Re: Russell Kirk Arkhams on E-Bay

In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Charles Cunningham) wrote:

> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (paghat) wrote in message
news:<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>...
> > In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>  Sad that
> > the magic of the name "Arkham House" has faded with time, & Turner turning
> > them into a science fiction publisher started the decline of fannish
> > devotion to the imprint, which is not to say Jim didn't select some
> > awfully nice sci-fi. 
> <snip>
> > The magic names for devottees of weird tales nowadays are Ash Tree,
> > Tartarus, & Sarob.
> > 
> > -paghat the ratgirl
> Hi Paghat,
>    I didn't realize Arkhams had fallen in repute so far. I would agree
> partially with your statements above, except that I still think
> Arkhams from its "golden age" (1939-48) are wonderful books with huge
> historical interest. I would particularly cite "Skullface" and "Dark
> Carnival" as two of the premier fantasy publications of all time.
>    Best,
>    Charles Cunningham

I too think those "golden age" Arkhams will hold their value & increase in
value, no matter how many corrected definitive & complete editions come
along in their wake. Their historical importance as true first editions
cannot be taken from them, & there will never be quite enough fine copies
to go around.

Of their modern editions of modern (mostly science fiction) writers, some
of these will VERY SELECTIVELY skyrocket in value when out of print, but
it's not the imprint that will define that, it will be the collectibility
of the given author -- whoever has modern first edition cache weather
issued by Harpers or Arkham or Doubleday or Allen & Unwin. The name Arkham
doesn't SPOIL collectibility, it just no longer guarantees it.

-paghat the ratgirl

-- 
"Of what are you afraid, my child?" inquired the kindly teacher.
"Oh, sir! The flowers, they are wild," replied the timid creature.
   -from Peter Newell's "Wild Flowers"
See the Garden of Paghat the Ratgirl: http://www.paghat.com/