I have the edition with the first wizard, and I've always wondered who he was supposed to be.

Plus Melissa- my New Years Eve was set to be awful this year because I'd been coerced into babysitting for my parents' friends' kids. Imagine my delight when I got to the house and saw 'Harry, A History' lying on their dining room table! One of the daughters had got it as a Christmas present and hadn't read it yet. I read it straight through in four hours and LOVED it. Thanks so much for writing such a great book.

I was all ready to get on here and say `Er, it's Quirrell, isn't it ???' (sure, he's not wearing a turban, but his hat does have a sort of turbany sense to it) - but what's really got me thinking is that bulge in his pocket.

Then I found this picture of the real Flamel (on a very interesting website, by the way) - http://www.nlm.nih.gov/exhibition/mandrakes/flamel.html - and it's quite similar!

The plot thickens!

I'm not sure if I'm entirely right or not, but I own both copies of the Philosophers Stone and my second book (D#2) has the updated front cover as well. The one with the front image smaller, surrounded by a metallic border and stars.

I though this may have been when they updated the picture, with the update of the paperback books. I always saw the update of the cover (with the stars and metallic colours) to be the "classic" edition...to symbolise it's popularity and quick inclusion to to a "classic" (not that it's old enough) childrens book. I don't have my books with me at the mo, but I know that my first book is around seven years old, and the second one around 3 years old...

Also, I MUCH prefer D#1...Though I strongly believe it's Nicholas Flamel...I've never questioned it before, though it's really interesting to hear others ideas...
The D#2 image is a shocking comparision to the first image...it's badly drawn (or edited as Jenna suggestions and I agree) and doesn't seem to hold the same kind of "character" with it.

I know it took me a long time to do so, but I just looked at my own copy of PS - 37th edition still has the young DD on!

I would be very interested to know the exact edition when the older DD first appeared - have you found out from Bloomsbury yet?

I don't know why, but I think the young Dumbledore on the back is much better. I have an early copy of PS with him on the back and whenever I look at it I just feel that sense of "first edition". The young Dumbledore is what makes the first editions special. In fact, ALL of the strange pictures, grammatical errors, and changes to the descriptions are what make the early Potter book special! If I had a choice, I would keep the young Dumbledore on the back forever!

I have that old edition of PS and love it. I read a few years ago somewhere (can't remember where) that the illustrator got confused between Quirrel and Dumbledore (don't know how!).

Personally, that guy is exactly how I imagine the young Dumbledore that we see in book 6, so it fits into the canon ok for me.

I think that there is a bulge in the pocket that could be "the stone" so maybe it is Flammel

I have the cover version that's more true to the text, and so that picture represents how I have always thought Dumbledore looked. Which is why Richard Harris -to me- is THE Dumbledore, and Michael Gambon just don't look the part (and I'm not even getting into the difference in performance).

That first edition picture looks like the artist didn't read the text but somebody just said to him "learned wizard with beard, long purple coat and buckled boots". If the artist read the text/book, there's no way to miss the fact about the hair and beard alone! I wish they'd get Frak to do new covers, that would by far be better than all the ones for the children's edition.

Anyone thought it might be a younger Dumbeldore? Perhaps the illustrator was privy to the knowledge of a Dumbledore prior to the first book- the one WE see in Half Blood Prince. Perhaps it's the plum suit we see when Dumbledore is visiting Tom Riddle's orphanage. Also- in the same chapter (very nearly the same sentence) Albus Dumbledore's hair is described as being auburn.

I wonder...

I agree - I think it's Nicolas Flamel.

Well, I still love that unknown wizard. But what I'd like to know is if the same artist did the Dumbledore that replaced it. I hope it was. I understood the original cover artist got a flat fee for doing the cover ~and not a very big fee, at that. It would be nice to know that his most famous work earned him a little more money, wouldn't it?

I don't think it's meant to be anyone. The first print run was tiny, and as far as anyone at Bloomsbury knew, this was just another one of the many, many books they publish each year - they had no way of knowing how massive Harry would become. So they got in a jobbing illustrator and told him/her to draw a wizard, and s/he did.

I have that old cover and I made a blog post on my journal ages ago asking who people thought the strange wizard was - I think NIcholas Flamel was the most popular suggestion - would love to get an official answer though!

RANT: Well, the edition I read first had the original back cover. AND I PREFER IT. Call me a stig-in-the-mud, but I love that wizard. And let's face it, the first chapter is filled with curious wizards congregating in groups who are given a squinty look by Vernon throughout that first day. It could also be prophetic, a look at Dumbledore as he appeared before he became headmaster. (I have a copy of the second cover, but I find that Dumbledore absurdly robust.)And curmudgeon that I am, I prefer that "saved by an owl" line too. I mean, it's those Letters from No One that mark the beginning of Harry's adventures. (And it's not true that Harry enrolled at Hogwarts, his name was done from the time of his birth.) Rant Over.

That's really interesting, and made me go and look at the edition of Philosoper's Stone that I have. It was an early one, because the strange man's still on it. The Hogwarts error has been fixed, but it still says he'd been rescued by an owl. I love finding out about this sort of thing.

Haha yes I have this edition with 'Dumbledore' on the back!! I always thought it was a bit strange but shrugged it off thinking it may have been nicholas Flamel.

I believe that is the edition with Joanne Rowling instead of J.K.Rowling - my edition has Joanne Rowling on it with the 'red headed' Dumbledore :)

wow I never even noticed that about the blurb!! Harry rescued by an owl :) why did I never pick that up???? :)

Hehehe I have the edition with the first 'Dumbledore' on the back and always did wonder about it!! A kind of just presumed it was maybe Nicolas Flamel... obviously now though it was supposed to be Dumbledore! hehe

Wow I never even noticed that about the blub on the back - how Harry was rescued by an owl! haha

I believe this is the edition with the name Joanne Rowling in it instead of J.K.Rowling (well the edition I have has Joanne Rowling anyways) :)

I just want to know what's in pipe Dumbledore's pocket! Something big! Philosopher's/Sorcerer's stone?

Also, the more that I look at it (D2), the more odd things I find, like the green trim. On the left side, the green trim is clearly on the red interior coat. However, on the right side, the green trim seems to magically transfer over to the purple cloak. Also, the bottom bit of red coat on the right is just odd. It seems very straight and cut and rushed, and doesn't curve or billow in the same way that the other bits do.

Oh, and Jenna, I'm sorry, but I still don't understand what the purpose of that garish red and yellow skirt-like thing is. Are you saying that that thing is another coat or something?

@Jenna (Or are you actually Hermione undercover?)

That made perfect sense. Those string of numbers were puzzling.

As for your "spot the difference" competition entry...Um, I think you won ;) I'm still in shock at the missing back of his inner jacket! What a glaring omission. Could you possibly be the first person to notice this in what 8-9 years, I wonder?

My edition goes from numbers 54-60 and has Dumbledore in it. It was purchased in 2001, but probably had been at the bookstore a little longer than that, since buying children's books in English was not so common in Argentina back then :) And I just noticed, Prisioner was not out yet (It's not listed on the "Also available" list). Why doesn't Bloomsbury print the edition number on the books?

Anyway, that was very interesting. I never knew about random guy in the cover. I agree it must be Nicholas Flamel- the alchemy book, and the supposedly stone inside his pocket. We need to find Thomas Taylor and ask him, though.

@bobby

He's not wearing a skirt! When you have a jacket or coat that long, the lower part can be defined as the skirt of the coat or the skirt of the jacket. The inner hem of D#2's didn't exist because D#1's didn't go that long. You should be able to see the inside of the jacket clearly between D#2's ankles. The artist forgot to add it in!

Thanks for the compliment! I'm just one of those art weirdos who could always do the "what's different in these 2 drawings?" games like a pro. I notice stuff like that. Must be those 30 years of art classes... A lot of times, I can tell a lot about people's heritage from facial structure or hair growth patterns. I know, I'm weird. I'm ok with it!

ma'am is alright. I technically qualify, as I have been married before. ;) Mademoiselle would be a bit much, I think!

Oh, it's a 24th edition, not 26th. So 22nd edition is wrong, it went on for even longer with the younger wizard on the back.

I always thought it was Nicholas Flamel. Mainly because of the bulge in his right pocket (Philosopher's Stone) and he looks like somewhat anachronistic.

I have a fourth edition with the first back cover and a 26th edition. They took their time changing it, that's for sure.

@Jenna: You, ma'am, are amazing. I'm not sure why I said ma'am, but I've been feeling very palindromical recently. Anywho, I never would have noticed most of that stuff. I did notice the star and how it's similar to the pentagram, though. But the elbow/book thing is AMAZING. Brilliant detective work!

And... waitasecond. Why is D2 wearing a skirt?

I'm not sure how to check the edition number, but I just grabbed my copy of Philosopher's Stone from summer 2006 and it has Dumbledore and the reviews are on the inside flap, rather than on the back cover.

This brings me to another fun Potter Tale (since that seems to be a bit of a theme in the comments...right?). I knew I was past the point of no return in the fandom when my mom and brother went to Europe that summer. The one souvenir they brought back for me was a copy of Philosopher's Stone. =) Yep, huge nerd.

@professor potter

The rows of numbers indicate the printing. That's first edition 53rd printing and 45th printings in your hand, unless that same page specifically lists "Third Edition" or some such. First edition first printing would have
"First North American Edition" or similar, followed by
10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1

First edition Second printing would be:

"First North American Edition" or similar, followed by
10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2

Ninth printing would be something like:
"First North American Edition" or similar, followed by
15 14 13 12 11 10 9

Hope that helps!

Hmmmm... The 2nd picture is an art-hack.

What I mean is that the first piece of art has been modified slightly, like one would modify a photo in photoshop. It's art done on-the-cheap, which is why the similarity. The graphics department may have had a tracing art piece done, or they may have just modified the existing picture themselves.

Evidence: (D#1 is redhead, D#2 is the white-haired one)
1 - Look at the illogical height of D#2's elbow. It's where the corner of the book is in D#1. The quick fix was to cover with a cloak, but they forgot about proportion and anatomy. There is also no physical reason for another protrusion lower in the cloak by about an inch or so - another cover for the lower corner of the book from D#1, which protrudes in the same spot as the cloak.

2- Notice how D#2's hair and beard billow so far out. That's to cover the drastic tie-shape and the rest of the book D#1 had in his hands.

3- Same stance of feet in both, with near-exact fabric folds in the pants of both pictures. Slight muting in colors of pants in D#2 suggests an attempt at color alteration gone awry.

4 - Same arm arrangement. Note how D#2's left-hand cuff is much thicker, as he holds the put-outer (as it was then called), and his arm is a bit higher because of that. The fingers are altered enough to hold the put-outer, and D#2's extended beard and lapels cover most of the pipe-stem, so only one teeny bit of pipe in the background needs to be removed. Ingenious fix, really. It's the most blended-in and worked-on part of the piece I'd wager. Well done there!

5 - the nasty tie pattern in D#1 is easy to replicate, and busy enough to hide problems - such as the fact that it's used to hide the still-visible stripes in D#2's pants. note the tunic folds EXACTLY along the lines of the stripes in the pants. Classic graphic department laziness/ in-a-hurryness! they needed to keep the color of jacket and the pants stripes in place in order to not have to do a lot of tedious repainting and shading on the jacket. Shading well is most of the time-suck in artwork. If it ain't broke, don't fix it, so they incorporated the shading here from #1 into #2.

6 - The inside hem of D#1's jacket is high enough to not be visible between his ankles. The artist forgot to add that in when he lengthened the jacket for D#2, who apparently is missing the back half of his jacket skirt!

7 - The facial structure between the two is EXACT! D#2 has added expression lines on the brow to make him seem older/wiser and the color is altered. The raised brow is extended down in the inner corner and arched more to cover a problematic shadow. The addition of bright white in the brows draws attention the way the old brows didn't. The added glasses and a slightly fuller cheek on D#2 present the illusion of a different person. Add the tiny bit of widening and shortening of the mustache, and it looks like a different image. The pupil of D#1's right eye (our left) has been pointed more properly to match the other eye, giving D#2 a more piercing stare.

8 - The wider jacket lapels on D#2 portray a "larger" image, and since Dumbledore is to be very powerful, the larger-than-life presentation befit the character best. It also covered up some leftover problems of covering the book up.

9 - the hat from D#1 was a quick paint-over fix, but not so much the hair. Note how D#2's hair patterns, like the pouf of bangs, completely overlay D#1's hair patterns. it was easier to cover completely than to alter hair color. Note how dark the white is on top of D#2's head, as if it needed to remain dark to cover up a funky hat brim. Notice also how drastically white the beard is near the ears (unusual), and how wide it is at that area also, covering up shadow conflicts on the neck by not revealing them.

10 - If you look at D#1's right (our left) temple, you see how the dark hair lock curls over the temple. Note how D#2's face is shadowed conspicuously in that spot.

11 - The hand on the book in D#1 and in the pocket of D#2 was easily modified, as most of the hand is not visible in either piece. A tiny thumb rotation and extension of the jacket color handled that issue.

12 - the jacket in D#2 is too smooth, a result of removing the bulge of stuff in the pocket of D#2. This is further camouflaged by the extra pocket flap, which is an easy fix.

13 - the upper-left largest star was not changed at all. Neither was the one just to the right of it. The one at the corner of the book in D#1 just got moved up a bit with a cut and paste.

There's more, but those are the obvious fixes. most likely, a very overworked and underpaid graphic artist got told to fix a piece of artwork that didn't jive with what was a VERY popular story, and so got told to rework. He/she did so as quickly as possible to get on with the rest of their labor, either tracing and altering as necessary, or by quick-painting over the original (either on canvas or in photoshop/some other image editing program).

Hmmmm... I wonder if the star on the book in D#1 (an incomplete pentagram) had any bearing on fundamentalist belief that HP is related to Wicca directly. This image certainly implies a connection. It bears looking into for certain!

@Mugglequeen

How are you checking the edition number? I have two copies bought at different dates. One has a row of numbers counting backwards from 60 to 53. the other, 50 to 45. According to the above first edition the numbers run from 10 to 1 (see "source" link). So I think I may have editions 5 and 6. But both covers show Dumbledore (with long white beard). Could yours be showing something like 22 to 11 which really indicates 2nd edition rather than 22nd? I could be wrong in my interpretation of these strange numbers though..as usual!

Also, I just noticed a big round bulging thing in the first character's pocket...it has to be the philosophers stone! So it has to be Nicholas Flammel, I'm sure of it! And of course he has been using it all his life hence why he still looks young.

Crikey, I'm really getting taken in with this mystery...sorry!

Wow, this was a fun post! Firstly, I just want to say that the phrase "does battle in a deadly duel" made me giggle out loud. I'm not entirely sure why, but it's fun to say, but also a bit forced and awkward. It's just sort of hilarious that it ended up on the back cover.

But secondly, I'm surprised no one else figured out who the first wizard is! He is, of course, Professor Viridan Taediferum, teacher of Muggle Studies and creator of the infamous Green Flame Torch. As we all know, he was replaced in Harry's Sixth Year by Charity Burbage due to a sudden and inexplicable fear of turning into a rotisserie chicken. And Dumbledore was far to preoccupied with his hand (though he tried valiantly not to show it), to remember about that particular staff change.

Maybe the answer to this mystery will be in the 22nd edition of Harry, A History :)

Oh God! I never realised till I came home and checked! He's on my hardback and paperback editions! WHO IS HE?!

For some reason, in my 11 or 12 year old mind, i always thought it was Hagrid. But with less beard that the books describled...

And as for the owls... your guess is as good as mine.

I'm picturing Hedwig swooping in and carrying Harry away from his cupboard to a school of Wizardry and Witchcraft- because HARRY POTTER IS A WIZARD!

The guy on the back of the book must be an older version of Nigel. That Nigel, he keeps popping up!

I always thought that he was Professor Quirrell.

Anybody notice that the "second" Dumbledore has the same leg that first character?

PS: Sorry for my english :(

Are they worth loads of money because i have one?????

x

Melissa, I love this! I thrive on this sort of thing. Post more printing/editing gaffes! xx

Are they worth loads of money because i have one?????

x

"very quickly, as in just a few editions later"

Or more than a few.... I'm in the school library atm (in Britain) so as soon as I read your post I grabbed a couple of PS's from the shelf so I could compare them, and I realised that the cover with the "wrong Dumbledore" on is a 22nd edition. So yeah I don't know when they decided to change the pic but it was definitely more than a few editions later. Tis an awesome article though, I never noticed the being rescued by an owl thing before :headdesk:

I reckon it could well be Nicolas Flamell for several reasons.

Firstly, he is the title of the book so initial thoughts was to illustrate something of reference to it.

Secondly, the book. A book in his hand suggests a philosopher (obviously not a sure fire indication but it fits the character of a philosopher nicely).

Thirdly, the book has what looks like an alchemist symbol. Flammel was an alchemist of sorts (in fact the real life Nicholas Flammel was an alchemist).

Four, the pipe smoking image also suits a philosopher.

Five, the handlebar moustache suggest an ancient era, when they were in fashion and Flamell was in his prime.

The illustrator had free reign to illustrate this character since his appearance was never described. Flamell probably was just as eccentric a dresser as Dumbledore and perhaps Dumbledore looked up at Flamell as a source of inspiration in dress code. He was also his friend. I suspect the publisher changed it to Dumbledore in the second edition because they wanted a more prominant and standout character from the main text of the book instead of the title. The striped pants and purple coat probably stayed to reflect the influence Flamell's eccentric dressing.

This was great Cannon, Mellissa!

Hey Melissa! Yes! What a conundrum. My friends and I all owned copies with the mysterious man on the back and constantly hotly debated his identity! I think it probably was MEANT to be Dumbledore (just younger with his auburn hair) but I always remember that one of my friends maintained that it was Professor Quirrel. Definately not him either I guess! Flamel and Dedalus Diggle also came up but I don't think we ever agreed. Mostly because the picture is just odd!Cool blog post though :)

P.S. This cover is not as funny as the italian one where they have mouse heads....

I may be going out on a limb here, but I think that first illustration might be Madame Hooch! ;-)

Oh I was beaten to it, but anyways, that's what I always thought; obviously NOT Dumbledore.

I don't have my book with me right now but there was some wizard that freaked out running into harry when he was really little and didn't know what was going on, I think he was wearing purple, I think that's who it's supposed to be, his first magical encounter. Dedalus diggle, I think.

My version has the odd guy. Although it's been changed to "Witchcraft and Wizardry", the bit about the owl remains. :) There are no quotes on the back, either. They're on the inside flap of the dust cover, instead.

Wow...this post absolutely gave me the chuckles. I have asked myself these very questions time and again!

I still get a kick out of the first guy on the back of the book (finally found myself a copy)...and always wonder about it. I too assumed it was an attempt at Dumbledore by someone who didn't read the text and figured it was just a silly book for children...

Considering I just finished re-reading Chapter 23 and most of 24 in Deathly Hallows...I needed a chuckle with my coffee.

Thanks!
: )

That was a very fun blog post. I'd like to think that it could be Nicholas Flamel, just because i can't imagine anyone doing such a bad job on the drawing. But then again it's probably meant to be Dumbledore because whoever drew it must have written the blurb after having done zero research. Plus your right the two pictures do have a certain tie-in together. Haha very funny.

wow! i never knew it was changed so quickly - my copy of philosopher's stone has random guy on it.

I always wondered if it was maybe Dedalus Diggle - as he was mentioned early on as someone Harry had encountered while growing up.

Fascinating stuff! I had no idea the first edition had these differences. I assumed it had always been the same. Oh and I agree, that original Dumbledore is a travesty. Someone either didn't read the book or the wrong art was used in error.

Another change I can note - at some point the review blurbs were removed entirely from the back of the book. My edition only has the short story synopsis alongside the picture of Dumbledore.

Perhaps it is Nicholas Flamel (Flame = red hair). The Philosopher = hence the book.
Not that I think I am right, but just as a suggestion.

Wow! That's insane. Especially the first edition. Circus much? Ha. It is fascinating how quickly it was changed though. I wonder how much that edition is worth these days? Very interesting blog post. Major kudos.