That's not how I would describe "exact"

[weirdquark]

I have an item in four volumes which claims to be an exact reprint of something that was previously published in five.

Comments

[thnidu]

We-ell...

Suppose each page is an exact image of the corresponding page in the original, and they're all there: just in 4 volumes instead of 5. I would call that an "exact reprint". The difference is just in how they're bound.

LotR has been published in a one-volume format. Many, many series,* including Steven K.Z. Brust's Vlad Taltos books, are reprinted in omnibus editions, combining two or more books that were originally issued separately into a single larger product. Would you refuse to call such combinations "exact reprints"?

[weirdquark]

I'm a cataloger and I work with rare books where differences in editions are important, so yeah, I would. :)

There are cataloging rules that say how different something can be before it is considered to be a new edition rather than just a reprint (rare book catalogers and catalogers of special collections argue for more) which means a new record -- when I'm cataloging a book I can put different reprints on the same record with the original with a note that identifies each as the original or a reprint, but something being officially put out in four volumes instead of five would need a new record even if the text is the same.

I did have another title that was originally published in one volume that I got in two, but that was a case of being bound differently; the second volume had a handwritten title page and obviously had not been published with the intent of being in two volumes; that one was an exact printing (or reprint, if there was more than one printing) of the one volume version and went on that record with a note that our copy was bound in two volumes instead.

[thnidu]

Oh, well, heck, why didn'cha say so? Of course it'll be different for cataloging purposes.

LO♡E A LIBRARIAN*

* I did, for the best 42 years of my life.