a thirst for knowledge of the topics that matter. The worst instance I had was at a speaking engagement of Eugene Cernan at Des Moines Area Community College. I drove four hours from Minneapolis to hear him speak. As he is speaking, behind me two college girls were gossiping about the TV show they watched last night. I drove four hours and wasn't about to have them ruin this experience for me. I turned around and told them to leave the gallery if they aren't interested and let someone standing at the back have their seats. I'm glad that Lost Moon did well enough to have several printings and another edition. It gives me faith in people's interests. |
YankeeClipper
Member Posts: 617
From: Dublin, Ireland
Registered: Mar 2011
|
posted 09-27-2014 10:53 AM
Jeffrey Kluger, co-author of Lost Moon with Jim Lovell, indicated that the book was rejected because publishers felt that no-one would be interested in a failed mission - a mission that didn't land on the Moon.Obviously, the publishers forgot how quickly public apathy at the time of the original mission in April 1970 switched to intense interest as the drama unfolded! |
advertisement