Talk:Mass market paperback

Yellowing

"typical yellowing due to age can be seen along the outer edges (right and bottom)."

Excuse me, but I thought that particular edition was printed with yellow edges! Y/N? Lee M 02:28, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC) no, it just doesn't take long at all to yellow, i have bought them new and over the course of a month or two they will yellow

I like the yellow. It reminds me of when I was a kid and used to read books. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.113.104.47 (talk • contribs) Revision as of 06:38, 2 February 2006

Time and the value of mass market paperbacks

Could anyone give reliable information as to how the value of a mass market book changes over the years, compared to the hardcover. Would an antique mass market book's worth be only sentimental value after many years? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jinnerik (talk • contribs) Revision as of 15:21, 28 February 2006

Generally poor—unless it can be considered a 'collectable'. e.g. My oldest bought a first printing 'new' TPB for $58.00 about five years after release. OTOH, the same title and press run, priced two nights ago in 'used' via Amazon.com networked bookstores have the same title (6th in a series) for $5.00-8.00 (Since the author and publisher have had a spat, it's unlikely to see a new printing soon, if ever. Same writer had a spat with new publisher!). Most titles wouldn't command that much this much later, but the series was quite popular for a while, and that's inflating the used prices.

Best regular value would be to use as swap credits at a used book store. Best wishes, FrankB 04:48, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

For fairly reliable information about the value of "antique" mass market paperbacks, you might see one of:

* Hancer's Price Guide to Paperback Books, Third Edition, ed. Kevin Hancer, Wallace-Homestead, 1990, ISBN 0-87069-536-3

* Collectable Paperback Books, Second Edition, ed. Jeff Canja, Glenmoor, 2002 ISBN 0-9673639-5-0

Hancer has more bibliographic information but is less accurate on prices; Canja is highly accurate on prices but doesn't offer complete listings (both IMHO). You might also try eBay. Remember that condition is a crucial factor in the price. Accounting4Taste 02:33, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Average size of MM paperbacks?

Should the average size of a MM paperback be added to the article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.162.0.37 (talk • contribs) Revision as of 15:29, 10 April 2006

Trade paperback picture

I removed the trade paperback image (Image:Popular Trade Paperback.jpg) because the Harry Potter cover taken from Amazon.com is simply the source image used for the cover and gives no idea of the size of a trade paperback compared to a mass market paperback. A better image should be found to replace it, and the new image should also be added to the trade paperback article. No sense in having a picture of a trade paperback in the mass market paperback article but not in the trade paperback article. As a sidenote, I suggest not using any of the Harry Potter paperbacks as examples. I've seen these things in bookstores and whether they should be considered trade or mass market seems debatable, considering they're larger and more expensive than an average mass market paperback but smaller and less expensive than an average trade paperback. DT29 22 May 2006

I apparently lost the edit that added that image to the TPB article. Dang! Too many stacked edits. (again)

Disagree with your action of removing it here. May as well spit in someone's face. Just as courteous and respectful of my time. I can see your point in some respects, but anyone that's seen one will have memory triggered as far as the size difference goes by that pic I installed, especially likely with a Potter book, I'd guess, as they are so ubiquitous. Don't know of many TPB's that would be anywhere near as recognizable, and the proportional differences are obvious to most folks eyes, though I guess not yours.

OTOH, I wasn't too happy with that image myself, esp. with the Amazon arrow dingus attached. Hence, the better action would to have been to find a better image and overwrite that one. At the least, you should have dropped me a note to see this talk as well. Best regards, FrankB 05:31, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I just removed the uninformative Harry Potter Amazon image in the process of making some grammar and style edits, thinking that a photo that doesn't show the actual dimensions of the book is no help, and doesn't belong in the mass market paperback article anyway (I see now that the same image is in the Trade Paperback article as well, where it is at least in theory relevant though still not informative). Please don't take offense because some other editors disagree with an edit you made -- there's nothing personal about it. I guess we need someone who has a digital camera to replace the image, though. --Jim Henry 19:26, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

MPB?

Just wondering why the letters "mpb" when put into wiki link to this (I thought that was a acronym for Male Pattern Baldness).

MPB should also redirect to Música Popular Brasileira (Brazilian Popular Music)

Merge?

I suggest this could probably be merged with the paperback page. By and large, most people define the paperback as the mass-market paperback as defined here. As I've noted on the paperback page, it can be differentiated from a bunch of other formats -- trade paperback, and the precursors of the modern-day paperback, each to have their own page -- but I suggest that most people regard paperback and mass-market paperback as synonymous. I haven't done this merge yet because I'm interested to know if anyone has a different way of organizing this material so as to be useful and informative. Accounting4Taste 04:25, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. Trade paperback should be merged too. Tags added at paperback. --Quiddity 06:11, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]