An ABC news story by Scout Wallen and Monty Jacka about a Tasmanian woman selling a 1937 edition of The Hobbit is interesting on a number of counts (there were two impressions of the 1937 first edition, and the second, with color illustrations, is worth a lot less; also, if you suspect you have a rare book, why would you throw out the dust jacket?), but the linguistic hook is the phrase I’ve bolded here:
Renee Woodleigh says she bought the book — which she says is a first edition copy — at the St Vincent de Paul op shop in Huonville, south of Hobart.
I had no idea what an op shop might be, but Wiktionary enlightened me:
(Australia, New Zealand) A shop, usually operated by a charity, to which new or used goods are donated, for sale at a low price.
It’s a contraction of opportunity shop, which makes sense but which I would never have guessed.
Also, I have to register my objection to the fact that among the illustrations of the book in question they include a film still with the caption “The Hobbit was adapted into a series of films by director Peter Jackson. (Warner Bros Pictures).” Gee, thanks for that extremely relevant information.
Something is incongruous here.
And yet, later in the article, “ Ms Woodleigh said she threw out her copy’s dust jacket some time ago.
“I still have the visual in my head of looking at the dust cover thinking ‘should I throw the dust cover away’,” she said.”
She supposedly knew enough about the book trade to recognize a first edition, yet discarded the dust wrapper?
In my years in the rare book trade, the 1970s, I dealt with many strange people, some more credible than others. Using the arcane nomenclature of catalogues, with a sarcastic twist, I would describe this seller’s account as ‘bumped, foxed, rubbed and…goosed’.
Exactly. Very odd indeed. Further research is needed.
More grounds for doubt: A cursory hunt for identifying points yielded this:
“ When the first edition had sold out, a second impression was published that included colour illustrations for the first time. It looks similar to the first impression and is also dated 1937, but states “second impression” on the back of the title page. ”
Source: https://www.peterharrington.co.uk/blog/identifying-collecting-tolkien-first-editions/
Are we to believe that the 19 year old charity shop/thrift shop customer knew that the Allen and Unwin imprint would equate “second impression” to second impression of the first edition?
Apparently there were four impressions of that edition, and none was identified on the verso of the title page as a first. The olfactory sensors detect a rodent.
If I can find my copy of Boutell’s First Editions and How to Tell Them, I’ll report this publisher’s practice for identifying first editions.
Well sleuthed. I wonder if the ABC folks will provide an update, or is it one of those “too good to check” stories?
cuchuflete: Surely you know Ronald Searle’s Portrait of an Antiquarian Bookseller (published in the collection Slightly Foxed — but still desirable: Ronald Searle’s wicked world of Book Collecting).
@Y,
Thanks for that. I had enjoyed it decades ago and then forgotten it. The renewed acquaintance is a pleasure.
Thanks for that.
Seconded. I had never seen it, and it is indeed a pleasure.
Higher resolution image of Anatomy of an Antiquarian Bookseller, as a direct link.
She supposedly knew enough about the book trade to recognize a first edition, yet discarded the dust wrapper?
A commenter on the MeFi thread about this provides a fuller quote, which makes more sense:
I might well have done that when I was nineteen.
Two bits of confusion, for me at least— “ I thought mountains, I don’t really want to look at mountains, I want to look at dragons. So I threw the dust cover in the bin.”
1) There is a dragon on the dust wrapper, back panel, and three flying critters that may also be dragons on the front panel. And yes, lots of mountains.
Beyond that, one only sees the dragons on the cover when not reading the book.
2) How did she conclude that it was a first edition? Did she have prior knowledge of the publication date? What about the aforementioned “second impression” on the title page verso?
Certainly some few 19 year olds might be familiar with the curiosities of the antiquarian book trade, so it’s not by any means impossible. It is just extremely uncommon.
https://photobucket.com/bucket/de31da3e-1464-47d8-b668-cfe7c5460a2f/slideshow
I remember seeing the dust jacket:
https://pictures.abebooks.com/inventory/31434935315_2.jpg
It was on the edition that the school library had, which I don’t think was by any means the first edition. I remember decoding the runes written around the edges, starting from the bottom left. I don’t think I had access to an article about runes, but the words are entirely in English, and it wasn’t that difficult. It’s easy to reconstruct now, because there’s a table of runes on the Wikipage for The Hobbit to remind me of the characters.
“The Hobbit, or There and Back Again, being the record of a year’s journey made by Bilbo Baggins of Hobbiton. Compiled from his memoirs by J. R. R. Tolkien. and published by George Allen and Unwin, Ltd.”
I cannot imagine throwing out that dust jacket, if I’d had it, and was aware of it being a first edition. I mean, even if I had preferred the dragons on the covers, I would have put the cover somewhere safe rather than discarding it.
I note that there’s a small dragon on the cover to the left of the Lonely Mountain.
I think those three birds are supposed to be Eagles.
FWIW, wiktionary recognizes “op” as a potential clipping of opponent, operation, operator, and/or opinion, but not of opportunity. Also as an ellipsis of “op art,” in which the “op” was originally a clipping of “optical.” (I might add adjectival variants of their proposals, like “operative” and “operational.”) It does have “op shop,” but maybe the implication is supposed to be that “op” for opportunity isn’t really a thing outside that specific Southern-Hemispheric set phrase? Or maybe it’s just incomplete, as even the largest dictionaries are wont to be.
I cannot imagine throwing out that dust jacket, if I’d had it, and was aware of it being a first edition.
Well, you must have been a very sensible 19-year-old.
maybe the implication is supposed to be that “op” for opportunity isn’t really a thing outside that specific Southern-Hemispheric set phrase
I’m pretty sure that’s the case.
I don’t think I could ever have brought myself to throw away a dust jacket, not out of any expectation of future profit, but just because it was Too Good For The Bin.
“Op” for “opportunity” is very rare—12 relevant Google hits for “gave me an op to”. Maybe one is for “option”.
“The choir, The Madrigals, The Presidents and the shows gave me an op to do what I loved.” https://www.tjclassof1970.net/class_profile.cfm?member_id=3073771 Click on “Show Gayle’s Profile…”
I don’t know what Wikt’s criteria for “really a thing” are.
Well, as J.W. Brewer said, “maybe the implication is supposed to be that ‘op’ for opportunity isn’t really a thing outside that specific Southern-Hemispheric set phrase” [emphasis added].
In other words, there’s no reason to think anyone uses “op” for opportunity in any other context.
A few people do use “op” for “opportunity” in other contexts, such as “gave me an op to”. The one I quoted is from Virginia, by the way.
Maybe I should have written, “‘Op’ for ‘opportunity’ does exist outside that set phrase, but it’s very rare.”
Wiktionary gives “oppo research” as a clipped form of “opposition research,” a political-campaign-jargon term, at least in AmEng. It doesn’t give “op research” for the same, but you can nonetheless find a few instances of that online. That sort of clipping (especially within a fixed phrase so it’s easier to decode) could occur ad hoc on multiple occasions without ever necessarily quite being lexicalized, I should think.
I agree.
Sure, but how do you tell whether it’s lexicalized?
Yeah we had one of them when I was growing up. Who knows where it ended up when we cleared out the family home after the parents died.
For my own sanity I hope it was a worthless 1960s reprint (and I genuinely think it probably was).
Interesting detail on the reader’s versus the writer’s imagination: it had a coloured frontispiece picture of Hobbiton. I didn’t like it at all – a very prissy hedgerows and buttercups aesthetic that was quite foreign to me (being Australian) and not at all how I imagined the world of the book.
If I recall correctly, I found in the small print that this picture had been done by the author.
the implication is supposed to be that “op” for opportunity isn’t really a thing outside that specific Southern-Hemispheric set phrase?
Yes I think that’s fair. ‘Op shop’ is a very familiar NZ/Aus phrase. So familiar that when I first read @Hat’s title, I wondered why bother writing about it. But then I recalled the Brit is ‘Charity shop’.
I’d say ‘op’ outside that fixed phrase is more likely (medical) operation. Quite often NZ/Aus words get clipped and then some stray vowel appended (‘Pommie’). (@JF that’s how to tell it’s lexicalised.) So we might get ‘op’ -> ‘oppo’. But no, ‘oppo’ is a clipping of ‘opposite number’, as in the opposition team’s player you’re most likely to bump into (literally).
Update: Oppie = ‘op shop’. I’ve never heard it.
I’m very familiar with ‘op shop’ = ‘opportunity shop’ because I live in Australia and because several family members have volunteered their time to work in or manage such shops. However, I don’t recall when I first encountered the terms, but it was at least a couple of decades ago, and I think that I heard ‘opportunity shop’ first. In the report, the woman says she found the book in an op shop 31 years ago, which takes us back to 1994, but was the abbreviated form used then? Turning to the ‘Australian National Dictionary’, it has citations for ‘opportunity shop’ from as far back as 1925, ‘op shop’ from 1950, and ‘op shopper’ from 1967.
Thanks for researching the history!
Boy, the OED needs to take those antedates on board; they have “opportunity shop” from 1933 (“The opportunity shop is still operating satisfactorily,” New Zealand Tablet 11 January 23) and “op shop” only from 1978 (“Be sure to donate your old clothes and old furniture to the opp shop in your neighbourhood,” P. Woolley, Art of Living Together 91).
‘Op shop’ is a very familiar NZ/Aus phrase. […] But then I recalled the Brit is ‘Charity shop’.
American “thrift store” or “thrift shop”, whether it’s for charity or not. The ngram result says “store” passed “shop” in that phrase around 2000.
Native New Zealand English speaker here – I do not hear “op” as a short form of “opportunity” outside “op shop”, with one exception, namely “photo op”, which I think is more widespread and probably imported from elsewhere?
I hear the younger generations using “thrift store” sometimes now.
In Australia the St Vincent de Paul op shops are often called “Vinnies”, which I occasionally hear here too.
Further detail for folks who are interested in Australian lingo:
A major chain of op shops is run by the Society of St Vincent de Paul.
They are universally known as “Vinnies” (as in “Do you like this retro jacket that I found at Vinnies?”).
Some years ago the organisation with admirable broad-mindedness decided to go with the flow and officially rebranded themselves accordingly. Example:
https://www.canowindraphoenix.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2022/10/vinnies.jpg
No flies on them.
Canowindra!
…and now I see that the i is a bald-faced lie. How do people put up with this?
Further to ‘Vinnies’: The Salvation Army often uses ‘Salvos’ in its naming in Australia. For example, its op shops are branded as ‘Salvos Stores’.
Vinnies
IIRC McDonald’s started using “Mickey D’s” in some of their commercials some time ago. (I’m sure they would have loved to trademark it, too.)
In Ireland, charity shops run by the Society of St Vincent de Paul seen to have rebranded from “SVP” to “Vincent’s” in the 2010s.
—-
Nonce clippings and nonce initialisms are a feature of PG Wodehouse, especially in Bertie Wooster’s writings. Perhaps some instances of op are akin. .
in my idiolect (nyc/new england): “thrift shop” (mainly for clothes), “junk shop” (mostly not for clothes), “consignment store” (mostly clothes; specific economic structure), “goodwill” (whether that chain or not), “sal val” (usually but not always for stores run by the christian sect).
with one exception, namely “photo op”
Good point. Photo op is widespread in US political journalism — at least it is in the DC area. I assume it’s pretty well known elsewhere.
LOL at the very notion of having been a sensible 19-year-oold.
(Any adolescence you can walk away from is a good adolescence)
I cannot imagine throwing out that dust jacket, if I’d had it, and regardless of whether I was aware of it being a first edition.
I mean, you don’t abuse books.
I mean, I don’t abuse books.
Hat.
Did you abuse books, in your youth? You can tell me. I won’t judge.
Well, actually, I’ll probably judge pretty harshly, but I won’t post a word.
Did you abuse books, in your youth?
People have different attitudes towards books. My mother was very respectful of them; one of her favorite sayings was “Books are your friends — treat them as such.” I know people who are horrified at the idea of writing in books, even in pencil. I think that’s absurd; I value books for their contents, not their pristine exteriors, and I have never had much interest in first editions and “as new” and all that crap. I don’t throw books around or tear pages out or write in them in pen (much less magic marker — the horror!), but I handle them familiarly and make notes in them in pencil and am happy to see them aging and getting weathered like their owner. I gave my near-incunabulum to a grandson and his betrothed as a wedding present because they were more serious book-lovers than I; I’m happier with a grubby paperback of something I love than a fancy hardcover of something I don’t much care for. So now you know; judge as you will.
By the age of about nine I had accrued via gifts from various adults a small collection of hardback children’s reference books. I threw away the childish dust jackets so the volumes presented a dignified array of blue cloth spines with gold lettering.
When I was a teenager I scotch-taped the edges of book jackets to keep them from fraying. A good intention, which would horrify any rare book collector or librarian (they have clear book jacket covers for that now.)
I throw out dust jackets when they become so torn with use that they don’t hold on to the book anymore. Happened a couple of times over the years; I don’t think any of them was from a rare edition.
I actually had a nightmare last weekend that I got a book from an auction and accidentally tore a part of the dust jacket getting it home. I know — very specific.
I don’t think I could ever have brought myself to throw away a dust jacket, not out of any expectation of future profit, but just because it was Too Good For The Bin.
Pretty much. I’m not sure what would need to have happened to a dust jacket for me to throw it away; at a minimum it must have been close to falling apart.
It’s possible that if it was boring and covering up important information I could have saved it separately, though, and then who knows where it could have ended up years later.
EDIT:
I throw out dust jackets when they become so torn with use that they don’t hold on to the book anymore. Happened a couple of times over the years; I don’t think any of them was from a rare edition.
…yeah, that.
I did have a first edition that I also (as a kid) drew in with pencil […deliberately, at instruction of my parents; we were using that book as an aid to teach me how to correctly pronounce some consonants], but it was also not a rare first edition, as far as I know (Soviet book print runs were enormous).
It did make it annoying, though, when I realized that the author was (then) still alive and I could have gotten it signed but that was an awkward combo with the pencil additions.
To tell the truth, if I see a bookcase full of pristine books in immaculate covers, my instinctive response is “That person doesn’t actually like books.”
I had separately wondered about the etymology of the vaguely-exotic Tasmanian toponym “Huonville,” and the answer seems to be this guy who stopped by in the 1790’s: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jean-Michel_Huon_de_Kermadec
@Stephen J.: “photo op”
Now why didn’t I think of that?
Wiktionary also has “job op”, though some examples of that could be “job opening”, I guess.
I knew of the Huon Gulf and the Kermadec Islands, but didn’t know they were named for the same person.
P.S. The northern bound of the Huon Gulf is Cape Cretin.
@Y: consider Prince William, Duke of Cumberland, who is commemorated in Virginia in the names of both Prince William County (est. 1731) AND Cumberland County (est. 1749).
That’s good. The more titles you have, the more things can be named for you without you looking immodest.
See also: Trump naming both Donald Jr. and Barron after himself.
The more titles you have, the more things can be named for you without you looking immodest.
Contrast Henry Talbot, Earl of Drogheda: while he was chair of the Dublin Wide Streets Commission, it supervised the creation of Henry Street, Talbot Street, Earl Street, Of Lane, and Drogheda Street.
Of Lane
???!!!
@mm
There was a joke about the transuranic elements that the place for ofium was reserved but someone not at U.Cal Berkeley isolated it first and gave it another name.
Context: californium and berkelium are real & official.
But the much more humble settlement of Ytterby in Sweden is what takes the chemical cake: ytterbium, yttrium, terbium, erbium!
‘Mickey D’s’ puzzled me the first time I read it several years until I realised that it is the US equivalent of ‘Macca’s’ here in Australia. McDonald’s also uses ‘Macca’s’ in some of its branding.
Wiktionary at ‘Mickey D’s’ has:
Synonyms
Maccies, Maccy D’s (UK, chiefly England)
Macca’s (Australia, New Zealand)
McD’s (South Africa)
McDo (Philippines)
The aspect of the story that strikes me is that it would seem to be trivially easy to determine whether this is the first impression, given that the illustrations differ. Yet we are left with a cliffhanger: is it or isn’t it? I wonder whether this is intentionally bad journalism, or the casually bad journalism of a soft news story judged not worth the effort to do well.
Op: I grew up in a military environment. The sense of “op” I am familiar with is “op force” (or, if we are being strictly about our military abbreviations, “OPFOR”), short for “opposing force.” This usually is in a training context. The military has big training centers that they run entire units through for simulated combat. The op force is a unit permanently stationed there. Back in the day they used actual Soviet equipment and doctrine. I don’t know how they do this today. Soviet equipment and doctrine were pretty bad, but the op force units had vastly more practice than is practical for a standard unit, plus an entirely unfair intimate knowledge of the terrain on the training ground. The result was that they routinely beat the training units.
Mollymooly – I knew about the 2nd Duke of Buckingham who caused streets in London to be named for every word in his title https://www.layersoflondon.org/map/records/of-alley-the-vanity-of-a-duke (I think Villiers Street is the only remaining one), but your Earl of Drogheda seems to have had the idea first! Wikipedia says he developed the area in 1614.
The aspect of the story that strikes me is that it would seem to be trivially easy to determine whether this is the first impression, given that the illustrations differ. Yet we are left with a cliffhanger: is it or isn’t it?
Yes, that struck me too.
Also France.
/ˈmɛkːɪ/ in Vienna, sometimes spelled Mäci.
For those who are wondering, first or second impression? There seems to be photographs of the actual book, and a response to the question
https://www.tolkienguide.com/modules/newbb/viewtopic.php?post_id=64984
Beg to report that while driving in an unfamiliar part of town yesterday I passed an op shop called “Window of Opportunity.” (https://www.instagram.com/window_of_opportunity_opshop/)