That sounds like a nice copy. Sampson Low was Stowe’s British publisher. Their illustrated edition (1853) is the same as Jewett’s illustrated edition (1853). Their paperback copy (like Jewett’s, both 1852/53) is same size as key (both have two columns of type), so they could be issued bound together.

According to BAL, the Key was published by Sampson Low in London and Jewett in U.S. I would suspect that you have a London-issued Key (1853) bound with London-issued paperback edition (1852). The reason it has 1851 is because Stowe claimed copyright in Maine in 1851 while story was running in the serial. I have not seen a title page with 1851 on it (but I have not examined any London-issued copies yet). In any case, the earliest that the UTC copy could have been issued is late 1852.

A Sampson copy may be more rare than a Jewett copy–of course, if title page is missing–the later re-binder may have combined an American-issued UTC with a Britain-issued Key–but WorldCat can be a bit deceptive about the comparative scarcity. Enterprising booksellers claim a lot about scarcity. But I watch eBay and bookfinder.com, and they come up for sale periodically, though seldom in bound sets.

Here’s why I would claim paperback UTC is not extraordinarily rare:

http://wraabe.wordpress.com/2009/02/28/census-of-known-copies-of-uncle-toms-cabin-edition-for-the-million/

The Keys are relatively common. Value, of course, depends on the condition and whether purchaser is interested in both bound together. But every one of these copies of UTC is important for another reason, which I explain here:

http://wraabe.wordpress.com/2008/11/15/the-jewett-paperback-topsys-alternate-route-to-heaven/

If you’d take a gander at pg. 96 of UTC (not Key), I’d love to know whether the passage on Topsy which is identified in that post is also in what is probably your London-issued copy–I would expect it to be.

Thanks,
Wesley

UNCLE TOM’S CABIN or, LIFE AMONG THE LOWLY BY HARRIET BEECHER STOWE

THREE HUNDRED AND FIFTH THOUSAND

BOSTON
John P. Jewett and Company.
Cleveland, Ohio:
Jewett, Proctor & Worthington.
London: Sampson, Low, Son & Co.

It is dated 1851 and is bound with “Key to Uncle Tom’s Cabin” dated 1853. There is a note on the inside of the front binding cover that reads “Rebound by Walker, Plymouth 1896 June”. It is in relatively good condition.

I address editions published and read by scholars of literature, history, and cultural studies, most of whom seem not to have puzzled over the fine distinction between hair spaces, thin spaces, medium spaces, thick spaces, em quads, and en quads.

My claim, which you have stated quite well–may I borrow?–is that some “less-consequential details missed by four or five different sets of eyes that did their best on the linguistic morass of each page but fell without getting things absolutely perfect” do matter. But my interest is a text that is now one of the most widely read texts American literature canon, but which scholars modernize. I think, if they thought about it, that they might reconsider that choice.

I have a few more posts to go in order to prove it. But thanks for reminding me that not everyone is inattentive to the little matters that are driving me nuts.