Helen Shiner Aug 7, 2014:

@Kurt Given that a bibliography lists specific books used by the author of a text, I think it would be safe to assume that it is one print-run, not a succession of them.

Kurt Beals (asker) Aug 7, 2014:

@Helen That's my understanding too. What I'm not sure of is whether there might be multiple printings involved (e.g. three separate printings of 10,000 copies each), but in any case I think "1.-30. Tausend" would only refer to the first edition, not 30,000 copies of a later edition.

Helen Shiner Aug 7, 2014:

@Horst My understanding of the designation is that it means the first 30,000 copies full stop.

Horst Huber (X) Aug 7, 2014:

If one had the title, one might be able to research it and find out whether the copy was a "1st ed.", or one of 30 000 copies of a later one, or of a reprint. Hard to tell without the details.

Kurt Beals (asker) Aug 6, 2014:

@Horst This is admittedly an unusual case - it's not a "bibliography," it's a reference within the body of the text to a book found in an author's personal library, but it provides publication information, not just author and title. My question is just whether there's a convention for giving this information in English. I'm familiar with the format "#. - #. Tausend" from other German books (e.g. https://archive.org/details/daschristentumu00werngoog), but have never seen an equivalent format in English. A brief Google search for "1st - 30th thousand" turns up only a handful of results, mostly translated from German. I know that "1st ed." is not an exact translation; however, if this book is included in the "1.-30. Tausend" doesn't that mean it's part of a first edition of 30,000? I can't think of any case in which the former would not logically imply the latter. In that case my inclination would be to put "1st ed." because it's consistent with the most common English-language conventions for citation, rather than giving a literal translation like "1st-30th Thousand," which would just seem odd to English-language readers.

Helen Shiner Aug 2, 2014:

@Akhram But this is a "bibliographical citation" "within the body of a text".

AKhram Aug 2, 2014:

Number of copies might be mentioned in catalogue records. Do not hesitate to keep this info if it is of importance.

Ex.: "Adams, Bernard. LONDON ILLUSTRATED 1604-1851: A survey and index of topographical books and their plates. 1983. Limited to 1000 numbered copies"
http://www.aba.org.uk/images/stories/downloads/ABA Library C...

Horst Huber (X) Aug 1, 2014:

English language "bibliographies" i.e. lists of titles consulted, usually do not give such information. The copy quoted from was one of the first 30 000 printed. Whether this actually refers to a 1st "edition", one would have to find out. That would be the task of a bibliographer.

Helen Shiner Aug 1, 2014:

@Kurt I would also just put '1st ed.' - a case of too much information, if you ask me.