Revelation(s) Editions…

[Jeff Pierce Magic]

by Mike Caveney. Deluxe Collectors Edition #36 in mint condition, never opened.

$650.00 PP in US only.

Jeff Pierce
895 Kentucky woods lane east
Orlando, FL 32824
407-721-0683

[Richard Kaufman]

Is this the first edition or the recent new version?

[Jeff Pierce Magic]

Richard, this is the first edition Collectors edition from 2009. It is Caveneys Revelation, not Revelations from 1984.

Jeff

[Richard Kaufman]

The first edition of Revelations is from 1984.
The second editon is from 2009.
Both were published by Mike Caveney, and both had limited deluxe editions.

[Richard Kaufman]

Sorry, but it's a new edition of Vernon's book Revelations (extra "s" or not). The written content is virtually the same.

[Jason England]

pedantic;

adjective
1.
ostentatious in one's learning.
2.
overly concerned with minute details or formalisms, esp. in teaching.

[Jason England]

What am I to think of the words "First edition" that appear above the copyright notice in my Kaufman and Greenberg copies of Greater Magic?

Seems to me that's a bit misleading, as clearly the bulk of the written content is "virtually the same."

Ok, so you did add a bunch of material in the More Greater Magic section. Not the best example....

So how about in my copies of Stanyon's Magic published by K&G? You didn't add that much there.

Even better - How about in my K&G copy of Discoverie of Witchcraft? You added virtually nothing but the foreword, yet this book too has the "First edition" marker above the copyright notice. If anything isn't a first edition, it's the umpteenth printing of a 500 year old book!

So, was this an attempt at a scam of some sort on your part Richard, or is it just possible that when a book undergoes a major design change, and has significant new information added, that it can properly be considered a "first edition," as long as no one is trying to defraud anyone by using the term in a purposefully confusing way? (Although that still doesn't get you off the hook with Discoverie in my view -- no new information was added.)

I certainly don't claim to have all the answers, but you were either wrong when you put "first edition" in the three books listed above, or you're wrong now. Which is it?

Jason

[Richard Kaufman]

The titles you cite are all my first editions as publisher.

Mike Caveney was the publisher of both editions of Revelations.

I was wrong neither then nor now.

[Doc]

First Edition versus First Edition Thus.

[Dustin Stinett]

This started as an ad for Jeffs copy of Revelation. The following discussion became a violation of our rules, so I moved it to this thread (leaving just his ad) because I think it can be a good discussion (and I would like to keep it a discussion and not a brawlthank you).

Dustin

At least that's what I'm trying to do....

RRRRRR!!!

[Dustin Stinett]

Okaynow that I think Ive done all that, heres my two cents (though I wish our bibliophile (Clay) would chime in with his perspective).


Richard is technically right, but I also think that Revelation is so different that it is more than just a revised edition. I view it as a completely different book. Sort of the way Star Wars and Star Wars: Episode IV are different movies (same movie, one good, one badthough in this case both books are good).

What makes it different is the added material, the facsimile of Vernons manuscript, etc. Yes, the 2009 book is, technically, a very revised edition of the 1984 book, but to my amateur bibliophile eyes, its different enough to call it a first edition.

Dustin

[Dustin Stinett]

Jason,

A question for you since you pretty much have every edition of Erdnase known to man: Are there any (such as the Canadian edition) that say First Edition other than the actual first edition?

Dustin

[Richard Kaufman]

Yes, to me it indeed would seem to be an error.

[Kent Gunn]

As the only lithographer on the forum, I'm aware of I thought I'd add my two cents. (I really do work in the printing industry. Of course the company I work for prints on silicon wafers. I just like calling myself a lithographer!)

For once, Wikipedia has it about right.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edition_%28book%29

The guys with the control over the product; the publishers, get to decide how they name whatever falls out of their printing presses. It was their dough that started the presses turning, they get to pick.

I'd consider the latest Caveney incarnation of Erdnase's great text worthy of any name, he chose for it. Adding those long-lost photographs adds materially to the work. Plus the damned thing is simply beautiful. Again, he printed it, he gets to pick, regardless of what we or the competition think. Maybe Richard can chime in with what he, a publisher, considers the rules of this road.

With the advent of newer printing mechanisms, the sense that an edition was all printed by the same lead pieces affixed into frames, is long gone. I'm just glad books that were incredibly scarce, like "Discoverie of Witchcraft" are today available for six bucks, on Amazon.

First editions are often NOT the most valuable. As most of you are aware, ECT's third edition is considered by those who love all-backs and Vernon material, more valuable than the easily located Dover reprint of the first edition. The Dover printing of "Modern Coin Magic" is decidedly inferior to the '66 version "New Modern Coin Magic" with the cool coin box routines in the last chapter.

I just don't like paperback books as much as hardcovers. I don't necessarily hunt down first editions, it's just that I'm so old I tend to have been around when the first editions were available. (I was not available for the 1st printing of Scot's work to pick up a copy. Byron Walker tells me it was very nice that year though.

So, if if it causes some confusion and if some publishers have different standards for what constitutes a first edition or a first printing, I'm just glad they bother.

Speaking of firsts, I just got the "Gambling Protection Series" DVDs in the mail from a young friend. Now there's a medium that's newer than the "First Edition" VHS tapes I bought. The "Second Edition" on DVD is superior in every way.

If you love the real deal, like me. Send Jason England a hundred bucks. The extras disk alone is worth the price. Having it signed by Forte ROCKED. Thanks Sarge!

Here's to publishing in all it's forms. To those who provide us with our favorite items, all of you, Thanks from a huge fan.

Kent

[magicam]

Okayheres my two cents (though I wish our bibliophile (Clay) would chime in with his perspective).

What makes [Mike Caveney's 2009 Erdnase publication] different is the added material, the facsimile of Vernons manuscript, etc. Yes, the 2009 book is, technically, a very revised edition of the 1984 book, but to my amateur bibliophile eyes, its different enough to call it a first edition.

Okay, I'll chime in, but if there exists a tune called Pissing in the Wind, that's probably what I should be humming to myself as I write this, because it seems that most collectors don't really care much about bibliography.

Based on Dustin's description of the differences between Mike Caveney's 1984 and 2009 iterations of the Erdnase book, Dustin's amateur bibliophile eyes do not deceive him: even in the strictest bibliographical sense, Mike would be entirely justified in calling the 2009 publication a first edition. Why? Not because, as Kent Gunn suggests, Mike put up the bucks and thus gets to call it whatever edition he wants, but because there is a significant amount of supplemental material in the 2009 publication, and on that basis alone, it could quite properly be called a first edition in the bibliographical sense. Now, if Mike had instead called his 2009 book a revised edition, that would have been okay too.

In bibliography, the term edition is defined as copies of a publication printed from the same plates or type setting. Bibliographers focus on the type set-up itself and its history when determining edition; thus, in theory, so long as the plates have not been destroyed, there always exists the possibility for another impression (printing) of the same edition, and even if a book goes through 150 printings over a 100 year period, only one edition would exist if the same plates were used. When is a new edition created? A new edition is created only if it contains substantial or significant changes in the type set-up. Admittedly, the meanings of substantial and significant are somewhat subjective, but it can be said that correction of a few typos, limited factual corrections, etc., would not constitute a new edition, but the addition of new material (e.g., a new chapter) would constitute a new edition. Perhaps counter intuitively for collectors, even if there is just a complete resetting of the type with no change in the text a new edition would be created in the bibliographical sense.

Like any other specialized field of interest, the field of bibliography has its terms of art, and thus to bibliographers, the term edition has a very specific meaning. When bibliographers use edition in conversing with other bibliographers, in this single word they are conveying highly specific and very important information about the book in question. Collectors and publishers often do not use this and other bibliographical terms correctly, and this leads to confusion, because when a collector uses the word edition, in many instances a bibliographer has no idea what the collector is talking about. For example, when collectors say first edition, a lot of times what they really mean is first edition, first printing. But if a book has gone through many printings using the same type set-up, without the added first printing information, a bibliographer won't know if a collector is talking about the first, third or fifth printing, or if perhaps the collector is referring to all printings of a first edition. Here's another example where the incorrect use of edition can lead to confusion. On a now defunct website which illustrated and described many of the variants of Erdnase's The Expert at the Card Table, many of the Drake variants of EATCT were discussed. I have not done a bibliographical study of EATCT, but if memory serves, all of the Drake variants of Erdnase's book were printed from the same plates, possibly even from the original EATCT plates. If that's correct, then bibliographically speaking, there is really only one Drake edition. Yet the person writing the descriptions of these Drake variants uses such terms as early Drake softbound edition, the imprecision of which is bibliographically very confusing, or in the worst case, bibliographical nonsense because a book is being described which actually does not exist bibliographically.

In the search for the identity of Erdnase, researchers have spent great amounts of time studying and comparing the specific phrasing of certain sentences, along with other seeming minutiae about EATCT, but I am unaware of work underway which studies EATCT using the principles of descriptive bibliography. This is a bit ironic, because it is well known in other fields of literature that a disciplined bibliographical study of a book as physical artifact can provide important clues about an author's identity and work, yet this approach seems to have been thus far overlooked or ignored by Erdnase researchers. If you think that the bibliographical scrutiny of books is worthless for gleaning valuable information about an author, ask Shakespeare scholars and they'll tell you that Shakespearean studies have benefited greatly from the work of bibliographers.

Some collectors may say that emphasizing the correct use of bibliographical terms is much ado about nothing, and in some respects, although I am one who places great importance on the correct use and understanding of bibliographical terms, I would have to agree. It all depends on why one collects books, and being knowledgeable about bibliographical terminology is certainly not a prerequisite to enjoying book collecting, although I would argue that having such knowledge can greatly increase one's enjoyment of book collecting.

Kent Gunn has stated that the publishers get to decide how they name whatever falls out of their printing presses. It was their dough that started the presses turning, they get to pick. Kent's comment does reflect something noted in the Wikipedia link cited by Kent: Publishers use the term first edition for their own purposes, with little consistency. That is absolutely true, and the bibliographical chaos such inconsistencies create is the reason why bibliographers strenuously object to such publisher practices. While I disagree with the above sentiment about publishers getting to pick, Kent does raise an excellent point regarding bibliography and changes in printing and publishing technology. To my knowledge, the science and theory of descriptive bibliography has not caught up with changes in such technologies. E-books especially present significant and interesting challenges to bibliographical theory, but in my opinion, the phenomenon of e-books ultimately reinforces the need for and relevance of bibliographical principles.

There is an article in The Yankee Magic Collector #12 (2006) which defines basic bibliographical terms (i.e., edition, issue, state, and variant) and provides examples of such terms using conjuring publications. It might not be a bad starting point for those interested in exploring the field of bibliography.

[Ivanovich]

...but if there exists a tune called Pissing in the Wind, that's probably what I should be humming to myself as I write this...

I believe that would be Jerry Jeff Walker (who gave us Mr. Bojangles). He sings, Pissin' in the wind. Bettin' on a losin' friend. Making the same mistakes we swore we'd never make again."

Multiple editions of Revelations to us all,

Ivanovich

[Richard Kaufman]

Since, as David Ben has written, all the text is essentially the same, I don't buy the "new edition" argument. "Revised edition," yes.

[David Ben]

Richard, I wish you hadn't brought me into this. I have to disagree with your comments. You have taken my words out of context.

While Vernon's words in "Revelation" include the words in "Revelations", there is much much more. "Revelations" for example, does not include Vernon's words on 'The Spread", "Cull and Stock", or "The Hop". "Revelations" also does not include my introduction, which is almost like a chapter in the Vernon biography - Part Two, nor the reconstruction of the Walter Scott Belly Cut, the Table Shift, the Ping Pong Shift, nor the copious photographs and other images. "Perfect the Good", for example, is probably the best table shift that I've ever come across.
And, if you adhered to Clay's approach, the book was completely redesigned in all aspects.

[John Lovick]

Magicam,

First, I want to say, very interesting and informative posting. Thank you. But I have to ask about one assertion.

If you think that the bibliographical scrutiny of books is worthless for gleaning valuable information about an author, ask Shakespeare scholars and they'll tell you that Shakespearean studies have benefited greatly from the work of bibliographers.

Yes, Shakespearean studies HAVE benefited greatly from the work of bibliographers, but in 400 years of study, there is not a single biographical fact we have learned about Shakespeare from the work of bibliographers (as you imply). And (to bring things back on topic) I can't think of a single thing about Erdnase's life we could learn from bibliographic study either. I'd like to hear even a completely hypothetical specultion as to biographical information that could be gleaned from bibliographic study.

[Roger M.]

"revelation" is a completely re-designed book, with type completely re-set, and additionally with tons of new material, not to mention a different title...........that's a First Edition.

[Richard Kaufman]

I have been outvoted and hereby relent on my position.

[Eoin O'hare]

Don't forget, there are two editions of each book.
One regular edition and one collector's edition.
I hope this helps to clarify things.

[Dustin Stinett]

And actually there issort ofanother [whatever its called] of the Revelation book. Caveney is selling the regular binding in the slipcase that came with the (sold out) deluxe edition with the tipped in photo of Vernon as well.

Thanks for your input and insights Clay; I appreciate it!

Dustin

[Roger M.]

Actually, the slip-case that the "Special Regular Edition" comes with isn't the same as the ones that come with the Deluxe Edition, it's somewhat smaller.

These slip-cases included with the Special Regular Edition are the original 150 slip cases Caveney ordered......but they were sized wrong, such that the Deluxe Edition wouldn't fit into.
That resulted in the need to order 150 slightly larger slip-cases, which are the ones that sold with the Deluxe Edition.

So there are three editions of this particular book:

1) Regular Edition
2) Special Regular Edition
3) Deluxe Edition

Note that any Regular Edition book can be "turned into" a Special Edition by ordering the slip-case and a photo of Vernon from Caveney ($35.00, if you already own a Regular Edition).
If you do decide to become the owner of a Special Regular Edition and you already own a Regular Edition you'll have to take off the beautiful paper book jacket and store it somewhere........as the book jacket (when on the book) won't fit into the reject slip cases which accompany the Special Regular Edition.

The only thing I'm unsure of is whether you even get a book jacket if you order the Special Regular Edition directly from Caveney, as opposed to turning your own Regular Edition (which comes with a book jacket) into a Special Regular Edition.

That's all I know :)

[John M. Dale]

Okay, I'll chime in, but if there exists a tune called Pissing in the Wind, that's probably what I should be humming to myself as I write this, because it seems that most collectors don't really care much about bibliography.

"Pissin' in the Wind"; Jerry Jeff Walker; Album Name: "Ridin' High"; 1975 (Available from iTunes if you're an iPod/iPhone/iPad kinda guy.)

JMD

[magicam]

LOL, thanks to Ivanovich (and later, John D.) for the music reference! I suppose it shouldn't be too surprising that such a song exists.

I have to ask about one assertion.

If you think that the bibliographical scrutiny of books is worthless for gleaning valuable information about an author, ask Shakespeare scholars and they'll tell you that Shakespearean studies have benefited greatly from the work of bibliographers.

Yes, Shakespearean studies HAVE benefited greatly from the work of bibliographers, but in 400 years of study, there is not a single biographical fact we have learned about Shakespeare from the work of bibliographers (as you imply). And (to bring things back on topic) I can't think of a single thing about Erdnase's life we could learn from bibliographic study either. I'd like to hear even a completely hypothetical specultion as to biographical information that could be gleaned from bibliographic study.

I'm no Shakespeare scholar, so all I can do is ask some questions in the hopes of learning a few things. How do you know that bibliography has failed to contribute any biographical knowledge about Shakespeare? Were there really Shakespearean studies 400 years ago, i.e., when Shakespeare was still living? If so, who was doing this scholarship? From the modest reading I've done and the handful of conversations I've had with people who actually know something about Shakespeare, my understanding is that the kind of reverence accorded to Shakespeare nowadays and the formal study of the Shakespeare canon didn't exist in his lifetime or for that matter at any time in the 17th century and that Shakespearean studies per se really only came into being in the past 200 years or so.

Regarding the comment you quoted, context is important here, so it's worthwhile to recall what I wrote just prior to the excerpt you quoted: ... bibliographical study of a book as physical artifact can provide important clues about an author's identity and work. [emphasis added] The foregoing is really the heart of my point, and while your inference about biographical facts seems quite reasonable, it is only a small portion of the broad compass covered by the concept of an author's identity and work. I've never claimed to be a real bibliographer, but from all that I've learned in my bibliographical studies, I'll stand by the above-quoted assertion. If you can find a bonafide bibliographer who disputes my claim, tell me who he/she is and why I'm mistaken and I'll happily stand corrected and attempt to learn from it.

Whenever questions arise about an author's identity, life, authorial intent, or the authenticity of text, there are many potential resources which might be helpful in addressing such questions; to the extent they exist, a researcher might consult, for example, the author's personal correspondence, family writings or recollections, newspaper or magazine accounts, governmental/public records, or the text of the book in question. And bibliographical analysis of the book is another tool/resource at the researcher's disposal. Competent researchers make use of all available resources. Just as it would be foolish for a researcher to rely exclusively on any singular available resource for his research, it would be equally foolish to summarily dismiss any available resource as a potential source of information.

You indicated that you can't think of a single thing about Erdnase's life that could be learned from a bibliographic study of his book, and followed that up with a request for a hypothetical example of how biographical information can be gleaned from bibliographical analysis. That's a very reasonable and open-minded request, but to answer your question in any meaningful and potentially satisfying manner would require a semi-lengthy essay, and I don't have the time for that. And even if I did, I'd still be reluctant because my bibliographically-oriented writings have probably already induced more than enough narcolepsy on this board. However, if you have a serious interest in getting your question answered, I'd be happy to talk with you on the phone just PM me with your number or if you want to consult a real expert on your question, you should read Fredson Bowers' Principles of Bibliographical Description. In a nutshell, however, the answer to your question involves, among other things, the concepts of textual criticism, ideal copy, issue and state, and the fact that descriptive bibliography is the bridge to textual criticism.

Under the circumstances, John, that's the best I can do to address your comments and questions, except to reiterate my opinion that it would be a mistake to believe that bibliography can't play a role in solving the mystery of Erdnase's identity, and that, so far as I know, a true bibliographical study of EATCT has not yet been done. Put another way, we'll never know if a bibliographical study of EATCT will help identify its author until such work is done.

[Dustin Stinett]

Again, being the tyro that I am, I suspect that bibliographic information has in fact been used by those investigating the identity of Erdnase. To wit: The date of original publication, the printer and its location, etc. All gave initial cluesalbeit clues that are all now considered givento the mans identity.

Dustin

[Roger M.]

Clay, what bibliographic investigation of EATCT needs to be done in your opinion?

Like Dustin, I was (and am) under the impression that the bibliographic investigation of the history of the book has been somewhat exhaustive to date.

What area remains to be explored?

[Bill Mullins]

Clay, what bibliographic investigation of EATCT needs to be done in your opinion?

Like Dustin, I was (and am) under the impression that the bibliographic investigation of the history of the book has been somewhat exhaustive to date.

What area remains to be explored?

If such an investigation had been done, I'd be able to refer to it and answer the following questions:
1. How many Drake editions are there (hardbound and softbound)?
2. How many KC Card Co dated editions/printings are there?
3. What is the date of the first KC Card Co edition?
4. Jason England used to host a web page with numerous editions on it. It included two HB ca. 1905 Drake Editions; one with a pictoral cover, and one with a plum colored cover. Are there any other differences between these two?
5. It also included a 1918 HB Drake -- what differences exist between it and earlier Drake editions?
6. How was the date for the 1918 edition determined -- if it is the last hb Drake edition, does this tell us anything about when Drake's relationship with the author or copyright holders changed?
7. It also included a 1937 SB Drake edition. Is this the earliest SB printing? Is it the last Drake edition?
8. What are the differences between KC Card and Powner editions?
9. How do the dates assigned to the various editions jibe with the known publications of other works advertised in them?
10. What is the last edition printed from original plates? When did photo-offset printings start?

The answers to some of these questions may exist in the Genii Forum Erdnase thread, or in The Man Who Was Erdnase, or elsewhere. It may be simple enough for an advanced collector like Richard Hatch or Jason England to examine their copies and answer some of these. But if the answers exist, they are not the result of the sort of detailed specific bibliographical study that Clay mentioned -- one doesn't exist.

Every time I have gotten ahold of a new tool for examining a question, it has been useful. A bibliographical study may not produce any new information that isn't already extant. But it will help frame questions in new ways, and that itself may produce new answers.

[Roger M.]

Many of the answers to those questions are found in Jason Englands excellent notes "Erdnase - Past, Present, and Future".

Although Jason in no way claims these notes to be the final word on the subject, they are most definitely an extensive piece of work.

A large scale bibliographic undertaking, bringing everything together in one place would certainly be welcomed by those interested in the topic..........but there has been some investigative process undertaken in this field already.

I think it's an error to imply that there's been no work done in this area to date, when clearly there has.

[Bill Mullins]

Many of the answers to those questions are found in Jason Englands excellent notes "Erdnase - Past, Present, and Future".

I'll email Jason directly about this, but I've never heard of such a set of notes. Are they available for purchase?

I think it's an error to imply that there's been no work done in this area to date, when clearly there has.

I don't think anyone has said or even implied that there has been "no work" done on Erdnase bibliographic study.

[Roger M.]

These are a fantastic set of lecture notes from Jason detailing the various editions.

If I recall correctly, I believe Jason mentioned some time ago that they were sold-out.

[PickaCard]

650$ for the collectors edition from 3 years ago!

I wonder how much the original Revelations 1984 limited edition signed by Vernon would go for?

[Jeff Pierce Magic]

According to Martinkas, $300-$400.00.

Jeff

[magicam]

I think it's an error to imply that there's been no work done in this area to date, when clearly there has.

I don't think anyone has said or even implied that there has been "no work" done on Erdnase bibliographic study.

I agree with Bill. I don't recall anyone making the no work claim. We should all be appreciative of the historical and bibliographical contributions made in magic, and should recognize that every little scrap of careful research and documentation advances our knowledge of magic.

On the other hand, Roger, based on what I've heard and read about the existing bibliographical investigations of EATCT, I'd say that only the most basic enumerative bibliographical work has been done, and can assure you that nothing close to an exhaustive bibliographical investigation has been performed. And lest anyone think I'm sitting in some bibliographical ivory tower, that's not the case at all. At best, my published bibliographical work is rather simplistic, which is all I'm capable of at this point in my knowledge of bibliography. But I do know a little about the theory and principles of bibliography, enough to appreciate that it takes many, many years of full-time study and field work to become even just an average bibliographer.

To give you an idea of how sophisticated bibliography can get, on a scale of 1 to 10, 10 being a true descriptive bibliography, in my opinion the very best bibliographical work ever done in conjuring ranks as a 3, maybe a 4. At best, Toole Stott's bibliography which is probably the best we have in magic is an annotated catalog and little more. That's not to say that Toole Stott didn't make an extremely valuable contribution to conjuring he did. His work is a very important reference work and we owe a debt of gratitude to him for it. But it is a far cry from a true descriptive bibliography.

As I tried to stress in an earlier post, a good working knowledge of basic bibliographical is not essential to the enjoyment of book collecting, but I do think such knowledge is likely to make collecting more enjoyable, and more important, the more collectors know about basic bibliographical principles and terms and the more they communicate by the correct usage of such principles and terms, the more we will learn about the books themselves.

Here's a case in point. In an earlier post, Roger stated that there are three editions of Revelation, the Regular Edition, the Special Regular Edition, and the Deluxe Edition. Bibliographically, that is incorrect. There is only one edition of this book, and the correct bibliographical characterization of this edition is probably that it consists of three issues: (i) the regular issue w/o the slipcase, added photo, etc. (i.e., the one originally advertised and sold), (ii) the regular issue w/ slipcase and photo, and (iii) the deluxe issue. I say probably because, depending on how certain factors played out, it is possible that the deluxe issue would exist in two states, and depending on other factors, the initial variant state (the one w/ the smaller slipcase) would be more specifically characterized as either the preliminary state of the deluxe issue or the first state of the deluxe issue. By the way, had the undersized slipcase problem not occurred, the bibliographical result would have been much simpler: there were be two issues in the edition, a regular issue and a deluxe issue.

Additional bibliographical complexities are created by the fact that Mike is offering the smaller slipcase and the photo as a separate package to those who own the regular issue (as it was originally advertised and sold) and want to upgrade their copies. This creates the possibility that additional variant copies will be created. For example, whether on purpose or by mistake, some collectors may not mount the photo in the location suggested by Mike, or they may not mount the picture at all. Other collectors may like the dust jacket so much that they don't use the slipcase and just add the photo to the book. Etc. 200 years from now, when bibliographers encounter this book and (almost inevitably) all of its possible variations, unless someone from our generation has taken the time to correctly document the publishing history of this book, there will be confusion. So while it may not seem important now to understand and document the bibliographical history of Revelation, as the years pass such documentation will be very helpful to future bibliographers.

To be fair, it should be noted that Mike certainly isn't the only magic publisher who uses the terms regular edition and deluxe edition when marketing his books. Nearly all magic publishers do this, and this practice is extremely common outside of magic publishing as well. Is there any real harm done? No. The point simply is that, bibliographically speaking, such usage is incorrect. That's all.

[Roger M.]

Very informative post Clay, thanks.