I have a quandary, either way I am happy with the book and it is postable so I don't want a credit or anything.

I received a copy of Fantastic Voyage - Isaac Asimov.  This version of the book was published in 1966 (this is before ISBN numbers were published on books).  Easiest reference to this is Wikipedia.

The book I received had a 13 digit ISBN hand written on the inside flyleaf (in pencil).   It was to this copy of the book.

I am quite happy with the book and would have ordered it if it had been a short ISBN anyways.

My quandary is would this be a RWAP or not.  The PBS entry is obviously incorrect as well (the 1966 version could never have been given an ISBN #).  At the same time I worry about members who aren't exactly following the directions.

I look forward to your responses as I am fully in a quandary about this (those who have seen my previous posts know I have a dim view of using the ISBN #'s to begin with).

I'm picky these days.  I'd RWAP and explain that there is no ISBN printed in the book, so the listing didn't match and the books should have been posted without the ISBN.  I would not ask for my credit back, and I'd mark the RWAP resolved immediately.

That's just me.

If I had no problem with the book, I'd just PM them and let them know "for future reference". 

You can RWAP and NOT ask for a credit back. Just give them the how to post without an ISBN information from the help section. That way PBS knows that they've done this so if it is something they do often a pattern can be seen. 

When I RWP but don't ask for a credit back-I just explain why and then immediately mark it resolved. Then it's on their record if they're habitual offenders. 

I would probably just PM myself, so they know for the future.

I tend to reserve RWAP for purposeful violations, like damaged books. Or if I needed a particular edition and I wanted to go back onto the WL or something.

As far as the PBS listing being wrong .... I don't think it is. People put different dates in that field ... so someone probably put  the date the book was first published, and not the date of that particular edition. I have seen PBS book listings use either. In any case, nobody should be looking at the date in order to find a way to post a book. They should be looking at the ISBN, period. Plain and simple. Doesn't matter what the date says in the PBS listing. You can't really go by the date in that field anyway, because when publishers reuse ISBNs for later editions of the same book, the field in the PBS listing will only be correct for a certain portion of the books with that ISBN, anyway.

Yes, this would in my opinion definitely be a RWAP...you don't have to request a credit but, it was wrongly posted.  It did not have a printed ISBN and should not have been posted with one.  You can mark it resolved since you don't want a credit but, it should be on the person's record...if you allow this person to do this without correction then they will continue to wrongly post books...IMHO it is your PBS duty.

Ohhhh, I'd probably just send a private message with a friendly warning for future reference.  I know, I know.  Not following directions deserves a RWAP but on some things I'd cut them some slack.  Especially if it's a book I'd want anyways.  You know how you'd feel if you got a RWAP even though the receiver was happy with the book.

Well...that's what I'd do.  That and 95 cents will still buy you a cup of coffee....somewhere I think.  (grin)

Thank you for the responses,

It appears that those who responded are fairly divided on this as well.  After reading all of the posts, I think I am going to mark it received but send a PM.  This is after also looking at the member's profile (they receive books from other people in their book club, and I could not find any other books that have the possibility of being non-ISBN books from what I could see), I chose to believe the best and assume it was an honest error.

Again thank you,

I agree with Sara & Brenda.   PM a FYI.   As pointed out, early ISBN's were sketch and it's somewhat possible this is the correct edition.  And if everything else matches up but it's off a year or 18 months...really?  It's not like you ordered a 2009 ISBN and received the 1966 edition.  Life is short and I don't have the time or inclination to be a book Nazi.  If the title, author, and binding match on a book that old, I'd be happy to receive a copy in postable condition...that book is 45 years old.