Publisher talk:Arrow Books

From ISFDB
Revision as of 13:46, 24 September 2008 by BLongley (talk | contribs) (→‎W.I?)
(diff) ← Older revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Is this meant to be for Arrow Books Limited/Ltd? (I.e. the suffix has just been dropped to avoid fragmentation?) If so, what are the grounds for calling it a publisher when it's stated to be "An imprint of the Hutchinson Group" or "An imprint of the Hutchinson Publishing Group" or "An imprint of Century Hutchinson Limited" (See Solar Lottery by Philip K. Dick published 1972 , The Jagged Orbit by John Brunner published 1979 , Counting the Cost by David Drake published 1989 .) Have you found a separate stand-alone "Arrow Books ltd" company? BLongley 19:21, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

We had agreed to regularize names and to drop the Ltd. but this is an incomplete article. It should mention the full name used by the company was "Arrow Books Limited" of 17-21 Conway Street, London W1P 6JD and that it's a division of the Hutchinson Publishing Group, etc. Marc Kupper (talk) 17:46, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
I just looked at the sources again.
  • In 1972 Publication:SLRLTTRJCS1972 says "Arrow Books Ltd / 3 Fitzroy Square, London W1 / An imprint of the Hutchinson Group" and supports use as an imprint.
  • In 1985 Publication:STRHNTCKCK1985 says "Published by Arrow Books Limited / 17-21 Conway Street, London W1P 6JD / A division of the Hutchinson Publishing Group" and clearly identifies Arrow as a publisher. That's what's cited in the article.
  • In 1989 Publication:BKTG02151 says "Arrow Books Limited / 62-65 Chandos Place, London WC2N 4NW / An imprint of Century Hutchinson Limited"
While the article accurately reflects what it cites it's clear the name is also designated as an imprint. Marc Kupper (talk) 17:55, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
I suspect this simply shows that the distinction between "an imprint" and "a publisher owned by another firm" is not a clear-cut one, and perhaps not always importewnt to the publishers themselves. -DES Talk 23:10, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
My first thought once I saw the imprint/publisher/imprint pattern was that Hutchinson Publishing Group was trying to boost the value of Arrow by calling it a "publisher" prior their merge with Century. I did find it interesting that Arrow was/is an imprint that also sports a "Ltd / Limited" as though it's a company itself and not just a marketing brand. Marc Kupper (talk) 00:35, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
We may yet find Arrow did start as a separate company, like Panther did. And Panther were still listed as Panther Books Ltd long after they were taken over. A wholly-owned subsidiary company with a decent brand seems to be perfectly acceptable for some owning companies for a long time. BLongley 18:41, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

W.I?

Bill - I'm not familiar with London postal addresses but Image:Purple-6_Title_Page.jpg looks like it has postal code "W.I" with a small letter "I". Is that supposed to be the numeral "1"? Marc Kupper (talk) 18:29, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

I think it's a small but capital letter "I" - read it as a roman numeral. London postcodes aren't intuitive but there's no "WI" prefix. There are "WC" and "EC" (West Central and East Central) and then some of the points of the compass: "N", "NW", "SW", "SE", "W" and "E". There's no "NE" for Northeast (that went to "Newcastle") or "S" for South (that went to Sheffield). The next section of the post-code is always numeric, so that HAS to be a "1" to make sense - but a Roman "1" is OK. BLongley 19:01, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
I did not realize the Romans had ruled GB as late as 1963. :-) A Roman numeral "I" makes perfect sense though. Thank you. Marc Kupper (talk) 19:45, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
There's still a secret Roman ruling class here, it seems - e.g. I still see copyright dates on current BBC television programs listed as "MMVIII". Do note that post-coding as it stands now does not mean it was the same post-code historically - "NE" and "S" even existed for London for a while apparently, but only for a decade or so in the mid-19th century it seems. It's mostly settled down now and the ROUGH areas are still pretty useful: but there's been increased sub-divisions over the years so a change from "W1" to "W1P 6JD" for instance doesn't necessarily mean a physical move of location. It just helped them get their mail more reliably. I'm still astounded that a publisher moved to the premises next-door though. I might have to go check what's so appealing about 61-63 Uxbridge Road, Ealing that makes it worth the move from 57-59 Uxbridge Road, Ealing. BLongley 20:37, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
It's possible it was just expansion. I've been in several businesses that started in one part of a building and expanded, taking on adjacent addresses. Sometimes the mail address was changed as the owner's office was now in a new suite or building. In the USA postal codes are also expanding with the old 5 digit system now being ZIP+4 making for 9 digits. Recently where I live a ZIP code got cut in half and a new code got assigned. Marc Kupper (talk) 00:31, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
Well, it didn't change to 57-63 Uxbridge Road so I assume it was a move rather than an expansion, unless the neighbouring building is bigger. Mind you, I made a move almost as small four years ago: but I crossed the road rather than move one building along the same side. And I've seen re-post-coding in action: it happened to my parents a few years ago. They neglected to tell me though, so it wasn't until I accused Google Maps of being inaccurate that I found out that CO4 4 is now CO4 0. BLongley 18:46, 24 September 2008 (UTC)