The proof copies were sent out and well received by the expert reviewers:
"Pithy, well researched, exhaustive."
I'm not sure I can be bothered with the hassle of looking for a larger print run, the information is out there and does anyone care enough about erratics to buy a book?
"said it was the best Stonehenge book she has ever read …..told her everything she wanted to know about Stonehenge."
Mike Parker Pearson has described it as the authoritative and definitive volume with an exhaustive and comprehensive handling of the subject. And he has read a copy.
And the first review is in from someone who hasn't seen or read the book:
".. I have a Geography degree which included studies of glaciation processes etc, and since having been a Chartered Librarian specialising in information, I place prime importance on accuracy and objectivity. As I expected, you are predictably sadly not engaging with the subject sensibly, unlike Dr Brian John. Your so - called publication is simply a parrot-like mimic of Mike Pitts' dismissive remark in his recent book. Sand, head in, and ostrich are the keywords that apply. You take a purely binary stance and insist on adopting an adversarial approach instead of showing consideration. Putin, aggression and imperialism over Ukraine are not dissimilar. Some people insist they know-it-all whilst immediately saying there is nothing-to-know.....But do you think they are serious in their pursuit of all the possible scientific evidence? Ostrich, sand, head in, "I see no ship", looking with my blind eye' all spring to mind. Also, flat-earthers."