GREAT EXPECTATIONS

London: Chapman and Hall, 1861. 3 volumes. First Edition, fifth issue of the title-pages, but with virtually all first issue points of the First Edition, first impression, first state. Vol. III with "i" p. 193, "3" present as last digit in p. 103 in the text per Smith and Clarendon bibliographies and etc. With the August 1861 catalogue. 8vo, publisher’s original purple cloth lettered and decorated in gilt on the spines and in blind on the upper and lower covers. [iv], 344; [ii], 350; [ii], 344 pp. An unusually handsome, clean and fresh copy without repairs or sophistication. Light mellowing to the cloth from age, slight rubbing at the tips, hinges strong and quite tight with only slight evidence of age wear. The text block remains clean and in excellent condition. Very rare in this condition and state of preservation. HIGHLY IMPORTANT AND VERY RARE FIRST EDITION IN THE ORIGINAL CLOTH. "The rarity of the first issue of GREAT EXPECTATIONS has been attributed to the...fact that 'the first edition was almost entirely taken up by libraries.” Patten, pp. 290-292, states that 1000 copies of the first issue and 750 of the second were printed and that probably most of the first and more than half of the second (1400 copies in all) were purchased by Mudies Select Library" (Smith, DICKENS IN THE ORIGINAL CLOTH).
Even in 1932 Eckel lamented that "to obtain fine clean copies of this book has been the unsuccessful quest of many book collectors." Struggle between the various bibliographical arguments continues to this day with many holding to the points and positions formulated by Smith (see CHARLES DICKENS IN THE ORIGINAL CLOTH) while some argument is occasionally made that copies of the book must correspond to the specifications put forth in the Clarendon bibliography. But as the sampling of copies used in that bibliography was statistically too small to gain absolute information by which a definitive argument could logically be made for the entire first edition run, it remains the case that such data can be used logically to build an argument towards acceptance of the existence of one micro pattern only within the run and not therefore a finding which determines finally and clearly for the whole.
Most experts today, continue to hold that Victorian printings and editions yielded to many factors during the binding process, not the least of which were economy and imprecision. It is likely that a Victorian publisher would most surely have used existing sheets when sewing together the gatherings before binding. Indeed, the specifications which are contained in the Oxford article seem to show that the textual points noted are of a very minor state and involve a change of or damage to a letter here or a word there, and as the editor Margaret Caldwell herself notes, “the clear conclusion is that there is no warrant for treating the five impressions as distinct editions: no authorial revision distinguishes one from another; blatant errors of substance remain uncorrected; a few errors and accidentals are corrected but many more remain.” It is also noted that one copy at the Bodlean at Oxford University is mixed state within the text while having first edition, first issue title pages.